 though radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Saturday, last day in September. This month has just flown by and we are here with our panel and for AMA, so please use the super chat to ask questions. Also, the last day of the month to make a contribution to Iran Book Show. All right, let's see. Do I have any announcements to make? Just Monday, the news roundup will probably be later in the day, but there will be a news roundup, or at least I intend to be one. I'll be doing it from Austin, Texas. I'll be traveling Tuesday, no shows on Tuesday, and I'll try to make it up to you on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and then all hell breaks loose because then I'm traveling for the rest of the month. All of October, I'm gone from next Saturday on through the 1st of November. So we'll figure it out as we go along. I'll be in California, so I'll be doing some shows in California, and then I'll be hopping around Europe, and I'll try to do as many shows as I can from the various locations in Europe, starting with London. Reminder, if anybody's interested in public speaking seminar with me, small group, less than 10 people, I've got one in October 18th in London, and then I'm thinking of doing one in the US. So if you're interested, drop in email, and once I have all the logistics worked out, I will let you know about it. So all right, let's get going with our panel, and we'll start with Jennifer. Do you think that all this talk a lot of people have with Buy American and Buy Local and is more based on just nationalism, tribalist type attitude, or is it genuine economic ignorance? So they actually think that somehow that's better economically for a country or to do that? I think it's both. I think it's definitely both, and one feeds off of the other, of course, but so I think they're not interested in the economic argument. So when you make the economic argument, it just bounces right off of them. So it's primarily motivated, I think, by the tribalism, by this idea of, you know, some of it's on the left, it's like minimized carbon footprint, and all that local is good. And on the right is, you know, we're Texans, we don't eat stuff grown in Oklahoma or something, certainly not in California because it's poisoned by leftism or something. And then Buy America is nationalism. But it is, in both cases, primarily on the right, because the right is exposed to better ideas on economics, it is also a willing evasion of the economic reality of the economic fact. And the reality is they don't care, right? You know, you hear this a lot, we don't care about whether it's good economically. It's what's important is America, what's important is, you know, that Americans have jobs and we don't support our enemies and we don't support the left and we don't support this and don't support that. So and again, the left is also very much around localism. It has to do with organic and environmentalism. So it's in community, right? They also have this collectivistic, it's just less about national, more about community. So Austin, they always used to be by Austin, right? But Austin's not exactly right wing. Austin's very left, but it's more about community and help your neighbors and be nice to everybody. It's only, you know, we're the only ones who just don't care about being nice to people. Okay, thank you. Ryan, I was kidding, by the way, for those of you who might not know that Jennifer knows that. Yeah, my turn? Yeah. Okay. On a previous show, you talked about, it was a while ago, but you talked about objectivism not being like an angel and a devil on your shoulder when you're making decisions. And I was wondering if you could expand on that a little further. You know, I grew up in a religious home and the devil was around the corner, you know, around every corner, just waiting to trip me up and make me fall. And you know, it's hard to get out of that mindset. I was just wondering if you could expand on that a little bit. Sure. I mean, and it's a really important issue because I think a lot of people are like you, Ryan, they grew up with religion. And in religion, particularly Christianity, evil has a kind of a metaphysical reality. It has a presence. There is a devil. He is insinuated into our lives and is a constant temptation and constantly whispering in our ear to do bad things. And he's part of our nature, right? It's not even an external metaphysical force. It's a metaphysical force inside us. That's the whole idea of the fall and original sin. It's inside us is the essence of evil, the essential characteristic. So to be human is to have an element of the evil in you. And you have to fight that constantly and to fight that, you know, you have to find this external morality. Objectivism, you know, evil is not a presence in the world. Evil is the negation. Evil is you not being human. Evil is you not living up to what it means to be human. And what it means to be human is to be rational. What it means to be human is to think, to use your mind, to focus, to observe, understand, integrate reality and make choices based on your reason. That is what it means to be human. And when you don't do that, when you evade the facts of reality, when you give it to your emotions, when you give it to unreality or non-reason, that's when you're being evil. But it's not in your nature to do that. It's indeed anti your nature. It goes against what it means to be to be you. So it's more a negation and negative and then it is a positive force in the universe that's trying to get you to do bad things. There is there is no force out there. And even when I say your emotions might be leading you to do that, of course, emotions are just the results of conclusions one has already come to. Emotions are not actors in them of themselves. Emotions can be changed over time once we understand where they come from and what their source is. And ultimately a proper life is life where emotions and thoughts are integrated and happiness is a state where you're you're integrated. So if Christianity and religion generally has this anti-pleasure, anti-life, anti-egoistic view, so again, anti-human nature, so don't do what's in your interest. Don't do what you find pleasurable. If this is going to lead to happiness, be aware, be suspicious. That kind of creates this dichotomy between you and happiness, you and your inclinations to live and to pursue pleasure. Objectivism counters that. I mean it's not advocating to pursue pleasure as an end in itself, but something pleasurable is a good unless there's some reason not to engage in it, right? So there has to be a reason not to. You want to pursue life. You want to pursue your life. You want to pursue you what is good for you. So the positives are all in the direction of life. There's not this battle between life and the good. Life is the good. Does that help, Ryan? Yeah, I think so. I think for me personally, it comes down to just like bad habits. Like, you know, I think you mentioned on another, and this is probably trivial in the grand scheme of things, but you mentioned you like quit soda, cold turkey, and like, like I have a devil on my shoulder, you know, urging me to drink Coke and Pepsi, and you know, when I fail at that, it feels like, you know, it feels like that same kind of, and it's not just obviously that, but it's other things like, you know, what I choose to do in my free time and like things like that. But think about it this way. That's a good example, because I think what religion teaches you is to take something like don't drink Coke and Pepsi as a duty, as a commandment. Thou shalt not drink Coke and Pepsi, right? Rather than as an understanding and a real comprehension, hey, it's not good for me. And that makes it so much easier to quit it once you both understand that it's not good for you. You really think it, you internalize it, you work on it, you don't view it as a duty. And indeed, if once in a while you think a sip of Coke, big deal, the pleasure of that first sip, particularly, maybe worth it, if you get away from the duty premise, then I think you can get away from this idea of, you know, a devil on your shoulder. There are no commandments. It's do what's good for you, and understand what's good for you, and think about what's good for you. And it might be that it takes time to get off of Coke and Pepsi. I mean, I just found it easy to go cold turkey, because the temptation of the sip was too much. And once I lasted a few weeks, it was, you know, that ultimately, it went away completely. But it doesn't mean that everybody has to go cold turkey. It might be the best way to do it is just to go off of it slowly, or indulge once in a while. And because, again, it's not a commandment, it's more of a do what's good for you, do what's healthy, do what'll make you better in the long run. Yeah, no, that's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Religion teaches us a duty premise. Don't do it. Why? Just don't do it. Just don't do it. And the more we internalize the reason, and the more we understand that the reason not to do something or to do something is that it's good for us that it actually promotes our life, promotes our pleasure, promotes our ability to enjoy life, promotes our ability to live a good life long run. The easier it is to behave morally or the easier it is to engage in the activities or to not engage in activities is the case maybe that one wants to. So get away, I mean, the key is to get away from duty as a premise. Thank you. Sure. Andrew. That was really interesting. And also, I think what you're saying, part of what you said in the first part of your answer is, it's not like it's bad to drink soda because you want to drink soda. Yep. Yeah, it's not because of the pleasure it gives you. It's because of the sugar and sugar does X to my blood. And even though in the short run, it might not affect me. I know that if I do this over the long run, my probability of getting diabetes or whatever, right? And you have to convince yourself that the drinking soda is bad for you. If you just hear me or Piatia say it, that's not a reason. You have to understand it and convince yourself this is bad if it is. And I'm not going to do it. And this is why and I understand why. And the more you do that, the desire will slowly fade. Yeah. When you get a gold sponsor, are you planning on wearing a gold sports jacket? No, but a big chain with a gold symbol right in front. You know, one of those big, perfect. You know, one of those, one of those wrapper chains, you know, with a big, big dollar sign. And the rappers are the only people in the world who can get away with big, gaudy dollar signs around their neck. It's amazing. They're the only ones who can get away with, I'm greedy and I don't give a damn. Or I'm just about me. I'm selfish. They're the only people in our culture who can get away with that. They're my athletes, right? Well, the gold bugs do it, but they don't get away with it. Yeah. Exactly. No, I'm pitching. I mean, this gold thing is kind of cool. It's a, you know, it's a cool idea. So it's a company that actually is functioning, licensed, got all the regulatory approvals and everything. And basically, you open a gold account and the account, the gold sits in a vault. You can actually, I think there are two or three different vaults in the world where you can choose to have your gold stored in. And then they give you a credit card. And you can literally pay with gold. So you pay any place with the credit card and a little bit of gold is sold in your name to pay for the transaction. And you can do peer to peer. You can move money around peer to peer. You can't in the US. It's not legal yet in the US, but you can in Europe and in the UK. And in a sense, you're sending your friends gold or you're sending your kids gold or whatever. And it just moves around between these accounts that are set up in a vault in Switzerland. So it kind of means that you're using gold as money. Not really, right? But it's almost like because you're still having to convert everything into dollars a euro, pounds as you're doing it. I think it's cool. And it's a step in the kind of right direction. And it's kind of