 I've just come from Japan, sorry, New Zealand, and the Prime Minister there has just prohibited people from reading the manifesto of the Australian action. I think I killed the Muslims in Christchurch, and she's prohibited people from reading. I mean, I download that in Japan, so that's perfectly okay. And there, Narendra does that white supremacist kill. And his background is actually communist, eco-fascist, hates capitalism, hates individualism, identifies with China. So I think that supports it. Well, I mean, I think there's a massive attack today in the West, all over the West, against free speech. And yeah, I mean, you can say these ideas are despicable, they're ugly, they're disgusting. Nobody should have to read them. Ideally, nobody would read them. But once you ban them, then A, you're making it sexy. You wouldn't have downloaded it if it wasn't banned, probably. I certainly will never download it unless just as an objection to the limitation. You make them interesting by banning them. And secondly, once you establish that you have the authority to decide which ideas people should read or shouldn't, then it's a very slippery slope. If you look today in Europe, the laws against certain types of speech are only increasing. Particularly, if you say anything against Islam or anything against religion or anything against certain issues, you could go to jail in Europe today. But what's interesting is what were the first laws against speech in Europe post World War II? All were done with good intentions. What were the first laws? Yeah, against Holocaust deniers. So you say, well, who wants to read Holocaust deniers? It's okay if we ban them. Yeah, nobody wants to read Holocaust deniers. They're a bunch of idiots. They're a bunch of evil liars. But once you accept that the state has the authority to tell you you can't read something, then first it's Holocaust deniers, then it's something else, and now it's anybody who wants to be critical of Islam. But there's a lot to criticize about Islam. I mean, it's okay to criticize Islam, just like you should criticize Christianity, criticize Judaism, criticize any religion, any set of ideas, you should be allowed to criticize. So once you allow in the name of good intentions, like this manifesto, which I will never read because I'm not interested, right, or Holocaust deniers or whatever, you've given the powers of the authority now to determine what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and it's a disaster. And I think you're seeing all across the world, you're seeing shrinkage of freedom of speech. I don't know what the situation is in Japan. In the United States, the only reason this is not really happening kind of at a national level is because we have it in the Constitution, right? We have a First Amendment that makes it almost impossible to rule out reading certain books or not to be able to download certain materials. But if we didn't have a First Amendment, I believe there would be a lot of states in America who would be passing what's called hate speech laws and laws that restrict freedom of speech. So people don't believe in the First Amendment anymore in America. The legal system protects the First Amendment because it's the value of having a Constitution. Because even when people stop believing in the ideas, it still functions. Now, in the end, it won't. In the end, it'll be written out if enough people don't believe in it. But for a long time, it's sustainable. So you still have free speech in the United States in spite of the fact that I think a significant number of Americans, maybe a majority, don't believe in it anymore. On the left in America, if you go to universities, there are ideas you cannot express. People are attacked for expressing those ideas and the silence, and there's violence involved. And that's clear violations of the ideas of free speech. And it's sad when the government does not protect people's ability to speak. That's the one area in which you're seeing an erosion of free speech in the U.S. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought.