 The advice that we have received is that trip should leave as early as possible in the morning in order to avoid the great heat because, in essence, there are hardly any trees. So, among those that want to go, please agree that you should get up very early out of bed and give order to avoid a relatively uncomfortable situation. Thank you, and please, can all the tourists often address questions to any one of the guests? Do you want to be educated in terms of the current situation? Or maybe I would like to ask a question to the man, how does it come up to 61 million people? 61 million and yours how? 61 million people in the South Union and Greece. How large are the amount of money that is out here? Well, the question was 61 million there, among the comedians. It gives the sum of all these comedians, for example, 70 million Ukrainians were started to death. Then 6 million Kulaks were sent to Siberia. 90 million were killed. So, that's his number. So, he calculated that. Here, that's not explained. However, there is a, I can refer you to a very good scientific work on that. I, Jay Rummel, who is a professor of demographics at the University of Mali, he wrote the one book, which I advise all my students to get back ready for that. So, death by government, death by government. And which Rummel calculated the death of my comedious government. So, one hundred and seventy two billion people. He, however, did not calculate the death of my comedious government. Then, he, however, how he does it, he comes with the same number, he is doing forecasts of population growth. So, what would be population of Soviet Union, if nothing would happen. And then, he would, it comes from that, there are no casualties of the Second World War. And he came up with, I think, 59 million. Then, when I was in Soviet Union, they got underglasses of all policy. On TV, they had questions and answers with the chairman of KGB, Mr. Khrushchev. And I think they got a planted question from Mr. Khrushchev and Raymond Bennett. He said, he came up with 42 million people. He said, no, no, no. And Mr. Khrushchev, he said, I don't know this numbers. What if we will meet in a week? And in a week, the whole country was glued to TV screen, to see how many skeletons they had in their tumble. And Mr. Khrushchev, he said, the number is about right, comrades, 42 million. However, it's been postures to believe that all of them were killed. And Bennett said, they died on premises of KGB. He said, yes, they died on non-premises. But they died most of national causes. And I'm sure if you don't feed people or you close them inside, they admitted themselves for KGB. However, there is a letter of different numbers. Starting from the lowest one, I saw about 20 million. The highest is 61 million. So the numbers are, I think Stalin was right, saying that death of one is a tragedy and death of a million is sadistic. So that was his response to that. In the sense that even if it's 42, not 61, 47 and a half, it's an endless number. I have three more questions. Mr. Martafarian, at least, this is in the top of the log. What would you say is the influence of the subject in Russia of today, in which groups in particular would refer to subjections about today's question? Can you give me my question? Yes, what would be supporting subjections of today? The subject, the form of subjections, and what's the influence in today's Russia in which groups would refer to subjections as an influence when they are making? We may add two short questions. Mr. Martafarian, how would you say that a particular brand of constant quantities of shame was brought to Europe, which would create a situation in which it was brought to Europe? And Mr. Anthony, would you conclude that all kind of garbage in general is more psychological than a physiological phenomenon, as well as evidence? So let's start with Yuri. Well, Solzhenitsyn, I would say he is on the mainstream of Russia's science right now. He is the mainstream. He is a kind of... Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. Mr. Martafarian. The first question is I think it's very specific to this, because you don't need to call them, I think they are a bit of a problem in the United States, but they are not a question of question. I think they have to do with the culture of the United States, but I think you may have a lot of things to do with that. But in the United States, I think it's generally a question of gender, which I think is important for England, I mean, well, I misexpanded it, but it's like Jesus. Continuing moral support from religious institutions, particularly in the main, American, main line, by saying these are the dominant, prestigious, Protestant churches, but as a mainstream Protestant culture in the English-speaking world, I think it's permeated by these more, with this attitude that's very much consistent with what they call the grounds. Mr. Daniels, I'm not the best if you can, he still needs to answer the question, if you still remember, Mr. Daniels. Yes, I do, and the question was about, I think the two religions say, some primarily, psychology is one of the, one of the most visible, for genres, yes. However, I am qualified by saying that within psychology, I also count the cultural factors as one of the most important ones, yes. Gary? No, you. Now, this question is directed to Mr. Chokri, and I think you're just saying that it's very accurate when this expression of politics is such a bit, but I'm a little bit dubious about the attribution of cause, because I think your attribution rests on the distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism, and that seems to be a nice, or, for example, Max Weber says, Protestantism is a torchbearer of Catholicism. Being in a cell box isn't the most probably to choose. And now, what Thomas Wood says is, that's a really important point there, is that among both groups, there's such a well-challenged perspective, that if they don't believe in the distinction used, now, I have to give you a question. One of the groups for me was Indian Bishop, I'm sorry, Eddie Cowell, who lived by Kenneth M. Noble, loves the red mounds. Such a writer is the Curator of the Community of Ecology, and he says that all such, especially at the beginning, political love, he puts the beginning of what he calls quote, a suffering situation. To me, this is a better ideological tool for drawing conclusions that I think are accurate. Let's see. What exactly is the question? Oh, God. Would you agree that the distinction made by Meno, that the real price of the issue is not Protestant, Catholic, but rather, identifying the suffering situation in some political. Yeah, by the way, I'm not saying that Protestantism, and it's the only cause of what I've described. I think it is a very important cause, and this is the argument I'm making about multiculturalism, but it's a sequel to that strange of Marxist, the extent of the influence of Catholic countries, and I'm sure that there are similar patterns there, and we've had, I think it's interesting, the work that you've just done about this. First of all, it's about Catholic countries. And the United States, and I've been saying that for a bit. I think it's about the idea of a nice discriminatory, and not about the idea that Catholicism is that it was not Catholic. Let's go back a little bit. Okay. But what you said is that the issue was not the issue of the Christian culture. There are some changes. Who's not saying that? It's not even about the issue of the Christian culture. It's about the change of the American culture, and that's what happens in the Christian culture. I have my footage down to the underpass to the right from the top, and that's what we create back up. That's it. I said I'm going to take a picture. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think it would give men another reason to walk away from their limited by saying I don't have a license to marry. I don't want to go through the process of getting a license to marry. Therefore, see later. So I think that's not going to go immoral as your problem. Security backfire. We actually went through that. Yes, I have another question for Anthony Daniels. And we're just reminded that intellectuals are not concerned about the implementation of their ideas. And generally, the idea is that legalization is something that should be implemented. What impact would it have on your practice if you were still practicing? I mean, do you believe, as a practitioner, that it is a good thing that it would bring benefits or if it is a crack-off idea that it should resist? Actually, I think it would deny the argument in favor of legalization and I can see some arguments against it. However, my principal interest has been to understand the nature of addiction itself and the reason that people become addicted. Unfortunately, what we've got in Britain is a culture in which people want freedom and responsibility. So what they want is free water as a freedom from the consequences of their actions. So it's one thing to have the freedom to do what you want, where you are willing to take the consequences. And it's another way you want freedom to do what you want and want other people to take the consequences, not actually what you want. With regard to legalization, some of the advantages that are claimed, for example, that it will reduce criminality, are not true. Because the source of criminality is from the culture which reduces addicts, not the addiction presence itself, etc., of course, for the criminality of the biggest violence. But the vast majority of criminality comes from the fact that the people who are addicted are criminals. And they're criminals before they're addicted, and so I don't think they must do it. In that particular respect, it will improve. But I can't be sure. If there would be no welfare state and you would have to pay the full consequences of your own actions, would you then be in favor of legalizing all of us? Then I think if you would have to pay the full consequences of your own actions, then I think it would be a very different matter. But I didn't really see any prospect of the dismantling of the welfare system. So since I'm talking about it, it will be easy to legalize products. It will be relatively easy. It will be much harder to dismantle the welfare system. Any other questions? Okay. This is from a question from the European Parliament. Are there any people with more origin than European people? So why? Why? Are there any people with more origins than European people? Are there more reasons for the situation? Are there more reasons for the condition I described than we mentioned as contributing factor? I think there are. I think the major reason that we have these problems are political. And I think the modern liberal democratic state has destroyed social institutions. I think it's out of what they'll come through now of all these intermediate institutions. And I think it's a major culprit for the kind of social world integration that is going on. By the way, I do not speak as an absolute anarchist or a capitalist anarchist. I am not against the state per se. I mean the state of the past, I think, sort of positive functions in terms of maintaining order, preserving my same forcing laws that made social development possible. I think today, I think the question is, are there any people with more origin than European people? Are there any people with more origin than European people? Let's get to the other side. Let's get to the other side.