the it's a cool technology. And it'll evolve. It's the kind of thing that will evolve if ever we moved into gold standard. That's how it would be. It wouldn't be running around with little bags of gold dust in your pocket, weighing them at the store at the Amazon store, they would weigh the dust. Got it. Interesting. Interesting. So here's my real question. I've been following your coverage of Azerbaijan and Armenia. But what I'm not quite integrating is who is in the right and who is in the wrong? That's because I, you know, the reality is I don't know. Okay. I don't know. I haven't researched this enough. And every time I research it, you get at these kind of complete dead ends in the sense that they're all a bunch of tribal, they're all very, very tribal. And these disputes go back hundreds of years, not thousands because I think that while there are millions of them, potentially thousands that I think that the Azeris showed up hundreds of years ago. But, you know, but, but maybe a thousand years ago. So still, you know, but they're still fighting disputes from when they, Azeri, Turkish tribes first arrived there and settled the region and then back and forth. You know, they're both wrong, right? And in the sense, just like there's a deep sense in which even among the Israeli Palestinians, they're both wrong, right? From their perspective. But the difference between the Israeli Palestinians in terms of just civilizational, civilizational value is more clear there. I think in that part of the world, I'm not sure. Now, ask me again after I go to, I'm going to be in Tbilisi in a few weeks. And I'm going to drill my, really ask my Georgian, Georgians like in the middle of this, right? Because it's border with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. I'm going to ask them what they think and see if they have a better explanation than what I've been being able to dig up. Yeah. But, but even there, you know, my, my part of my issue is why is there even a Georgia? Why? Why is there, and if I told that to my Georgian friends, they would not be happy. Why is there a, why is there a, an Armenia and Azerbaijan? They also be one country. I mean, the reality is that Georgia, different provinces in Georgia have tried to go autonomous, right? Because they want to splinter. So even within these countries, you've got tribes that want to, they want to have their own little country within them. So it's Russia, Russia seems to be against Armenia. That's no Russia is Armenia's ally. Okay. There it is. If Armenia feels like it was abandoned by Russia recently and has not been supported, Russia might be pivoting towards Azerbaijan, only because Azerbaijan has the oil and natural gas. And as Azerbaijan is building, is, is increasing the delivery of natural gas to Europe through a pipeline that has, that goes through Georgia and under the Black Sea to Turkey. I think it's under the Black Sea. Anyway, goes to Turkey and from Turkey into Europe. And Russia would like the Azeris not to do that, right? Because they want to keep the Europeans hungry for natural gas from them. So there are all kinds of geopolitical stuff going on. And of course, the Iranians who are close to send religion to the Azeris, hate the Azerbaijan regime because the Azerbaijan regime is secular. Now you could also view, you know, the Armenians as the good guys because Armenia is a democracy and Azerbaijan is a dictatorship. I mean, that's, that is a legitimate way to view it. Let me ask you this intersection. It's a secular Muslim dictatorship. Who's more powerful as a country? Right now, Azerbaijan is. And the reason Azerbaijan is more powerful is because it has two significant allies, right? This is, this is how messed up this part of the world is, right? Azerbaijan's two powerful allies are Turkey, which is kind of natural, right? The Azeris are basically Turks of a slightly different tribe than the Turks in Turkey. Like to say Turkish is not one tribe. It's like a number of Turkish tribes in Central Asia. There's actually a country called Turkmenistan, which is also a Turkish country. That's another Turkish tribe, but some all over the place. Many of the Iranians are Turks, but again, another story. So Turkey is an ally and Israel is an ally. And those are two pretty powerful allies in the Middle East to have an Armenia. The only ally it has are is Russia and then Armenian Americans are pretty powerful in the United States. But the US is not really intervened in the region. They haven't supported Armenia because Armenia was supportive of was supported by Russia and Americans didn't want to associate with the Russians. And they would rather support the Azerbaijanis because the Azerbaijanis have oil and gas. So again, I beat Baku. Baku is the capital of Azerbaijan. Armenia I've not been to. I keep trying to get there and it doesn't work out, but I haven't been to Armenia. Azerbaijan was a very strange place. Clearly Muslim. You know, a lot of ancient Muslim architecture next to stunning modern architecture, modern skyscrapers. And you know, you see women walking around in tank tops and shorts or mini skirts and women in burkas completely covered up. Most of women in burkas are tourists. But still, I mean, it's that contrast is and beautiful beaches on the Caspian Sea and beautiful hotels, very luxury, gorgeous hotels on the Caspian Sea. So it's rich because of the oil and gas, not because it's it's a free country. Anyway, that's and it's not a dispute I've really dug into it. It's it's a little marginal for my time. I need I would need to spend a lot more time to figure it out more. But it but there is the issue of there's always clearly dictatorship ruled by family and the Armenians as far, you know, basically a democracy. Gotcha. Thank you. Sure. Amlan. Yeah. Hi, Iran. Maybe I can just quickly introduce myself since the first time I'm joining the group. So I'm I'm I'm from Canada. Yeah, I have Trudeau as my prime minister. So woe me. But I'm you know, I've been following you Iran for, I don't know, a couple of decades now, probably ever since you've been kind of on TV and everything since then, PJTV, all that stuff. But yeah, first time I've actually kind of participated live in anything because normally my schedule doesn't permit anything. I'm more I'm more interested in in sort of the practical application of objectivism, because I think, like, by no means do I understand the philosophy at the level, you know, that I can pick up old par and understand every section and all that sort of stuff. But I, I'm happy with the philosophy that, you know, it's a good philosophy to live by. I don't I don't have sort of, you know, any anything in like the dichotomies with it and then sort of my my my normal thinking. So, you know, a lot of the questions I'll ask will be, you know, somewhat very granular in a way. But I think they're interesting, just like how would this work in a rational society, things like that. And beyond that, just really happy to be here. And I hope I can attend more of these. But one of the things we're doing right now is both my wife and I are kind of semi-retired and we started to travel a lot more. We've always traveled quite a bit. But now it's kind of like, let's go somewhere for six weeks, things like that. So we're actually going to be in Europe next week, starting on. Oh, you're going to be in Europe next week? Yeah, yeah, Croatia, like the Balkan there, you know, we're doing a six week tour through there. Oh, you should you should come to my talk in Montenegro. I'll see how the schedule works. I'll see how the schedule works in October. So, that's the only the only stop in the Balkans. Okay, all right. I'll check your website, see what your schedule is and how are the lines with ours. We're not the just go somewhere and without any plans, so we that's not how we travel. But for sure, I'll definitely keep that in mind. So one of my things that I feel like in a rational society, you know, that the the role of government is, as we've said, is to protect individual rights. And therefore, it's it's against events that involve the initiation of force. And so natural disasters or fires in your house and things like that, at least the way I've interpreted it would mean that, you know, that's not the role of government to help with that. So a fire department would not be provided by the government, but, you know, homeowners would pay somebody to be their fire department, things like that. Now, hey, do you agree with that? So let me sort of a two part question. So maybe I can just get a late and natural disasters. So sorry, lay it all out. Yeah, okay. So so things like, you know, when we had the floods in New Orleans, and all that kind of stuff, you know, that hurricanes, it would not be the role of government to come in and help and provide assistance and all that stuff, other than law and order and making sure there's no looting and on all those kinds of things. So would you see in a rational society that being the case or do you see a role for government? No, I completely agree with you. There's actually zero role. I think all the evidence suggests that the response would be better. And, you know, one of the things that we lose, because Governor stepped in and taken over so much of these kind of issues, is we lose the beauty of market solutions for problems like this, that I think we can, I can imagine what they would be, but there would probably be 1000 times better than what I can imagine because that's usually how the market functions. So for example, I think in many realms, insurance lands up playing a huge role in a free society where it doesn't today because it's so heavily regulated, it's so controlled and the government has basically priced it out of many of its own markets. So starting with would people live in flood zones and buy the ocean, if they're hurricanes, if they had to pay the full cost of insurance over it. So that would help provide the right kind of incentives for where people live. And then insurance companies have a massive incentive to, for example, have fire stations and maybe even fire stations that put out fires of not only the homes of their insured but also their neighbors because we know that fire speds and so there are all kinds of incentives like or maybe communities have the fire department, you know, the developer who builds the community funds the fire department as part of the poke of part of the pokes of the community, there are all kinds of options like that. But I think insurance companies are big one. Insurance companies might be interested in even providing help and assistance that goes during something like a storm or flooding or things like that because that has the potential minimizing damage, it's good PR, it's, and it's helpful. And then of course, what would also happen is things like the Red Cross and other forms of charities would play an enormous role. I remember that during, God, I forgot the name of the New Orleans storm but during the floods in New Orleans, I remember that the first people with supplies in Walmart, Walmart and Home Depot would get stuff in and FEMA was way behind, they didn't know where FEMA was. So I, and they would do that again because I think it's good PR, it's good public relations, it's, and they, you know, they might be selling this stuff, they may be giving it away, there are all kinds of options, who knows how it would evolve. Insurance companies might pay them to go and do it because again, it would minimize the damage. So yes, I definitely don't think government has any role in dealing with those kind of thing, those kind of disasters. And the disasters would be dealt better. And again, the incentive structure in advance would be set up better so that people didn't live in places that, I mean, note that even in New Orleans, the, a lot of the barriers to flooding were run by the government, right? It wasn't like these, I think it's the corpus of engineers, the army corpus of engineers that were handling them. But imagine a city in which that was, who has an incentive to keep the waters out, insurance companies, maybe they would bond together and do it. So all kinds of options happen. So I, I 100% agree with you. I guess the only, the only aspect of that that I'm wondering would be, is there a training benefit, though, for military to provide support? So training in the sense of, I mean, you know, you know, from your own military experience that when you have to work in a real environment, it's very different than in a training environment. And also, you know, just like, okay, putting equipment to the test site, all right, we're flying helicopters in middle of storms, which you may not do in a training environment. Like is there, is there a benefit in doing that leadership training, all those kinds of things in real, real situations that, you know, you would say, okay, there should be some aspect of that that you would do. I mean, I actually think it's, it's more harmful than good in this sense. And I have a, if you've been following me a couple of decades, you probably know this, I have a pretty radical view of the role of the military. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. Yeah, the role of the military is to destroy stuff. Yeah. It's not to help people and assist them and build stuff. And now, yeah, I mean, flying helicopters in storm, sure, but you can, you can, you can create that environment. You can send them out to, you know, and you should, and I think, I think military training probably should be a lot tougher than it is. You should probably try to create realistic scenarios as much as you can. So no, and the bad outcome that results from the government stepping in far outweighs any benefit that it might be from kind of leadership, the leadership training. I mean, there was an aspect, sure, that the military benefit, but it far outweighed by the disaster of government intervention and the, the habit of government intervening. They intervene here, why not there? Well, we've already been trained. We don't need the training anymore. I mean, that's not fair. And that's not right either. So, yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks so much, Adam. Yes. Chad GPT says that there are very few politicians who are in favor of letting asylum seekers work until their cases are adjudicated, but it lists Kamala Harris as one of them. After before? As soon as they are in the US, they should be able to work. And, you know, since it often takes years to have a case adjudicated by US courts, it's certainly something that would give asylum seekers not only an alternative to being on welfare, but also contacts in business who may then apply for an H1B visa for them. Yeah. I mean, I don't, I mean, I'm, I'm doing a Google search on Kamala Harris. I can't see that, but it, and she is, she is the immigration czar in the, in the Biden administration. So, if she believes that, then they're in a perfect position to actually implement it. Unfortunately, I don't think Biden and many of its advisors agree with that. But there's no question that that should be the policy. You know, once you allow them in, not to allow them to work is just bizarre because you basically make them, you're forcing them to become welfare recipients. You're forcing Americans to subsidize them. Maybe they do that on purpose so that Americans will hate immigrants. I don't know. But by every measure, it makes absolutely sense. And if Kamala Harris supports letting them work, then it's one issue that I agree with, with Kamala Harris on, which is, which is rare. But you know, her public statements, I haven't seen anybody in the Biden administration anywhere else, or on the left generally, articulate a good case and solution for immigration. I haven't seen anybody actually talk about what legal migration should look like, what it could look like. And this is true on the left and the right. Nobody's actually proposing something. I mean, I just saw Elon Musk wrote, it's funny because everybody, all these right wingers are supporting a lawn for going to the border and talking against illegal immigration. But then he actually said, the solution to this is to have a lot more legal immigration. And the same people who loved him for the illegal immigration comment against him on this comment. But nobody actually presents that. What is, how do you do that? How do you actually have a system? Because the reality is this idea that we give asylum to anybody, you know, that we allow people to come here and then evaluate their asylum while we're not, while we really don't have a real foreign policy, a real policy with regard to immigration, legal immigration. It's like show up and we'll give and we'll consider your asylum. It's, it's, it's a ridiculous system. It's a stupid system. It's a system that's costing the lives of thousands of people costing them billions of dollars. The Biden administration did do one good thing. The really good thing, actually, they actually, for four countries, they told people, if you come here, we'll send you right back. But if you apply for asylum in your home country, we will consider it just as if you were in the United States. And that has worked really well in limiting the number of migrants from those countries. It was Cuba, Venezuela. I can't remember the four, but it was four countries. And so what we need is a real policy. And what we don't have is a real policy from anybody, anybody articulating it. The look for that. Kamala. Okay. That's according to Chad GTB, not Google. The other person who was mentioned was the governor of New York and the mayor of New York City. Absolutely. The governor of New York has been excellent on this. I mean, and I've said so on the show. You know, Eric Adams, I think, has been very good on this. He's been, you know, he's antagonized, I think, the Biden administration by saying these people need to work. We should get them work permits. And it is the Biden administration that is saying no to that. So, yes, the mayor of New York, at least the mayor of New York has been very good on it. And you're saying the governor of New York as well. Probably. Forget her name. What's her name? Hoco? I forget. Yeah, I have been sort of mystified by why Harris has been kept so much in the background by the Biden administration. Essentially, she's been given no opportunity to get publicity in the media. She's been kept behind the scenes. I think for whatever reason, they don't trust her. And they worry that she hurts their favorability, although given how disliked Biden is at this point, you know, what have they got to lose? Right? I mean, Biden is clearly unliked. I mean, and there is the possibility that they will replace her. We'll see. But if they view her as a liability, because people are going to, people assume that if they vote for Biden, he's going to die. And Kamala is going to become president. They, you know, they might, you might actually see people, you might see Biden replacing her with somebody else. Clearly, the governor of California is trying to angle for that job. You're wrong. Don't you see her as really high on the powerluster spectrum? Yeah, I think she's pure powerluster. I don't think she believes in anything, but that's true of most politicians. But yes, I mean, you know, I don't think it's nice to say, but I think it's a reality. She started her career by sleeping her way into political circles, you know, her boyfriend at the time who was married, admitted dad and has talked about that. And I think she's, she's been a radical leftist when it's convenient, it could be convenient, and she's been a pretty much a centrist when it's been convenient. She's playing this political game, which is about power. But that's true of so many politicians, right? That's, that's, yeah, she was Willie Brown's mistress for a while. But I think the key is who is funding her campaign, just as it is for Newsome. And her campaign is being funded by companies who need more immigrants to work for them. That's, yeah, that's probably the case. Yeah, and Newsome and her would probably be much better on immigration. But again, I'd like to see somebody actually propose and it's surprising that the Democrats don't put a comprehensive immigration reform on the table, given that this is an issue that hurts them in the, among the electoral in the elections, why don't they put something on the table so people could see them being serious about it? Politics bewilders me. But then again, what do I know? It's as what gets you elected and what doesn't. Thanks, Adam. Steve. Well, thank you. I've been a big fan of yours for quite some time. But this is, thank you. Ever since 2015, when I first found you, I guess accidentally on YouTube. But I'm here today to help you grab the touchstone of modern American politics with both hands. And if I don't completely understand your position of this, just let me know. You seem to have a lot of confidence that if in a conflict between America and Russia, America would win. And I will agree with you that we have better planes than they do. We have better tanks than they do. We have a better training military than they do. I think something that a lot of people think about is America's ability to sustain its military in the field anywhere in the world. We have all of that. But in the last 75 years, that really hasn't led to many, many things in the W column. So I agree that probably that we have the capability of winning. I question whether we could actually identify what winning was and then actually do it. So take that direction you like. You're right. There's no question about that. And my assumption is that in this case, winning just means beating them back and not doing much more than that. If one considers what winning really looks like, the actual defeat of the enemy, the complete annihilation of the enemy, no, we can't do that. That will never happen. We won't do it. We don't have a moral backbone to actually do that. So what could we do? In the battlefield itself, we would defeat them. And then what would we do with that? Nothing. Right? My assumption is nothing. I'm not sure where that leaves us. Probably in some status quo where Russia goes off in sulks and rebuilds its military to attack again another day. But in terms of actually going in there and teaching them a lesson, we won't. And partially, that's true because of the nuclear war. And it's a real threat. And particularly if you threaten Moscow, it's a real threat. So the question is what does winning mean and in what context? So let's say Russia invades Estonia, which triggers NATO, triggers article whatever NATO and could the US kick the Russians out of Estonia? Yeah, I think so. Fairly easily. Then what? Then we're in a, you know, what do you call it? Cold war, hot war, sustained. Will the United States enter into Russian soil? No. Partially because of the nuclear issue, partially because of the point you made. They don't have that. We just don't have the stomach for actually winning wars. We can, and look, why did we lose in Iraq? We didn't lose militarily. We lose because we try to bring democracy to Iraq. If we try to do that in Russia, we will lose. So it's really the goal that, so the one war we won, we've won one war, right? Because the war, the goal was very narrow, kick Iraqis out of Kuwait. And we did that and I came through four days or something and almost no casualties on the American side and just devastated the entire Iraqi army. It was crushed. So if we have a very narrow goal, kick the Russians out of Ukraine, kick the Russians out of Estonia, then I think we win and we win very quickly. But it's also a bigger war. And then if it's a nuclear war, then I don't know that there are any winners or losers. We all lose, right? Now, I'm not sure the Russian nukes can hit anything, but it doesn't really matter. They don't have to hit anything strategic. Just the damage that they would do just landing anywhere would be devastating. And add to that that, I mean, one of the great failures, the military failures of the United States over the last 50 years is not building a missile defense system. And if you remember Ronald Reagan's Star Wars, I don't know if that was the right missile defense system, lasers with satellites in space. I maybe not, but we should be in a position today with the technology we have today. If