 The 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 Thursday, July 13th, everybody. It's having a fantastic week. Are you guys all enjoying yourselves? Doing productive work and stuff. All right, today we are going to cover a wide array of stories. This will be, I think, a fairly brief show. We're going to talk about NATO. We're going to talk about Elizabeth Wan and JD Vance. Chips, i.e. microchips. Not the potato chips kind, but the microchip kind. Some hacking and Taka, Taka Carlson. Let's see. Reminder, we have, of course, oh, you haven't started this. Let me start this. We have fundraising goals. We have a target for every one of our shows. We try to meet those targets. That's how we fund The Iran Book Show. Of course, the best way to support The Iran Book Show is through monthly contributions. You can do so on Patreon or on PayPal at youranbrookshow.com. Last support, Robert. Thank you. Thank you. Robert's already got us going with some support right at the beginning of the show here, which for some reason is not being captured by my software, but we're good. So what else do we want to say before we get going? Nothing much except those of you on Twitter. Wow. I mean, the nuttiness and says, if I asked someone to dinner, should I pay? This is related to Twitter. So Tom Woods came out with a tweet an hour ago saying that I've invited someone to dinner repeatedly and never offered to pay, never even considered paying. I have no idea what he's talking about. Literally no idea what he's talking about. I don't think I've ever invited Tom Woods to dinner. So I'm pretty sure I've never met Tom. Maybe I have long, long time ago, but I don't think I've ever met him. I don't think I've ever invited him to dinner. But it is causing quite a stir on Twitter. This is the kind of stuff people get excited about. So I don't think I've ever been to dinner with Tom Woods. I don't think he would come to dinner with me. I'm a bloodthirsty maniac. Somebody else telling the story. Who do I know that has gone to dinner with Tom Woods? Who would tell him a story like this? I have no idea. But let me reassure you, Ann, because I know you care so deeply and are concerned that I, wow, I always offer to pay dinner. I always offer to pay for dinner. Certainly if I invite somebody to dinner, I always offer. At most, I offer to split the bill. The idea that I wouldn't do that. Again, assuming I was invited, I invited usually when somebody invites me, I offer to pay the bill. Some relationships, one assumes that after a while. Anyway, I mean, all kinds of relationships have their own dynamic after a while. But this is like nuts. Where's this even coming from? Who is he talking about? Anyway, I find it funny that Tom Woods, who is this famous Ann Cap, not anti-American moral subjectivist, I have no idea where this comes from. I can't think of who I know in common. He's friendly with Michael Malus. He's Mises Institute, Tom Woods, not Tim Woods. Mises Institute, Economist, Podcaster. He's following, and he has a very big following, and he has a big following on Twitter. And he's decided to take me on, I guess, in some superficial stupid way. But I'm really, you know, he's got me thinking about who I've gone to dinner with, who would tell him a story like that about me. I can think of one person, but I can't think of that actually being true about that one person. So, I don't know. If any of you find out, who is telling Tom Wood that I never offered to pay for dinner, I'm just at this point kind of curious. I'm sure the curiosity will die by tomorrow, but I'm kind of curious because I don't like it when people lie about me or take things out of context. That's kind of sleazy. And the other question is, why is Tom even bringing this up? What's the context? Where does this come from? Sleazy comes to mind, underhanded? I don't know. And of course, I'm not going to engage with him on Twitter. All right, but let's get to the news. So, yes, I want to make this one more point about Sweden joining NATO because this is, I think, a big deal, which I don't think is played enough, is discussed enough in the media and among strategic analysts. Russia is a country that has limited access to the Atlantic Ocean. It is a country with ambitions, with global ambitions. It's a country that has a large navy and has global ambitions with regard to that navy. And yet it has limited access to the Atlantic Ocean. We'll talk about the Pacific Ocean in a minute. It has basically two points of entry. One is through the Black Sea, and then it has to pass through straits that are controlled 100% by Turkey, Turkey being a NATO member, that's right. And then it has to go through the Mediterranean, Mediterranean having its entire northern shore controlled by NATO members, and then pass through the Straits of Gibraltar controlled by, to some extent, at least a NATO member, and only then go into the Atlantic Ocean. That's one. I guess there's a third path. So the second path, the second path is, in a season where the Arctic Ocean is not frozen, it can come in from the north. It can come in from its northern bases on the Arctic Ocean and come in from the north through the northern Atlantic. But that's difficult in winter, often impossible. But one of the main ways in which it enters the Atlantic is through the Baltic Sea. So let's look at a map of the Baltic Sea. So here you see a map of the Baltic Sea. And you can see that Russia has two basic entry points into the Baltic Sea. One from the St. Petersburg area through the Gulf of Finland, it can travel, its navy can travel into the Baltic Sea, and then from the Baltic Sea through the gap between Denmark and Sweden, it can travel into the Atlantic. The other