 You can't build cities for the people in the countryside, the only way to equate is to be everybody in the countryside. But then they looked around and they said, and they're still not equal. Some people know how to read, some people are smart, some people have an education. How are we going to equate that? Kill them. So they killed them. They killed 2 million out of our population of 5, 40% of the population. They killed anybody who had a degree. They killed anybody who showed any kind of special talent. You had glasses, you were shot. That's the killing fields. That's the image you should hold when people talk about equality of outcome because that's what it means. It means killing anybody, destroying anybody who has any kind of ability that is above the most lowest common denominator. That's what it means. And equality of opportunity is what's the difference? Now equality of opportunity in a sense that we have the same laws, so you can choose whatever you want and you have freedom. That's great. But that's not what's meant by equality of opportunity. Opportunity means taking the poor kid and giving him more money because he didn't have as many opportunities as the rich kid. It means this guy has connections, so how getting this guy into Harvard or whatever he gets connections, that's wrong. That's wrong. Is the philosophy of self-interest an odds with Christianity? I'm not a theologian. That's my diplomatic answer. My best understanding Christianity is yes, that they're in conflict, but I know Christians believe they're not in conflict. My view is that's your problem, I'm not mine, I'm not a Christian, so I don't need to deal with it. And I read the summoning amounts as being consistent with socialism, that's how I read it. That's my understanding of it. We can have a theological debate, it's not very fruitful, and I'm not very good at it. I know the Old Testament. I can tell you the Old Testament, I mean I'm sure there's other Jews here. The Old Testament is incompatible with Calvin. It's just incompatible. There's no freedom of speech in the Old Testament. You know when Moses comes down from the Mount Syriac, and he's got the Ten Commandments, right, and these Jews have chosen to worship a golden calf, they chose it. They didn't force other Jews to do it, they chose to do it. See, he didn't put the Ten Commandments down and go up to them and say, you know, this is a better deal, give up the golden calf. Now, he dropped the Ten Commandments and pissed off, you know, the big guy. And he took out a sword and he killed 30,000 of them. I think it was 30,000, right? That's freedom of speech. They exercised a different religion than what he believed in. So he killed them. That's incompatible with freedom of speech, as I understand it. Now, again, not as theologian, but this is, I remember my Old Testament. Here's what it says. Yeah, before, if you're lying, can you explain why Jews seem to do so well practicing capitalism and freedom in America, but don't vote for it? Yes. I'll be searching for this for at least 100 years. Milton Friedman wrote an essay on it. There's a book by Norman Perkowitz about just this question that came out about a year or two ago. Why are Jews so liberal when they are these huge beneficiaries of capitalism? And they are, they've done well. They were the poor and ignorant who came to this country in the late 1960s. They were, they were from the Shtetl, the little villages in Poland and Russia. They had nothing, not even a decent education. They made it under capitalism. Why have they turned their backs against it? Because of intellectual. Because they take morality seriously. Because they believe in morality. They don't practice it. Now, what happens? They don't, they don't, nobody practices pure altruism. It's death. So what happens when you act in one way, but you believe in something else? You know, you're acting like Bo Gage, but you should be Mother Teresa. Guilt. That conflict in size of you. What you do versus what you should do is guilt. The Jews in audience recognize this word. Guilt, right? So that torn by the guilt, the Jews take the stuff seriously. Where's others don't? Jews have guilt and guilt. It's a combination of being intellectual and intellectual field being dominated by the left for 200 years and the guilt that's associated with their success and them taking it seriously, more seriously than many of the Christians. You know, if I can comment on Christianity. Christianity in America has been really interesting. Because American Christians are very different than Christians anywhere else in the world. Because what happens is, America's founded on a certain spirit, which I think is not consistent with European Christianity, they call it that way. So what Americans have done is reinterpreted Christianity to fit their American beliefs. So you will find in American churches people saying, yes, go out, they make money, it's good, it wants you to make money. You won't hear that in Europe. Well, South America, well, Asia, that's not Christianity that most people practice. That's very American. We have taken Christianity in this country and shaped it to fit our American beliefs. Because we're more American than we are Christian. And I know people get insulted when they see this. But this is what I believe in. You know, they say this in the South and people really get upset. In this country are evangelicals pro-capitalism. If you go to evangelical communities in South America, they're socialists. Or in Europe, they're socialists. Only in America are they pro-capitalism because the capitalism comes first, the Christianity second. I'm in trouble now. Are there any government social programs that are consistent with freedom? No. No. It's something we take it from you and give it to somebody else. That force, that coercion that's involved in taking from you and giving to somebody else is wrong. We call that when it's done one-on-one theft. Somehow, if we vote on it, it's okay. It's legitimized. But it's wrong. It's immoral to take from some people and give to other people what their state wishes. If people want to give all the power to them, it's called charity and that's how we manage quite well in the 19th century. And that's what we should return to. But taking by force is wrong. And that's true of every single social program out there including the pseudo-saving programs like social security. It's a pyramid scheme. It's a scam. The logic, you know, it's an institutional wall in human history. And it's some young people who are poor generally to old people who are generally rich. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. Save! Anybody heard of saving? Save! You know, by insurance. Protect yourself. If you're responsible and you haven't saved and you haven't got insurance, then go on charity. But you don't have a right to somebody else's stuff. You can't pull a gun and take somebody else's stuff. Then how come it becomes okay to get the government to pull a gun and take somebody else's stuff? It's still somebody else's stuff. It's wrong. If you care about people, bad luck instead of something bad happens to them. It's not their fault that they're in bad situations. What do we do? We help them. Out of the goodness of our heart because we want help. But service can't. It's just fine. The kids are in trouble. But the government doesn't differentiate. The government comes and pulls a gun and takes your money. Whether you have other stuff to do with the money or not, that is wrong. It's immoral. Social security, Medicaid. These are immoral programs. That's the moral high ground. And you remember Republicans used to believe this. I mean, this isn't bad. Sounds radical. But you listened to Ronald Reagan's speech when he was born. He was so good then. And he challenged Medicaid. He challenged them on the moral ground. He was against Medicaid 64 before it was passed. Once it passed everybody's fault, right? And in the 30s and 40s, Republicans wanted to undo social security. And when he got rid of it, it was an emergency measure for the Great Depression. Enough. And now it's like nobody challenges. We want to save it. Obama wants to save it. Romney wants to save it. We want to save it more. If you have two people who believe fundamentally the same thing, people will vote for the one who believes it more. Romney and Obama believed in the same thing. Obama was more convincing. We need a candidate who believes in something different. Ronald Reagan would have won this election. Ronald Reagan would have won. Anybody projecting a vision from America different than this sky would have beaten Obama. Obama was easily beatable. You needed the right candidate. This was a pathetic candidate. This is a guy. Let me just say something about Romney, right? The number one issue going into this election, the number one issue going into this election was Obamacare. American people did not want it. They didn't like it. They didn't want to implement it. It polled against Obama everywhere. So what did Republicans do? They nominated the one guy who could not argue against Obamacare because he invented it. I mean, Romney is Obamacare. It is, and he couldn't get out of it. He was not initially in the debate. It wasn't an issue and they can't pay because Romney couldn't argue against Obamacare. So he lost. Shock. If you got Obamacare versus Obamacare, we're going to go for the more consistent. Obama's more consistent. Have you considered ready for office? And my answer is I wouldn't lose in a landslide. I mean, run against Obama if somebody liked me to run against Obama, right? Because we would lose in a... I just argued for somebody better than Romney to run against him. Somebody who's got a spine to run against Obama. That's what I'm arguing. I'd be happy with the Ronald Reagan type of person who could be better than Ronald Reagan but somebody like that. If I went, I would lose in a landslide. The ideas that I presented today are radical. You can't wait with my ideas. But my job is not to run for office. My job is to define where we need to go. You guys move along the path they. You can find solutions on how to get they. But my job is to define this. The pure form. What it looks like. Capitalism. And what the fundamental ideas that need to be changed in order to get a thing. And then how you do it. How you run for office advocating for what it is and still getting elected. That, you guys are going to have to do. I'm not going to do that. Somebody has to define a vision. Somebody has to give that vision of what we're heading and why we're heading in. And that's that. In my booze, I manage job. That's my job. And, you know, any office that I could get elected to today would not be worth anything. I don't know if I could get elected. Don't catch it. It's good because they work. Or because they're immoral. Both. There's no big economy between the two. One of the reasons they're all is because they work. And one of the reasons they work is because they're mom. Because they're consistent with human nature. They're consistent with our incentives. And what gets us going and what motivates them. What inspires us. So the two are the same. The work stuff I think is done. It works. It's the moral side that we have to accept. And that's where you have to become an individualist. You have to believe in individualism. You have to understand individualism. That's what capitalism is about. They're not moral if you're a collectivist. For collectivism, capitalism is the opposite. It's anti-collectivism. So as long as you're a collectivist, as long as we as a culture collectivist, altruists, we will not have altruists. Even though it works. Besides liberals changing the language, what else have they done in the last 100 years to move America to the left? When you start, the progressive movement in the late 19th century, early 20th century had a profound impact on this culture. They came