Israel can defend itself with the iron dome against projectiles that spend almost no time in the air and have almost zero signature in terms of radar, right? And they can still knock them out of the sky. Then you think that a ballistic missile that has a big radar signature that spends relatively speaking a lot of time in the sky, we should be able to knock them out of the sky? And if we don't, that to me is the big strategic failure, one of the big strategic failures of the U.S. We should have an iron dome that prevents nukes. And partially, it's because there's this realist school of thought that says that it is mutually assured destruction that secures the peace, which is a pretty bleak view of the world. So I agree with you, basically. I'm just assuming that the goals are narrow. All right, thanks, Steve. Let's see. All right, let's do some super chats quickly. Thanks for the super chat, as Michael says for 50 bucks. Thank you, Michael. Ben Shapiro is consistently making posts attacking individualism on his Facebook. You'll have to have another sit down with him. Have you had any communication with him since the interview you did? I think he's intimidated by you. I don't know. I have had communication with him since then. I sent him an email asking him about the Atlas Shrug TV series that Daily Wire is producing. And he put me in touch with the producer. I've since spoken to the scriptwriter. Actually, I haven't heard from him in a few months. I don't know what's happening with the project. But he is responsive to when I actually engage with him and write to him. Would he have me back on a show? I don't know. But it's not surprising. In the hierarchy of values that Ben Shapiro has always had, religion is always being at the top. Religion inherently is anti-reason. Religion inherently, I think, is collectivistic. Individualism for him is associated with selfishness and secularism. And he has to reject it. He didn't want to reject it early on because he spoke capitalism and everything. But as time goes on, the more consistent premises went out and you start having to reject the premises that contradict your more fundamental ones. And therefore, you have to reject individualism. Thank you, Michael. John says, happy Saturday. Not Sunday, Saturday. Thank you, John, for the $50. Really appreciate that. Hoppe, I used to be a victim of the irrational myth that the universe is malevolent, which means success is impossible without hurting others. It's such a primitive animalistic mindset. It shows humanity is not fully human yet. Yeah, there's a sense in which it's not. It still hasn't been willing. People are still not being willing to engage with the energy, the effort to make themselves fully human, which means fully rational. Oh, he says, you said you're doing zone two exercise to improve the strength of your heart. A key point in body by science is that the primary effect of all types of exercise is changes that happen in muscle, not the cardiovascular system. Yes, but it, you know, I don't know. I'm not an exercise scientist. I'm not an expert in this body by science made sense. What Peter T sense says makes a lot of sense to me. The heart is a muscle. I don't find that I can work the heart anywhere near as consistently, you know, doing weightlifting or the things, you know, high intensity weightlifting, like body by science suggests, as I do on an elliptical or treadmill or something like that. The cardiovascular system, I think the interaction between the cardiovascular system and muscle is a lot more complex. I just think, and I've heard, and maybe this is not true that the author of a body by sciences recently said that yes, cardio is necessary as well, which I take to be kind of zone two cardio. But I don't know. I mean, the reality is I don't, I'm not a scientist. I haven't researched it. Peter makes a lot of sense to me. So I've embraced him when I read body by science that made a lot of sense to me. So I embrace that. Ideally, I would, I'd like to do both. Ideally, what I would do is I would do a zone two, four, five times a week. I would do high intensity cardio one to two times a week. And then I would do high intensity weightlifting twice a week. That's what I would do. Unfortunately, I don't have high intensity weightlifting in Puerto Rico. And I can do it by myself. It's too risky, too dangerous. So, you know, you work with what you have and based on your best understanding at any given point in time, I am quite ready to acknowledge I'm wrong on any one of those things because it's not my field. I'm, you know, you have to do the best that you can with the knowledge that you have. That doodle bunny, most of them, and the same thing, by the way, about nutrition, I don't know what's right about nutrition. I used to be low carb, eat meat. It doesn't affect you. It doesn't make any difference. You eat red meat all day. You know what? But the studies are pretty conclusive about the relationship between a certain, you know, LDL and Applebee markers and heart disease. And as a consequence of, I think, we eating so much red meat, my LDL is relatively high in my, it's not super high, but it's relatively high. My Applebee is relatively high. Maybe I'm eating too much red meat, you know, and maybe maybe carbs are not as bad for me as I thought once thought they were, depending on which carbs they are. I'm not sure. I don't know. And I think with nutrition, even more than exercise, I think nobody knows. Nobody knows. I just heard, what's his name? Sinclair, the live forever guy at Harvard who claims he's 20 years younger than his biological age, other than his actual age, his biological age is 20 years younger. He's like a vegan now. He used to be a carnivore. Now he's a vegan. And he claims that's it. You know, you can eat meat once in a while. But and I talked to my doctor and she was like, you know, really, you shouldn't eat red meat more than once. And I was waiting for like a week with something like that once a quarter. It's like, forget it. I'm not living now. Come on. Yeah, you're wrong. You're wrong. But isn't like, well, first of all, the old red meat diet, isn't there something kind of like depressing about that? But I'm a big fan of red meat, by the way, but I'm just I've never eaten all red meat. The old red meat diet is what Jordan Peterson does. And that's an eskimo diet because that's all eskimosi. There's no vegetables in the, you know, the Arctic circle. But look, my point is this, we don't really know. We don't really know. And one of the things I like about Peter Tia is that he's willing to say, I don't know. And he's willing to say, this is what I think the best science is right now. And he says, and he's absolutely right, just on the basis of statistics, that the what do you call it? Yeah, that nutrition studies are mostly useless because you can't control. And most of them are based on self reporting. And the statistical evidence is weak even when it exists. And we just, and we don't know enough about the biochemistry of the cell. We know a few things. We know that spiking your blood sugar is not good for you. Yes, don't spike your blood sugar. That we know for certain. We know that, you know, consuming, we probably know that consuming a lot of red meat is not good for you. But beyond that, we know very low. But you're wrong. When you went low carb, I know this is my experience. When I went low carb and lower sugar, my health improved dramatically. So I was always healthy. So I can't say it improved dramatically. But it is true that my my numbers, my LDL and APOB numbers did not get better. They got a little worse. And that's the other thing. Here's the kicker, right? And I think this is true of exercise and true of nutrition. We're all frigging different. So my guess is that at the end of the day, to really know what food is good for you, you'd have to do a genomic analysis when we actually know the relationship between your genes and the food and devise a perfect diet for you that is not, there is no universally good diet. And it's probably not a universally good exercise regime. Each one of us has a different, different aptitude to grow muscle. Some of us have genes that result in a more muscular body. Some of us have less muscular bodies. You know, the hormones that we have are going to determine how our body responds to exercise. And ultimately, it will have to be personalized. All these things will ultimately have to be personalized. So I'm not sure there's one right exercise regime, even women probably exercise regime should be different than men's. They have less testosterone. They build less muscle. There's lots of reasons. There's just a lot of, and the issue is so complex. All right, let's move on. I basically said all I actually know. That doodle bunny says, most new young objectivist intellectuals lack charisma. How do you know this? They're very bland and milk toast. Like who? It's like AI is suppressing enthusiasm and it's new intellectuals because they think it comes across as dogmatic. Who is this AI suppressing enthusiasm? Like I am, to some extent, AI. Do I look like I'm suppressing enthusiasm? I mean, it's a joke. Have you seen Nikos? Does Nikos exude? Nikos has charisma, he exudes personality. He's like, you should sit in my advanced public speaking course where encourage them to. So no, I mean, that's nonsense. The reality is that objectivism attracts people who tend to be introverted, somewhat repressed. And this is true of all, by the way, intellectuals, all intellectual movements attract kind of introverts into a repressed, rationalistic people who need to be brought out of their shell. And it takes time and it takes effort in order to do that. And the institute is doing the exact opposite. It is making real attempts to try to bring them out of their shell to make them more enthusiastic. All right, last question for this round. Action Jackson says, and you guys are going to hate Action Jackson for this. I just have to say I love San Francisco. My favorite U.S. city. Coming from someone born and raised in the South, I lived in New York, can't stand it. But I love California and San Francisco. It's not hard at all to avoid the unsavvy stuff. Yeah, I mean, people don't believe me. But if you know which parts of San Francisco to avoid, the Tenderloin, for example, in downtown generally. Yeah, it's one of the most beautiful cities in the world. And it's got a vibe like very few other places on the planet. And yeah, yeah, it's a sad city because you shouldn't have to avoid any way in San Francisco because it's all beautiful. It's all amazing. And it used to be beautiful and amazing throughout. So people don't get it. You have to go spend some time there. The San Francisco lovers are coming out on the chat. We're seeing them express themselves in the chat a little bit. All right. I encourage the chat group to ask more super chat questions. But please, because we've got a lot of $5 questions, please make them $20 or above just because I can't go for three hours, but we'll see how we go. All right, let's start with the round two with our group here. Jennifer, you have the floor. When you debated that Brian Kaplan guy, I didn't know anything about him. I guess I thought he was sort of an anarchist. I don't know what he is. He is an anarchist. Okay. But he was saying there should be countries just like a whole lot of countries. Well, he said it's better to have lots of small countries than big countries. But ultimately what he wants is no countries at all. No countries at all. Yeah. Well, so he was moving toward like, let's say every individual person said they were a country. I mean, he would think that's good. Yeah, basically, we're all autonomous. We all have rights. We should be able to protect those rights and contract out for the protection to police agencies and private security and private courts. Because it seemed like he didn't fully go there to me. Like he just kept saying, well, you know, a lot of small countries, like he didn't want to go all the way there. He was definitely all the way there. Maybe he didn't express himself well, but that's definitely his point of view. Yeah, definitely. Okay. And then