place is Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a little island, not an island literally surrounded by sea, but a little island in the sense that it's not connected to the rest of Russia, but it is part of Russia, which sits between Poland and Lithuania. Poland and Lithuania, so it's completely isolated and the Russians have a significant port there, and that port again allows them access into the Baltic Sea and out into the North Sea, which is ultimately the path to the Atlantic Ocean. Notice what happens when Finland and Sweden join NATO. I mean, basically the Baltic Sea becomes what some people are calling a NATO lake. I mean, the Russian fleet can be completely blocked by the Swedes near Copenhagen there. It can be, you know, the Gulf of Finland can be completely controlled by Finland and Estonia, where you see Helsinki and Thailand on the other side completely blocking it. I mean, basically the Russians are completely isolated from the Atlantic Ocean through the Baltic Sea and indeed completely isolated in the Baltic Sea itself a massive strategically important place for them. Now, you know, Sweden, the importance of Sweden joining not only the Sweden produce, I've said this many times, produce military equipment, but Sweden has a significant submarine fleet which basically controls the Baltic Sea. Now Sweden is a part of NATO. In other words, NATO has a submarine fleet controlling the Baltic Sea. No way it controls the Norwegian Sea, which would be the access from the Baltic Circle. Turkey controls access to the Black Sea. Basically, if NATO wanted to, NATO could cut Russia off completely with very little effort from the Atlantic Ocean. And this is a major strategic issue. It's a major strategic advantage NATO has over Russia. And this kind of sets Russia back in terms of any kind of ambitions that they have to be a global power, any kind of ambitions that they have to exert influence outside of Russia, particularly exert influence on Europe, but even to get somewhere like Africa is not easy for them, not easy for them. At least by sea. So, I've said this so many times, but it bears repeating. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is massive, massive. It is a strategic defeat for Putin, a massive strategic defeat for Putin. Now I want you to show you one other map, and this is a map, whoops, close that. I don't know what the hell that is. This is a map. I did not intend to do that, sorry. This is a map of Russia. And you can see that the scale of Russia is in a massive country. And you can see that it has access, obviously to the Arctic Ocean, but that's a very difficult place to access and often frozen over. And in order to get to the Atlantic, they would have to go along the Norwegian coast, so Norway has access to it. On the other side, they would have to go by Alaska, which is difficult. But really, the other access Russia has is to the Pacific, and it has a very extensive shoreline on the Pacific. But this is the challenge that the Russians have on the Pacific side. That area is mostly empty. Russia's population centers, industry centers are all in the West, not in the East. They're all Moscow, St. Petersburg. That kind of area, not way out in the Eastern Russia in Siberia. There's very little there. So yes, Russia has this lengthy Pacific coast. Not much they can do with it. In addition, you know, Russia's foot was with Japan and lost. And the real power when you look at the Pacific coast is not Russia. The real power, if you look at Asia here, this part of Northern and Eastern Asia is not Russia, as much as the Russians would like to believe it is. But the real power here is China. And indeed, if you are in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan or any of the stands, and you have an historical alliance with Russia, an historical connection with Russia, because they occupied you when they were the USSR and maybe occupied you during the Russian Empire, now, when you look at Putin, when you look at Russia, when you look at the failure, when you look at NATO growing, when you look at everything else, who are you more likely to align with? A dying empire? A dying geopolitical force, Russia, which can offer you very little or relatively, certainly relatively to Russia, a dynamic, thriving economy which wants to trade extensively with you even if you have to give up a little bit of sovereignty which is China. Kazakhstan is much more likely to move in the direction of being under the influence of China than returning to the influence of Russia. Basically, what Putin has done in a very, very short period of time is he has weakened Russia so much he has, you know, basically killed any kind of Russian ambition in terms of any kind of geopolitical ambitions that the Russians might have. It's finished. It's over. There is nothing. China doesn't trust Putin. China has no interest in Putin. China is aligned with Russia only to the extent that it gets some cheap oil and cheap natural gas only to the extent that it gets them there. China knows and believes that it's fossil period to anything China has to offer. China believes that it's the future. Russia is the distant past. The real force in Asia is China, maybe India. Russia is in decline. And it's always been in decline. It's been declined since the fall of the USSR in the direction of power. But what Putin has done is he's accelerated the visibility of that. He's accelerated our awareness of that. The world now knows. And you can see it, by the way, one of the elements of this is India. The India Modi is traveling around the world. He's just in France now buying weapons systems from everybody except the Russians. Except the Russians. All right. Just wanted