to dominate our educational establishments. They came to dominate the intellectual life of America. They trained the PhDs and the humanities. So they dominate that world. They write the books. They create the arts. Every aspect of our culture is touched by this ideology. This is why it's such a hard battle. Every aspect of the culture is touched by their ideology. And it makes it very difficult to argue to argue against it because they're everywhere. It's not like they sat 100 years ago to do this. But what they didn't understand and what the waiters never understood is that the battle is an educational battle. It's about education, education, education. It's about getting PhDs. It's about going into the schools. It's about being teachers. And they did that work. They were always inclined to be intellectuals. When you were rich in the late 19th century, you wanted your kids to get the best education in the world. Where did you send them? And they brought those ideas back with them. And when Harvard and Yale wanted to become world class institutions, where did they go to get their top professors? To Europe. They brought those ideas with them. And that's how you undercut the American ideas is by importing the intellectuals from Europe. Much better to get those poor, miserable ignorant farmers than to get the intellectuals. Intellectuals brought a poisonous philosophy with them. Okay. What would an iron-ran objected this foreign policy would play? I thought I was radical. Until then. So really simple. The job of governance to do one thing and one thing only, that's to protect the rights of Americans. The individual rights of Americans. The rights of life and the rights of property. So the only purpose of American foreign policy is to protect us from people trying to kill us but if somebody tries to kill us we don't apologize. We find them and we destroy them. And we don't worry about backing tales. We destroy them. So, you know, our foreign policy shouldn't be about foreign aid. We shouldn't do foreign aid, right? We shouldn't be discriminating in America, never mind outside of America. But the worst of all, talk about altruism, is when we give billions of dollars to our sworn enemies. Right? So the Muslim Brotherhood is the fountainhead of al-Qaeda. They're getting two billion dollars of your money every year because they happen to win an election in Egypt. Why can't we just say to them Egyptians, you can vote for whatever you want. You're right, right? But if you vote for the Muslim Brotherhood, that's fine. You're just not going to get our money. I believe that when somebody rams they, you know, hijacks airplanes and drives them into our buildings and kills Americans, you find everybody responsible. And I'm not just talking about the individual people responsible. The ideology responsible. The people that fund this. And we're talking about countries and you destroy them. We don't build democracy. Well, we didn't. Iraq and Afghanistan will go down as one of the most horrific things in America. I mean, I'm a hater of George Bush and he gave that name to the right. He was so pathetic after 9-11. Every speech he gave was a compromising appeasing speech after 9-11. You know, they celebrated the Ramadan a month after 9-11 in the White House. And this guy gave war and freedom and these concepts are bad name. He didn't damage this country than anybody except maybe Barack Obama. But, you know, that's not how you fight a war. After he all had given the speech after Paul Hopper, that George Bush gave after 9-11, he would have been, there would have been riots in the streets and he would have been impeached. It just shows how far we've come as a people that we let George Bush get away with. Terrorists didn't strike us on 9-11. That's like saying, I mean, Kazi Piper struck us on Paul Hopper. I mean, who's behind this? Rich, specific leaders or individuals who execute or advocate about tonight could win. I think that a lot of Republicans could win. Anybody, you know, none of the people none of the candidates actually put up this year could have won. I mean, this was the most pathetic field that I remember. But a lot of Republicans today could win. Again, nobody is as radical as I am and could win. But I think Paul Ryan, if he was at the top of the ticket, could win. If you could open his mouth and articulate his ideas rather than muzzle a diamond from me. You know, I think there's a lot of talent among the younger Republicans out there. I think 2016 they'll have better candidates. But they're still, you know, they're still compromised. I still don't see anybody standing up and making not my moral case, but any moral case for capitals. A real, you know, inspiring speech to really capture the American people. There's going to be Rubio, you know, I guess Christie's now history, but, you know, there was hopefully Christie, I guess, at some point. I don't know where it's going to come from. But I think there are better people out there. There's a generation of young Republicans who are better. They're not great, but they're better. And, you know, hopefully one of them will rise to the challenge. And many of them were influenced by Iran. They're not Iran, you know, they don't believe in the philosophy, but they're influenced by, like, Paul Ryan. Who was in for you? Yeah. Would you say that most democracies, if not all of them, are doomed to socialism due to their politicians hunger for power? I guess it depends what you mean by democracy. Democracy is a tricky word. If you mean by democracy, majority rule. That is, the majority can vote on anything. Then yes, democracy is a bad, bad system. The founding fathers called it tyranny of the majority. You know how to destroy your Socrates? Socrates was great philosopher. He used to walk around Athens, you know, debating the youth and, you know, challenging their religion, challenging their values. And the elders of Athens got together and said, this guy's corrupting