my police agency would negotiate with your police agency if there was some conflict. Okay. Thanks. That is their world. All right. Let's see. Ryan. Yeah. Are you familiar with the TV show alone? I'm not. Okay. So it's a reality show where they basically drop contestants off in like this completely isolated area of the world. And, you know, they're all in different spots. And the last one standing gets the big prize. And I think it's probably the most implicitly objective of a show out there because, you know, you read Iran's nonfiction and you hear your talk about, you know, running down a buffalo and biting into it. And it's just a good show about, you know, how man needs reasons to survive. And the two things I take from it. One is like if you get injured or you get sick, like you're done. And the second thing is even if you do like, you know, provide for your basic needs, you know, you find a food source, you build a shelter, you know, by like a month in people are just like, I'm so bored. I'm so I miss family. I miss civilization. So it's just an interesting show. Like I think it's a good, you know, I think about objectivism when I watch the show just because of, you know, we're so far removed from that kind of life. And you don't really think, think about it too much. But when you see that show, it really sort of hits, hits home. To what extent is what they're saying is, you can't be alone in order to survive. That is, it's the focus on the alone and you need other people versus you need reason to survive. Yeah, probably. But it's, I mean, you know, they're allowed to take like 10 items with them. But, you know, a lot of them, you know, they build fish nets, they build shelters, they build traps to trap animals. And does anybody take antibiotics with them? No, no, I don't think so. But I would take antibiotics. It's just interesting. Because, you know, like I said, we're so far removed from that type of life. And, you know, you watch a show and it's like you're amazed that the human species even survived just because of how difficult it is. You know, I think, I think the longest, at least the seasons I've watched the longest is about three months people can last and then they tap out. Yeah, it doesn't surprise me. It's, you're right, people have no concept of how hard it is. And how removed we are from that kind of life. Yeah, I don't really have a question. No, that's fine. Thanks for being there to my attention. I've never really watched any reality show other than like cooking competitions, like I like competitions, like the cooking competition, the chef competitions I like, but that's the only reality show I've ever watched. Like I am chef, I think is one of the greatest shows ever, particularly the original Japanese version where they took it super seriously. And, you know, you're afraid that a chef that lost was going to commit suicide right there with the sword and everything because they were so serious about the competitions. It was pretty bizarre, funny and amazing at the same time. Let's see, Steve, I'm going out of order, but it's whatever order is on the screen. So you did this episode on, I think his name was Michael Knowles, the guy who wants to go back to the Middle Ages. Yeah, 12, 20. Yeah. That was one of your better, like of all the content you've done recently, I appreciate that maybe among the most, I thought you had a lot of like actually unique things to say there. And I've kind of been of the opinion on, we're on like a long term arc back toward the Middle Ages. Like I don't know if we'll actually get there, but I'll say kind of flippantly that like, I'll know that we're there when people are getting burned at stake, but to hear someone actually come out and say that that's the world that they want to return to was so beyond the pale. So yeah, I don't really have a question there. Of all the content you've done recently, that was for me among the best. Well, good. I mean, I'd say, I think that's right. And I got a good response and it got a lot of visibility, I think, out there. So I'd say this, if any of you out there, including you, Steve, if you come up with topics like that, or videos like that, we think, yeah, I mean, this will get you on really going. And then let me know because I enjoy those kind of shows because the reality is that's an easy show for me to do. Because in many respects, it's so obvious, right? And I just have to let loose. And I just have to watch it and think about it for a little while. It doesn't require much crap. So I love those kind of shows where critique stuff. But I don't watch stuff, right? I don't watch Knowles. I don't watch Ben Shapiro. So send me short five, seven minutes segments that I can rail on that will go a long way to getting me to do more shows as energizing as that. Well, I had no idea who he was before you talked about it. So I'm not watching much of this stuff either. I will tell you that I listened to an interesting interview with that Coleman Hughes, maybe. Yeah, Coleman Hughes. On the All In podcast, which is another podcast I listened to. It was actually quite interesting to hear there. I'll send it to you. It's been longer than seven minutes, but you may find it interesting because they deal with how do organizations find themselves in this situation where they're literally being held hostage by their employees? Well, I mean, I think at the end of the day, it's pretty simple that the organization doesn't, the employees have them all high ground. You know, the management might not agree with the employees, but has no moral basis for whatever whatever view they have. And therefore, the moral high ground is held by the employees. They're more passionate. They're more committed. They have a point of view. There is no such thing as a point of view that says, we should let a bunch of different things be aired, right? We're for free speech. So we should let a bunch of different opinions be aired, but not some, right? We know some know, right? That's not a point of view. That's a failure of a point of view. And the employees know exactly which opinions shouldn't be aired. And they have no qualms about it. And that's what gives them a massive advantage. So whoever has the moral high ground wins in these things. And the woke have a moral high ground versus the mealy mouth liberals who can't really make a case for their position. All right. Oh, I should say this. I think I misrepresented Coleman. I think I call them a conservative. And a number of people pointed out that he's not a conservative. He's more of kind of a classical liberal, small L libertarian type, maybe, but that he's not, he's definitely not a conservative. I think that's true. I think he's not a conservative. So I just want to make that correction. All right. Let's see, Andrew. Hey, do you know your own that you're, I don't know if this is frequent for you, but on your Dumerist episode of on YouTube, it has a warning that it's giving context to climate change on YouTube. It gives you a definition from the UN as to climate change and that it's, it's manmade and, you know, everything. I didn't notice that, but it doesn't surprise me. I mean, I basically being told by YouTube that I can't talk about COVID because I'm not qualified. Oh, okay. And they sent me, they sent me the list of qualifications to talk about COVID and basically have to go back to school and get an MD. Okay. All right. So just actually, I think piggyback off of Steven's question, like it was funny. I was listening to Ayn Rand, one of her Fort Hull Forum speeches, and she was talking about how the conservatives want to go back to the middle ages. But she also said, and it was always kind of funny when she attacked Zen Buddhism, but she, she compared how the left is also like in a very funny, like colorful way, galloping backwards towards the fifth century, fifth century India towards Zen Buddhism. Well, that Buddhism was bigger back then, right? I mean, this is, this is the 1960s with, you know, where Zen Buddhism was the hippie thing to do, the Beatles, we even into Zen Buddhism. George Harrison, you know, had the Zen Buddhism going on. So it was much more popular. Now, Zen Buddhism was represented by somebody like, like Harris, right? That's interesting. Well, I was going to ask you like, how do you, so the implication is, and Michael Knowles was making an explicit that spiritually, the conservatives are back in the middle ages. Yeah. Do you see on the left, like, how do you compare that with what's going on on the left? I mean, it's really hard because partially it's hard because it's harder left and right and who's on the left and who's on the right and which left and which right? I mean, there's certainly elements on the right that mentally are in the middle ages. And the elements on the left that would like us to go back to the caves, in a sense, because they really do view human activity in this world as destructive by its very nature. That is nature is the standard of good. And we are outside of nature somehow and we're destroying it. You know, the radical environmentalists are all like that. And then, of course, the others would like us to basically go back to some kind of, that are nihilists. So you've got, in other words, you've got nihilistic tendencies both on the left and the right. You know, the people who want to take us back to the middle ages in the name of religion, that's nihilism. But given what we've achieved, wanting that is nihilistic. And the people who want us to go back to the caves, that's nihilism. So they're both motivated by hatred. I don't think there's that big of a difference at the extremes. Once you take out kind of the extremes on each side, what's left is, I think, more interesting. It's there that you get more nuance and more flavor. So who's worse? I don't know. I mean, they're both so bad that it's hard to say it depends on any particular individual. There are people on the left who I would take over almost anybody on the right. Like I would take Steven Pinko over almost anybody on the right. But there are people on the right who I, you know, who I would take over almost anybody on the left. So it's not uniform because they're not consistent and they're all and they're bad. And because we've defined left and right mainly based on the nuts at the extremes, they are both the same. There's no difference. I mean, none of them really, I'm sorry, none of them really can stand for modern civilization because of their ideas, right? I mean, well, Steven Pinko, I understand, but like if you're talking about the philosophical underpinnings of the left and right, how can they really stand for civilization when civilization is based on individualism and reason and capitalism? Say that again? I said, how can they really stand for modern civilization if they're against reason, individualism and capitalism? They can't. Okay. Yeah, yeah, I was saying. There's nobody there. There's nobody there. There's nobody that actually stands for. There's nobody that actually stands for capitalism. Nobody left or right or individualism or anything. It's a wasteland. It's a political wasteland. Thank you. Amlan. Yeah. So I'm with you, Yaron, in terms of open immigration in a proper rational society where no welfare state and all of that. But one thing I'm wondering is, in such a society, how does the assimilation of cultural norms take place? So I'll give you an example. In our travels, we've been a few places where there's been a lot of Russian tourists. And generally, I find them, again, I'm not saying everybody, but in a large proportion, they tend to be very boorish people. Rude and just, I don't know, assholes. Sorry if I'm not supposed to say that. So when such people would come to, let's say, our rational society, I mean, how does the society assimilate those people to say, OK, this behavior is not something that we accept. It's not criminal. Obviously, criminal behavior you deal with as you would, but just normal boorishness. I think the main place, the main way in which they were assimilated is through the workplace. And it's why it's so important to get immigrants to work. The reality is that the main place in which Americans