to... I thought that particularly the picture of the Baltic Sea is, I thought, so illuminating in terms of the strategic disaster that Putin has created for Russia militarily. All right. Some quick stories. Found this story on political... It's a little old, but it kind of reinforces the kind of stuff that I've been saying for a while. The new power couple taking on Wall Street, the new power couple taking on business in Washington, D.C. is J.D. Vance and Elizabeth Warren. Indeed, it's turned out that J.D. Vance finds much in common, not only with Elizabeth Warren but with Dick Durbin, the Democrat from Illinois. But this is consistent with... Remember, we talked about the fact that Tucker Carlson praised Elizabeth Warren's economic proposals when she was running for president. J.D. Vance is very much along the line of populist Republicans, populist economic policies, anti-Wall Street, anti-big business policies. So part of the things that he wants is banks that go bankrupt, clawing back CEO salary. He's sponsored a bill with Elizabeth Warren to do that. He wants to stop bank mergers. He's with a bill with everybody else. And with Democrats, with a bunch of Democrats. Another few bills that Democrats support, that J.D. Vance is on top. I mean, this is your new right. Your new right is socially super-conservative, fiscally super-leftist, fiscally business-wise, antitrust-wise, regulatory-wise super-left. The new right is basically the worst of all worlds. I don't know where the virtue is, where the benefit is. Where's the overlap where we are allies in some way? On what? What are we allies on? All right. That was a quick one. Let's see. Yeah, chips. So as you know, we've talked about this a lot. I consider the chip industry maybe the second most important industry out there right now in terms of importance to the global economy, second only probably to the energy industry. Scott said J.D. Vance is better than Juan. Of course he is. He's better than her on abortion. Oh, no, he's not. He's worse than her on abortion. He's better than her on, I don't know, state-religion issues. Oh, no, no. He's much worse than Elizabeth Juan on state and religion issues. He's better than her on economic issues. Well, he's exactly where she is on many of them. And he's a little better than her on some, I'm sure. But he's exactly where she is on others. And in a lot of issues, he's much worse than her, social issues. So how is he better than Elizabeth Juan? Elizabeth Juan is like the worst of the worst. And how is he better than Elizabeth Juan? He's a Republican. He's part of Scott's tribe. It's part of Scott's tribe. All right. So the chip industry is super important. Biden, together with significant Republican support, passed legislation called the Chip Act, which involves massive subsidies for chip companies to build chips in this country, in the United States. And these companies are in the process of building those chips. So that's one side of kind of the chip issue. The other is there's a concerted effort to restrict sophisticated chips, high-end chips from China. So chips that can be used in military projects, chips that are the state of the art, the latest state of the art, there's now a boycott, a boycott of selling those chips to Russia. It's a boycott that not only the United States is participating in, but so is many of the European countries, particularly the Netherlands, where ASML, the chip products, the chip equipment manufacturing is produced, and Japan in South Korea. So there is a real restriction. China is really being squeezed in terms of high-end chips. So a number of things going on. One, yeah, you can see China is really hooding. China has its electronics industry is in decline. In terms of military uses, they are having to use older design chips, chips that are far less sophisticated than the latest chips. They also engaged massively in trying to smuggle chips into China. So there is a significant effort by the Chinese government and by Chinese businesses and by Chinese crime syndicates to try to steal chips, sophisticated, the most sophisticated chips, and get them into China. You can get a lot of money for the highest best chips right now in China. At the same time, China is pouring doodles of money, huge quantities of money into its own chip manufacturing plants. They are producing lots of chips, not the high-end chips because they can't, but they are producing a lot of the medium to low-end chips, huge amounts of investment. They are also trying to invest in trying to mimic the West's ability to produce the high-end chips. So they are trying to create their own ASML in terms of typical manufacturers. This is China's number one industrial strategic goal, is to try to create a domestic chip industry to compete with the West. And likely to be successful, I have to say. The sophistication, the kind of supply chain that you would have to put together, the kind of expertise that you would have to get put together, very unlikely to do it within one country, even a country as big and with as much talent as China has. It's going to take them a decade or two to catch up, and by the time they catch up, they'll be a decade or two behind. They cannot build, they cannot copy, they cannot copy because they cannot build equipment to copy. The reality is, I've talked about this in the past, to make the kind of ultra-UV light equipment that ASML makes, you have to have the best mirrors in the world, the best mirrors in the world are made in Germany, and those German companies are not selling them to China. And there's just nobody in the world right now who can make that quality mirror, other than those companies in Germany. For China to build a mirror