our youth. We've got to do something, right? So they voted. They got, it was the darkest. They all voted. What did they vote for? The only way to silence Socrates is what? Kill him because he's not going to fall until he stops speaking. So they decided to kill him. And they voted. And it was democracy. And they killed him. You know, he drank the poison cells. You know, Plato told him, I've got a tunnel. We can escape. Socrates, no, I believe in democracy. He drank the poison. You know, I don't know if that's true. But anyway, democracy, democracy always leads to authoritarianism of one form or another. Good democracy. Now, in modern terms, in America, when we talk about democracy, it's limited democracy where we limit what people can vote on. So I'm not saying that it's just not on anything important. Nobody should vote on your property rights. Nobody should be able to vote on how much money to take away from you. Nobody should be able to vote on what to use your property for. Nobody should be able to vote to confiscate your stuff, right? That's not, that's property rights. That's your right to your life, your liberty. So, rights are inalienable. Remember that word? Inalienable? Therefore, you can't vote on them. That's why we have a bill of rights. And you know why Madison objective, he didn't want a bill of rights that said to follow the bill of rights is that people will think these are the only rights and that government can do everything else and violate our rights in every other realm. Now, luckily, you lost that argument because what is the bill of rights served today? At least to some extent, those rights are being protected. So for example, we are very clear we have a right to speech. So the right to free speech is relatively protected today. If there was the bill of rights, that would be gone. So, but that's the point. The point is that there's very little you vote for and how often did the legislature, you know, in Texas they need once a year, once to be two years. For like six months or so, because there's not much to do. I mean, in a free country, politicians is a part-time job. It's not a lot to do. You just left alone free to do your stuff. One last question. Make it a good one. Fresh as on. Okay. What is the debating which one's good? The question is no one here questions your message. What is the channel by which we can educate the youth of minorities and so forth? Through education. So I doubt that that's true, first of all. I doubt that everybody here accept my message. I hope that's true. But I got the question. The question is, we all accept the message. That's the assumption. The question is, well, what do we do with it? How do we take this out and influence the youth and minorities? Well, first of all, we have to articulate. We have to speak. And we have to speak in these terms, not in the one down wishy-washy baner language. We need to speak in the absolutist consistent moral terms. We're not running for office. We can talk about radical stuff. And we need to because we need to define what that means. But more than that, particularly with young people, particularly with poor people, particularly with minorities, Mitt Romney's 47% comment was an awful, awful, awful comment. Not because he said that, but because of what it means. It means Republicans have given up on those people. And that's horrible because who needs freedom more than anybody else? It's the poor. I mean, the treatment state, victims of the treatment state are the poor because they're institutionalized into poverty. They're told, don't worry, don't work, don't get a job. Here's a check. What do you get your self-esteem from? Work from your success. If you never go to work, you'll never have self-esteem. And if you don't have self-esteem, you'll never be proud. We need self-happiness. If you sell happiness, you have to sell self-esteem. If you sell self-esteem, you have to sell work and the value of work. How many years ago you could have been a bricklayer, a poor bricklayer. But you knew you were taking care of your own family. You got proud. You were proud of the fact that you could manage, could live and give your kids and your family a life. Even though it was hard work, even though it was an interesting work, even though you weren't rich, you did it. You're independent of other people. So people had pride. They had self-esteem. We need to give them back to people. So we need to argue to the minorities that they are the victims. To the poor that they are the victims. What they need is freedom. What they need is capitalism. We need to argue against things like minimum wage. What does the minimum wage do? It's unemployment. It prices some people out of their labor market. If you're a kid and your labor's only worth six bucks, and the minimum wage is ten, you'll never get a job. And we, you'll never earn the skills that allow you to one day make ten, 20, 40, 100 bucks an hour. But we need to explain that to people. They don't know. Maybe talk to the minimum wage to help them, but they're unemployed. Somehow it's helping them. Right? So we need to, the only way to change the world, the only way to change the world, there's no silver bullet, there's no magic formula, there's no one candidate, there's nothing except our ability to speak and speak and speak. Right, right, right. It's about communicating the message. We have got to be communicating the message. And again, not the wishy-washy message. Let the politicians do that. The principle, inspiring message. The message about freedom, the message about opportunities, not equality of opportunities, real opportunities. The message about happiness, about self-esteem, about success, about work, about pride, about taking responsibility for your own life. That's the message we should be articulating every single day, in every venue we can. You know, we're outnumbered, 10 to 101, 101, I don't know. So, we got to do a couple of them. That's it. Thank you all.