are being assimilated, Americans have come from all kinds of places around the world. And where you get, where you meet people from other cultures and where you meet, and some people fall in love and where you have, you know, the work is crucial in the workplace and business. And business also, the nice thing about business too is it gives you a common goal, right? You're all working in behalf of a common goal. And certain behaviors accepted are not accepted. You show up in time. You talk in a particular way. You know, we don't accept some things. And American business, I think, is the primary way in which historically, America's assimilated the population they've come. And again, it's why I think the work is so crucial to immigration, any immigration system that either doesn't permit work or doesn't emphasize the role of work. And then of course, the other one is school, right? The kids go to school and they get assimilated in the school by their friends and in the playground. And that's also true somewhat of adults, right? In the neighborhood, people get assimilated. Now, the neighborhood usually immigrants go to where people who came from the same, like even the Russian immigrants to New York all used to live in the same neighborhood in New York. But the Russians who came first were assimilated a little bit and they passed that on to the Russians who come later. And, you know, I'll say this when Russians came to Israel, you know, about a million Russians came to Israel, like a tiny little country all at once. And it was shock, it was a shock to the system. They were boorish, they also drank, there was nobody drank in Israel, there was all kinds of, and it was clear those are the Russians for years. And today, if you go to Israel, the Russians everywhere, and they're just Israelis, they're just like everybody else, they've kind of assimilated into the culture. And so, again, I think it's work, community, and school. And I'd say work is the most important. Does Israel do a better job? I mean, we've been to Israel, but only for a couple of weeks, so obviously, and we don't speak the language. But would you say Israel does a better job of saying, you know, this is our culture and we expect you to adapt? Because I know in Canada, like the multicultural crap is like so strong that nobody will say anything against whatever stupid behavior you want to have. But you know, I think does Israel do that? I think yes. I think in the US, we do it to some extent. Certainly in the workforce, right? Certainly in the workplace, certainly in schools. But look, Israel integrated Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews who are basically Black, and I'm sure they were ridiculed in school and kids made fun of them. But they went to work, and when they went to work, people treated them as employees. I think work really like levels the playing field in some important way. At work, what you care about is skill, its performance, and all the rest is sidelined. And so to the extent that that's the focus, I think to that extent, people have managed to be integrated. And my view is in the world, in which we live today, I would not promote open immigration in the sense that I think it would exist in Alaska. But what I would promote is if you can get a job, you're in. And so the emphasis on the work side of it. Yeah, so maybe, I mean, I, you know, not to just, I don't want to be the putting down Canada all the time. I think I think on that regard, maybe Canada is a little bit better with our kind of point system and everything for getting people. So, you know, yeah, I just, I just wouldn't have points, right? No, but you could find I said a little bit better. And Canada is much more pro immigration than America. As a percentage of the population, the number of immigrants last year at least was astounding in Canada. So Canada is better in terms of allowing the men not as good in terms of assimilating. And that's not a good combination ultimately that that's going to be problematic in the future. It already is. I don't know if you heard about this Eritrean riot that took place in Edmonton or Calgary about two months ago. Basically two gangs of Eritreans just beating the crap out of each other with bats and shovels and stuff like this, you know, it's just like give me a break. Yeah. And Sweden's having problem in agreeing with Muslims. Other countries in Europe are not having that problem with Sweden is and a lot of extent, a lot of it is one other way in which you assimilate is through law enforcement. Right. You know, if they commit a crime, the law is the law. It doesn't matter where you from, you know, and in England and then certainly in Sweden, they have been way too lax in terms of applying the law to people. I'm sorry, I don't want to monopolize, but it's on the same thing. Do you believe in deporting people in that case or is it still jail like you would for anybody else? I mean, it depends on their status, but I think jail should be involved. I would say jail and then deport them for certain crimes or certain people. So I wouldn't exclude deporting them. All right. You know, particularly if we're on a kind of a workplace visa scheme, the work thing has expired and they're not going to find a job, there's no reason to fund their hospitality in the prison. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Right. Adam. Yes. Since you served in the military, unlike most of us, Poland has a limited budget, but a very dangerous neighbor. Yep. So they need to expend their armament on a budget and their current solution is to buy a limited number of American tanks and American aircraft for their attack units and go with cheaper South Korean tanks and fighters for their defense units. Do you think that makes sense? Yeah. I mean, I don't know that I would divide it exactly as defense offense, but I definitely think it makes sense. I think the South Koreans make excellent weapon systems. They're very competitive with other countries around the world. They want to become a power house in terms of manufacturing defense. So they're willing to give people a good price right now. So they're trying to establish themselves as a major exporter of weapon systems. So I think you're actually getting a really good deal in terms of bang, literally bang for the buck with going with the South Korean weapon systems. Their tanks are really good. Their fourth generation fighters are good. They're building a fifth generation fighter, which I think is going to be very good. So yeah, I think Poland, given the limited budget, it should be investing in South Korea. And the other thing is it makes sense to buy from one's neighbors too. This is where maybe localism makes some sense because of the, let's say, if you buy Swedish weapon systems, you can get them easily maintained and you can get them easily refurbished because of Swedes right around the corner. And if you buy French, the same if you buy French or German. So I think Europe needs to have its own defense industry. It's a one kind of industry you really do need domestically. And it makes sense for Europeans countries to be buying from one another, these kind of, again, the weapon systems. In Poland, to its credit, is spending an enormous percentage of its GDP on defense right now, much more than any other European country. It's going to have the largest military in Europe, bigger than Germany's, bigger than France's, which is very impressive given where it's been and given that it's not as rich as Germany or France. And it's doing it, I think, smart. And I think it's doing it because it actually has a border with, well, Belarus, not exactly Russia, a little bit with Russia, but mainly Belarus, but Belarus is Russia. It's just an extension of Russia at this point. All right, let's see. Thanks, Adam. All right, let's quickly do some super chats here. I can't pronounce, Cayenne razor cell, whatever that is. Please do review of death notes, the anime. It has a great theme on showing how evil selfishness and judging others is, and I think how evil selflessness. Okay, God, I need to learn how to read. Evil selflessness and judging others is, but judging others is a good thing. It's not evil. And I think it also is very anti-nihilistic perspective on humanity. I already donated 10 before. So here's the problem, Cayenne razor, that $50 just doesn't cut it in terms of reviewing a 10 episode show. It would have to be more than that. So if you would like to contribute more over time towards it, I'll do it. The other problem is that I started watching Death Note. I figured, okay, I'll watch this. People are talking about it. It's a big show on Netflix. This looks kind of interesting. It's fantasy. And I watched, I don't know, 10 minutes of the first episode. I don't know what to say. It strikes me as super childish. Now, it might be a children's story for children. I don't know, but at least seems very childish. So one episode of other shows has been, I've asked for 250. This is 10 episodes, and I've already started it. But I'm willing to try to watch a whole episode for 250. And then if I like it, I might watch the whole thing and give you a view of the whole thing. But I need some motivation at this point, given that it didn't start off too well. And I just got, it seemed silly to me. It didn't seem serious in any kind. It didn't seem funny. You can be unserious and funny, but you can be, I don't know, it lacked the kind of game of Thrones gravitas. I'm okay with torture and mayhem and murder and all of that. As long as I have some gravitas to it, some seriousness to it. All right. Thank you for the support. Hopefully, if you come up with the additional funds, I'll watch it. Maybe there are other people here who want me to watch it and would be willing to help you get to that number. Jeremy says, you've mentioned in the past that European conservative politicians are less religious than the American counterparts. Did your recent trip to Europe change your perception about this at all? Yeah, probably. Certainly, the European conservatives I met are much more religious than I had expected. And this isn't the first time. And this is primarily, this is because I think they're primarily from Eastern Europe, where they're very religious. Now, again, it varies. Like in the Czech Republic, you don't find many religious, but in Poland, you do. They're very religious, cross political parties. In Germany, there's a branch that's quite religious. In Spain, there's a whole Catholic conservative thing going on in Spain, and it's been revived. The one country where I still find that most conservatives of secular is England, is the UK. And that's, I think, a good thing. So I still think the UK has the healthiest, in that sense, conservative movement. It has other problems, and that is that they don't stand for anything. They're too pragmatic and mealy-mouthed and nothing much more. I'm still rooting for Kemi. Kemi is my, I'm still hoping that she somehow finds a way to take over the conservative party in the UK. I think she would be terrific. I hope she would be terrific. She has the right ideas, whether she is willing to stand by them, whether she has integrity, as I just don't know yet, we'll find out over time. But yes, the Europeans I met on this last trip, far more religious than conservatives than Europeans I've encountered in the past. And I think Europe is becoming moderately more religious as the United States is becoming less religious. Kemi Badenok, that's right. Kemi Badenok, who actually was not born in the UK, was born in Nigeria. So an immigrant. James, do cultures evolve dynamically from bottom up or by a minority of intellectuals, elites and top-down? I think primarily from the top-down. There's nothing, there's no there, there at the bottom to evolve. Now, when the elites have nothing to say, when the elites are completely and utterly bankrupt, then they evolve to the lowest common denominator, which is at the bottom. But that's, that's by default, not by effort. Okay. Liam, if people think the world is a zero-sum game, the word big becomes frightening, big pharma, big tech, big oil. Objectives, the only ones out there not afraid of