industry that can match the mirror industry that Germany has, that German companies have been refining for 100 years, will take them a long time. Lasers, the leading laser companies in the world in California, US-based, China just doesn't have that technology. They would have to copy us in laser technology. It's going to take them years, if not decades, to catch up on laser technology. Of course those are years and decades in which companies in the United States improve their own processes. Companies in Germany make even better mirrors. ASML is working on the next generation of ultra-UV lighting that's going to take the chips another decade into the future, several decades into the future. So China just can't catch up. So that's one point. The second point is, Biden is traveling around the country pitching his Biden economics, Biden economics, we're building manufacturing. And I showed you that, yeah, it's working in a sense that there's a ton of building of manufacturing plants going on in the United States. Almost all of them being subsidized in one way or another by the federal government. The problem is that when it comes to chips, these are all relatively trivial. And it's not clear that any of these factories will actually open. It's not clear that these factories will actually produce the full capacity. There's still problems of labor and costs and everything else that is associated, the lack of labor that's associated with building these things in the United States. On the other hand, there is significant chip development and chip manufacturing going on and new plants and new projects being done in Europe. There are substantial new projects being done in Japan and in South Korea. The United States is never going to become a chip manufacturing powerhouse. It's where most chips are designed. It's where the design, the software to design chips is produced. But the tools to make chips, Japan and the Netherlands, real chip production, South Korea, Taiwan, and maybe to some extent Japan, European Union and the US. But this idea that the government throwing a few tens of billions of dollars to Intel into some other countries, other companies is going to suddenly create a renaissance in chip production in the United States. It's just in happening, right? In Intel, while it's investing 20 billion in Arizona and 2 billion in Ohio, it's also investing 30 billion in a new wafer facilities in Germany. It's putting an assembly plant in Poland and it's spending 4.6 billion there. And I didn't know this, but this is quite stunning. Intel is investing 25 billion dollars more than they're investing in the US, in Israel. Which is more than Intel has invested in Israel since it started investing in Israel. So it's entire history of investing in Israel. I don't know if you know, but I was the construction manager on Intel's first clean room on its headquarters in Israel in the 1980s. We built the first Intel facility in Israel where they had a clean room. We built that building still standing outside of Haifa in Israel. And it's been investing in Israel since 1974. And it's going to be investing 25 billion dollars in the next few years in Israel. So as much as these companies are investing in the US, it's peanuts. And you know, manufacturing is not coming back even if you pour subsidies into it. It doesn't make sense to be here. Partially because we don't have the labor force, particularly if we don't reform our immigration system. We're not going to have the labor force to be able to do it. All right, there's a story this morning about Chinese hackers hacking into the US government email accounts. Pretty amazing that the stuff is happening. I mean, I guess it's not amazing it's happening. What's amazing is we let it happen. What's amazing to me is there's no retaliation or at least none that we are aware of, that we don't make it very, very clear to the Chinese government, and to the Russian government, the other big major international hacker, that this is unacceptable, that this is basically an act of war, and that we will retaliate in ways that will disrupt everything their entire life, their entire world. That we will not just let this happen. So, yeah, I mean, China hacking our government and us just shrugging, or I don't know, the NSA ramping up its ability to protect government emails, but not retaliating in ways that the whole world would see, so that nobody would dare hack us again. That's a pathetic farm policy. And that's American weakness. That's America being a paper tiger. That's not standing up for ourselves. And it's sad, but this has been the American stance for years. All right, we are running out of time, so let's quickly do this last one. Taka, I think this Friday, I think tomorrow, is having a candidate, you know, hosting a candidate round table or candidate conference out in Iowa, where the first presidential primary will be held. Iowa caucuses in January of next year. Everybody's going to be there, I guess, except Trump. Why would Trump go? He's leading by such a margin. And why would Trump put himself through an interview by Taka Carlson? Taka might actually ask him why the wall isn't built, and why some of his, why he supported trans when he was president, all the stuff that, you know, what's his name, is making a big dissent, is making a big deal out of. But Taka is the kingmaker within the Republican Party, it looks like, which is a very, very, very sad testament to the Republican Party. I mean, Taka just published his big thing, was just published an hour and a half interview with Tate. This is, this is Taka's, Taka's this is now a guide to the Republican Party, and yet the Republican Party, a conservative party, a party concerned