big. I wouldn't say bigness. I wouldn't say we're the only ones, but it is true that more and more of society left and right are afraid of bigness. And a big part of that, you are absolutely right. A big part of that is this zero-sum game mentality. But there are a lot of free marketers out there that have no problem with bigness. Michael says Israel's greatest asset is that we were fighting Arabs, Moshe Dayan. Yeah, I mean, give me a break, Moshe Dayan. He's the guy who failed Israel ultimately. Clark says, Jordan Peterson is complicated in a non-valuable way. I like, I like that. I like the phrasing of that. Nikoka, any thoughts on Mike Mensa? I mean, not much. Obviously, a smart guy and very successful and had a huge impact on both the bodybuilding community and on turning people onto objectivism. I spoke to him once, just a little before he died, a few weeks, months before he died. But not in great depth. It seemed like a really nice guy, obviously a committed objectivist. But I don't know that about Shaboud Hemsah. I don't have any deep thoughts about him other than he's really made a contribution to those two fields, both objectivism in attracting people to it and bodybuilding in having a theory of bodybuilding that he implemented. And I think body by science is to some extent at least a scientific approach to Mensa's views on bodybuilding. All right, Jacob, Jessica done with a peloton ride. I with Peter Tia had his exercise program on there. Still a great ride. Thanks, Jacob. Good. Another Jacob on normal Democrats anti-immigration consciously or subconsciously because of unions. I don't think they think that far ahead. But what about you? Yes, they definitely partially it's because of unions. They are, you know, Democrats have always been anti-immigration because they believe that immigrants lower wages and take jobs away from unions. So Democrats historically were more anti-immigration than Republicans. It's only recently, I tell you over the last 20 years, that Republicans have been as anti-immigration as they become. Apollo Zeus' favorite 90 supermodel. I don't know. Favorite 90 supermodel. I don't have a catalog. I can't even remember the name of a single one. So much for that. On female beauty beyond what Rand said. Wow. That's a big topic. I don't know. I mean, I'm not a big Cindy Crawford fan. Somebody's asking. My wife is standing next to me. Yeah, my wife is a good sample of what I view as female beauty. I mean, that's the easy way out, right? And the right way out. He'd have to ask me when I'm fresher. I find what's beautiful about women is, to a large extent, their attitude and their passion and the way they carry themselves. You know, in terms of just sheer beauty, you know, women I find beautiful, you know, look more like Angelina Jolie than Cindy Crawford. So I find that exotic look. I also like women who are feminine in their material manifestation about that. But ask me another time when I've got more time to consider it. All right, O.E. is the last question in this round. Johan, do you like spending time in nature, beaches, hikes, national parks, camping, et cetera? You seem to value other types of recreation more highly. Yeah, I used to when I was younger, less so as I've got an older. I'm a little bit more, what do you call it? I like my comforts more. So as I've got an older, I've done less nature. But I used to, I used to love, particularly when I lived in Israel, I used to love hiking and camping and doing things like that. I really haven't hiked and camped much. I did hike with my son when we were in Rocky Mountain National Park a few weeks ago, months ago. And that was a lot of fun. But those were short hikes. I like short hikes. I don't like living in nature. They're like bugs in nature and rocks in nature and things that I don't like. I don't like animals. I don't like rocks. Yeah. You like your porcelain. What's that? I like my porcelain. There you go. I like my porcelain. I like my bronze and my, yeah, I like clean surfaces. Anyway, so I like going on a hike and then going to a nice hotel room afterwards and spending the night. So that to me is, but I do like it. I like going to beach, although I, but I used to love going to beach. I used to hang out by the beach when I was in 12th grade. I spent, well, I'm exaggerating, but it felt like I spent more time at the beach than in class. But I would skip school and go to the beach. I was, I was, I was, I was spent a lot of time at the beach and all through my twenties, I spent a huge amount of time at the beach. So the beach is my thing today, sunscreen and sand and salt. And I don't know. I just, I'm not as comfortable. I've gotten spoiled. What can I say? All right. Let's, let's do this. Jennifer, get us rolling. Okay. Do you think there's ever any validity to the idea of the concept of mercy or what that always just mean, a suspension of justice, which of course is never a good thing. Yeah. I think it's always a suspension of justice. I mean, mercy, I think you can, you know, people can repents and you can, you can, you can lighten people's sentence and you can do, but I wouldn't call it mercy. I think mercy is directly flies in the face of justice. It's, it's in spite of everything you're giving, you know, you're forgiving them or you're, or you're not punishing them in spite of the fact that they are as bad as they are. Yeah. That's what I think too. Okay. Thank you. Let's see, Ryan. Yeah. My family and I vacationed in Barcelona this summer and one of the things we did was we toured the La Cigarada Familia, which you expressed your displeasure at the other call. I was just wondering, I mean, I get your reasons, but what's that? It's disdain. Yeah, disdain. Right, right. That's the word I was looking for. I was just wondering, I mean, I don't really feel small when I visit something like that. I'm not an architecture expert, obviously, but I think, like, it's amazing to me that man can build structures like that. And I feel the same way about skyscrapers and, you know, the thing, the kind of things you like. So do, do men get any credit for that for building temples like that or cathedrals like that? No, I mean, not in my mind, because what's the point? I mean, I get it 12th century, but this is the 20th century and he's got all the technology at his fingertips. He's got all the modern materials at his fingertips. He knows skyscrapers are being built. He knows something about modern architecture and he still builds that. In the 20th century, it's still being built. It's taken 100 years. I don't know. I find it the epitome of ugliness. It's like, if you want the most ugly building in the world, I guess that's an achievement, right? That's it because it's in the context. If it was, if that was done, I mean, the elements of modernism in it that, you know, he smooths out some of the jagged lines of the Gothic cathedral. But it's basically modern Gothic and I reject modern Greek and I reject modern Gothic and modern should be modern. So I find it grotesque and that's a good work, Jennifer. And I find it ugly. I don't know. But I get it. It's huge. It's like when you see it for the first time, you go, whoa, what is that? And I haven't been inside, but again, it's a cathedral. So the whole point of going inside is to make you feel small. Yeah, I guess the one that we did go inside and the stained glass went like we went at a like right as the sun was shining through the stained glass. That was, I mean, that made it look pretty cool. I would say the one thing I didn't like was, you know, the front of it has really detailed sculpture because that side represents Christ's birth and on the backside, it represents Christ's death and all the sculptures really blocky. So that sort of seemed odd. But I mean, I understand, like, I guess there's a logic behind it, but at the same time, it was really, it wasn't consistent. Like it was just seemed inconsistent and just odd. But all right, thank you. I find Gaudi to be the Dr. Seuss of architecture, right? All those buildings look like they could just have jumped out of a Dr. Seuss book with the, you know, winding weird stuff. And it's, but you know, it kind of puts a smile on your face. It's kind of weird. And when it's a residential building, I saw a few last time I was in Barcelona, residential building, it's like, this is stupid. But it's kind of, it's just like Dr. Seuss put smile on your head. It's kind of wacky. It's kind of crazy. But the cathedral is a cathedral. So it's, it's, you know, it connects all the things I don't like, I guess. But I will be, I will be spending, I think I'm hoping, I'm hoping that I will be spending next summer in Barcelona and not far from the cathedral, I think we're going to try to rent a place not far from there. And in that case, I'll probably see it more often. And I'll give you my impression after I, I've absorbed it more, whether I hate it more, whether I hate it less. Sounds good. Thank you. In the neighborhood where a number of the buildings have gaudy facades. So it would be, you know, I'm interested, I want to get invited to somebody who lives in one of those apartments. I'm curious what they look like in the inside. Maybe it's just the outside that looks Dr. Seuss and the inside, it's completely normal. That would be weird too, right? Because you expect some kind of reflection of one into the other, but I don't know. All right. Thanks, Ryan. Adam. Yes. In reading the general media, I very often come across the term oligarch to mean any rich person in the post-Soviet sphere. And they essentially don't distinguish between cronyists, between people who maintain monopolies by eliminating competitors using their organized crime gangs so that you try to compete with this guy you get killed. And then there are genuine entrepreneurs. And the one that comes to mind is Viktor Pinchuk, who is a doctorate in industrial engineering and patents on some of the fundamental technology for making modern gas pipelines. And Justice Freckin made natural gas more available. When people started building natural gas pipelines, he became very rich. So he's a genuine entrepreneur. And yet the media put them all into the category of oligarchs. I mean, I think there are two reasons for that, one more benevolent and one less. The benevolent one is it's really hard to tell in the sense that everything is so, the state is so involved that even somebody who seems like legitimate and engineer with patents, we don't know. I mean, I don't know at least how he got the company, how he maintained control over it, to what extent did he. So there's a lot of just unknowns. So they just lump them all, which is no excuse because they need to dig deeper. That's all it means. They are the media, after all. This is their job, is to better understand these things and to figure out who's who, they should dig deeper. But I think more fundamentally is, you know, most of the media is pretty antagonistic to business. And they think to a large extent, the billionaires in America are oligarchs. That is, they think that a lot of the entrepreneurs in America are really cony. And they can't really hold the concept of a true entrepreneur and what that really means. And they're hostile to wealth and they're hostile to success. So it's easy for them to draw everybody with the same brush. But I'm sure that there are many legit entrepreneurs in Russia, in Ukraine, and other parts of Eastern Europe, who are real entrepreneurs, who have innovated, who have built companies. And I'm pretty sure they still call them oligarchs. They don't take the time, the effort, the thought to figure out who's who. The other thing I wanted to mention, hiking does not need to be done in nature. I do my hiking in Palos Verdes, where there is some great architecture by Richard Neutra and other great architects. Of course, there are also some very ugly homes, like Medieval Mediterranean and so on. But the good ones certainly make the hikes in that area very enjoyable. One of the advantages of Los Angeles area broadly is there are some beautiful architectural, architecturally beautiful homes. In Orange County, you've got, in Laguna Beach, there's some beautiful homes. And then in Palos Verdes and up in the Hollywood Hills and even in the valley, you've got homes usually built back in the, you know, in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s that are really modern masterpieces. And Neutra is one of the great architects of the early 20th century. Thank you, Adam. Amlan. Yeah. So one of the things you mentioned in the past on a few shows is the difficulty in a rational society of having the role of government when it comes to children. Like at what point should government get involved? And yeah, there's the obvious stuff if you're like beating your kid with a shovel and stuff. But what about things like seatbelt laws and stuff like that? I mean, obviously for adults, that wouldn't be the case. But what about for children? Like where are you putting your kids in danger enough that the government should have a role? I mean, it's hard. But I think it has to be more than a seatbelt. That is, it has to be something where the danger is imminent, where the danger is not if I have an accident, this would be a bad. But where the danger is, no, they're falling and you're not, you know, or something's really, I don't know, you're giving them poison to eat. I, you know, something that's really clearly unequivocal, because otherwise it's too difficult. Otherwise it's too, there's too much gray area. When I was a kid, we never wore seatbelts. Yeah, we didn't have seatbelts. Cause didn't have them and even when they had never wore seatbelts. Do I think that's child abuse? No. You know, so no, I don't, I don't think so. It would have to be literally either the imminent, imminent danger or force or literally the parent using some kind of awful force. And even then, if a parent slaps a kid is that, you know, where's the limit? It has to be, it has to be violence that goes beyond short-term discipline or something like that. And these are not easy. I don't think these are easy questions. And I think the legal system will always struggle a little bit with how to deal with them. And it will always be a little messy. Yeah, yeah. And as you said earlier, I think insurance would play a role too. You know, if your car insurance company would say, well, okay, if you're not having your kids in a seat in a car seat, not going to enjoy it. Yeah, or you have to pay a lot more or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And you know, yeah, the day is going to come. It's not that far away where all of our cars are going to be driverless. Yeah. And they won't go anywhere until you put your seatbelt on. They just won't move. And that is not that far in the future. It's around the corner. And I think that's overall, people will object and resist it. But overall, it's going to increase safety dramatically and going to make life much more pleasant. Yeah. This is where somebody who likes to drive. Yeah, me too. In fact, I just did with my brother some time on the Autobahn last week. Nice. So that was fun in a BMW M4. I think there'll always be an opportunity for us to take an M4 out and do it so good somewhere. Yeah. There's money to be made by providing that. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you, Amman. Andrew. A sentence Ayn Rand said and wrote a lot was man is an end in himself. I asked Ankar Gatte what that meant to him. And I'm interested to hear what that means to you. Like, how do you interpret that? Well, I interpreted it as your life is at the end of the day, all the matters. It's the end of everything that you do. Interesting. You went in a different direction than Ankar. That doesn't surprise me. I was going to say, tell me what Ankar said, because he's probably right. I think you're both right. I mean, Ankar went more metaphysical with it. Yeah. I mean, he's a philosopher. I'm a finest guy. You went more, you went more with it, which, you know, it's interesting, but they're both complete sense given who Ankar is and given who I am. Okay. Cool. Good stuff. Thanks, Andrew. Sort of follow up on something Action Jackson said, so I was back in San Francisco about five weeks ago. And if you go by storefronts, things are bad. If you go by availability of Michelin restaurant reservations, things are good. Oh, so you could get into the Michelin restaurants? I don't know. There are, like, you want to go to like, or Saizan or whatever. Makes sense to me completely. Not available. As a fellow kind of store of high-end restaurants, I was curious as to how you got into wanting to deploy your resources in that way. I am chef. So we started watching I am chef years and years ago, the Japanese one. And it just got hooked. And it seemed like, wow, food can be so much more, right? Food can be this interesting thing. And it could become interesting. And it was actually a restaurant in the Bay Area. So we watched the I am chef US where the chef of Manresa, which is a restaurant in Palo Alto, no, not Palo Alto, in God, next to Saratoga. South of? No, south of Saratoga, just south of Saratoga. God, I can't believe I can't remember. Anyway, Manresa, he was there and he was doing tomatoes. He was doing some vegetable. And that was the secret ingredient of the I am chef. And it was like, wow, this looks so amazing. And we continued watching. And then we saw an ad somewhere that here in his restaurant was putting on whatever he did at the I am chef, he was going to do at his restaurant and you could reserve and go. And that was the first high-end restaurant I think we ever really went to was that to taste the meal that we'd seen on I am chef. And it was amazing. And it was amazing because the food was incredibly tasty. The whole ambience is cool. There's a certain entertainment value. And as we got more into it, some restaurants have take the entertainment value to even greater heights. And it's a whole experience. And suddenly you realize, yeah, you know, this is a way to gain both pleasure on a number of different dimensions. And it's something to do together. And it's romantic. And it's fun. And it's stimulating and pleasurable and interesting. And so, you know, we slowly started to get into it. And as we traveled, we would start looking for restaurants and, you know, we just snowballed from there. And now it's a major consumption item. Yeah, for me, it's also, you know how like it's really amazing to see other professionals are at the absolute top of their game, but like a lot of other avenues of life, like you can't experience like the actual output of what they're doing. And here it's not just the output. Some restaurants, if you sit at the chef's table, you can watch them make it. And that is just a blast. I mean, you know, anyway from Atelier de Job, Sean in Vegas, where you can sit at the counter. And it's beautiful. And it's just, it's just in the way they played everything and the way they do it all the way to another restaurant in Vegas. I don't know if it still exists. It used to be this small little restaurant by Jose Andre. It was just a, and they made the food in front of you with, and he does a lot of this molecular stuff. And it was just, it was just a blast. It was like a show, like a Vegas show. And it's like eight people and you sit there and they're cooking your food for you with smoke and mirrors. And it was, so anyway, it's, it's, and you get to see the precision and the thought that goes into every one of those dishes that really inspires it really inspires. Yeah, it's an expensive hobby. It's getting more expensive. Michelin star restaurants prices are just going up and up and up. I mean, one of my life hacks is other countries, Michelin restaurants, like every time I'm in South America, I'll hit as many of them as I can. I agree, because they're as good, if not better than almost anything you can find in Europe in the US and it's so much cheaper. They're like a third, right? So yeah, Lima and in Sao Paulo and Rio and the amazing restaurants in all these places. Yeah, we had dinner at Oro in Rio and I think it was near Oro. We, and we did it, we sat with the, with the chef. And I think like with the wine parents, like $300, like this is amazing. Could you even get one of these in New York? Oh, it's one of my, they've changed the menu originally before they changed the menu. They've changed the style of the restaurant a little bit, but the original Oro is one of our favorite restaurants anyway, certainly my favorite restaurant in Rio. I think we've eaten there three times now. So, yeah, it's, yeah, these are cool experiences and cool places. Yeah, I went to Morimoto's once in Philadelphia. Yeah, Morimoto's is amazing. I mean, that was one of the first ones that I kind of introduced him. Morimoto, of course, Japanese and then went to Peru. It was in Peru and kind of this combination of Japanese and South America. That's what really makes Morimoto so special. It's a lot of fun. It's a lot of fun. Yeah, and if you go in New York, I think you just, he's already opened it. Rosela now has a kind of a bar, a separate restaurant that is just a small, I don't know, eight, 10-seat thing. And you watch the chef make the food and it's all prefix. And so he just opened two weeks ago. So I'm looking forward to Jeffrey, who's sometimes on the chat, probably prepping tonight's meal right now, maybe listening. But yeah, I'm really looking forward to doing that as an opportunity. And you can talk objectively with the chef at the same time as you're eating the great food. Would you ever consider putting the list of all these places on your website, Europe? Yeah, sure. I mean, I've gone through so many different database apps and then the database expires and I can't access the data. So I can't remember all these places, but a lot of them I do. How much for a restaurant review? What's that? How much for a restaurant review? Well, I mean, it depends on the restaurant. My favorite restaurant in London now got its, I think it's second Michelin star and they hike the price. Now it's 300 pounds per person, 300 pounds per person. It used to be for 100 pounds. I would get exactly the same meal, that's before they had any Michelin stars. And then every time they get more recognition, the price goes up, which is completely legit and good for them. And it's wonderful. But it prices me out of going to the restaurant. I'm actually looking for a new favorite in London. So it depends, right? If it's a 300 pound restaurant, the review would have to be 300 pounds. I just think you should broaden your scope of reviews. Like people could send you on hikes for a certain amount of money. There's a lot of experiences. Oh, you know me. I'm pretty much willing to do anything for the money. Make me an offer. Let's do it that way, right? Make me an offer. I can't refuse. All right, Apollo Zoo says the wood exotic has come under attack opinion. Obviously, I think that's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with the world exotic. Exotic is different, something different from different geography, different culture than where you are. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a positive wood, not a negative wood. Action Jackson says what is the price for a custom pole? Interesting. I don't know. Let's make something up. First of all, I have to approve of it, but let's make it $100 for a custom pole. And then Action Justin says bumping up that amount for my last $5 to equal 20. All right, sounds good. Thanks, Action Jackson. Thanks to our panelists. I really appreciate it. Good set of questions. And thanks to all the superchatters. I will be back. The plan right now is that I'll be back on Monday in the afternoon. I'll be central time. So maybe three, four, five o'clock central time. So three, four, five o'clock eastern time. It won't be five o'clock central time. I will see you all then. Have a great rest of your weekend. You're on. Just a really quick question. I checked on your website. I didn't see the dates for your speaking engagements. Will they be there or? They will. I'm hoping they'll be up in the next few days. I think they're finalizing everything now so that we can put them off. Okay. Because if we can make it work, I'd love to see you in one day grow. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Bye, everyone.