with conservative traditional values, is a party that endorses the Tate brothers. I mean, that to me is bizarre and crazy, just suggests a low the Republican Party and the Republican Party is sunk, and those who support the Republican Party are sunk. I mean, these people are going to be at this Iowa thing, all evangelicals, and Taka is appealing to evangelicals, and evangelicals are somehow on the same bandwagon as Andrew Tate. These are their values, this is what they believe in. I just find that stunning. Now, I guess he's a sinner or a sinner, so it's okay, but he's anti-left. Cool. Well, four, as long as you're anti-left, you're good. Just, you know, we saw this with the fact that the evangelicals support a Trump, and Trump being exactly, you know, in many regards, the opposite, but in many regards, the same as the evangelical approach to so much, but the same in terms of both authoritarian mentality, both have an authoritarian epistemology, both view the world through an authoritarian lens, and that is what unites Taka, Tate, and the modern Republican Party. It's basically the interest and willingness and desire to impose your values and everybody else by through coercion. So, yes, we're going to be talking a lot about elections, and Taka, and DeSantis, and Trump, and it's going to be very depressing. I mean, every time I see this, it's so depressing. The people defending Andrew Tate, the people defending the right, like Scott, who says it's better to be anti-left than not anti-left, which is just disgusting. You know, yeah, let's get in with anybody who's anti-left. Hitler was anti-left. Isn't that how Hitler came to power? Basically, as an anti-left candidate. God help us from allies like that. And, all right, let's answer some questions. We've got a few. DigiGbis says, off topic, should the Parthenon marble return to Greece? What's the objective to you and the ownership of artifacts and the responsibility of archaeologists to the country's cultures from which the artifacts are excavated? I mean, the challenge here is that the land is not private land. If the land was private land, then it belongs to the private land owner. This is land because it's not privately owned. Then the discoverer of artifacts on that land owns the artifacts. So to me, the archaeologists are the ones that own it. Greece, as a country, doesn't own anything. You know, and the private owner, and if Greece wants to buy it from the archaeologist or buy it from the British Museum, where the archaeologist in this case donated it to the British Museum or gave it to the British Museum or sold it, I don't even know. But no, the archaeologists who discovered this stuff, if they stole it, if there was clear ownership and they stole it, but if they dug into the ground and found stuff and that ground was called publicly owned, then it's theirs. It's nobody else's. There's no, you know, link, mystical link between artifacts and the land in which they were discovered or the land in which they were originally made. So, no. All right. I, you know, I despise Tucker Carlson for what it's worth. Yes, there's a question about Tucker. I follow Tucker on Twitter, JJJGree says. Because I'm curious. I agree with you about him, but I understand why people follow him. I can't take my eyes off of it. He is an effective surface, maybe, but no doubt effective. I guess so, but I think the effectiveness comes from figuring out how to appeal to a mindless audience. Because I'm sorry, but his audience is mindless. I watch him and I can't stand more than two minutes of it. I have to turn it off. I find his blatant lies, his manipulation, his attempts at deception, his just lying and making stuff up and distorting about reality just absurd and ridiculous. I have the same feeling about many of the people in MSNBC and like that, but he is so blatantly unconnected to reality that I can't stand watching him. Now I'm going to watch the Andrew Tate debate, not debate interview, because there's a bigger cultural issue here, so I have to. But if I could never, if I never watch anything by, I find, you know, once in a while I'll do a clip for you guys, but I can't watch him over time. I find him super arrogant and I don't think he's ignorant. I think he is purposefully lying. I think he knows. I think he understands. He has gotten himself to the point where he is the philosopher king and he knows what's good for you. Plus he knows what's good for him in terms of the money. He'll say anything. Whether it's factual or not is irrelevant. He is completely purposefully, consciously in my view, divorced himself from reality. And yeah, once in a while he's going to be right, because when he points out the craziness of the left, yeah, he'll be right in pointing it out, not in explaining it, because he can't explain it. Okay, Mike says, sometimes we could have Amish adulteration back on again. I would like to ask him if the government has changed its way of doing business at all after COVID and also if COVID was finally proven that AIDS is not caused by a virus. Why is, what's the relationship between COVID and AIDS in terms of proving that it was not caused by a virus? I think it's pretty well established and unequivocal that AIDS is caused by a virus. So I'm not sure about all that. Yes, Amish will be on next Thursday, a week from today. He'll be on next Thursday. So yeah, I'm sure a lot of you have questions. Prepare all your questions for Amish. We'll be talking to him. And if you want to talk about AIDS or COVID or relationship between them or anything like that, the government, of course, all of that, the Amish will be on. Let me just check the calendar so I don't give you information, but I did see it when I was cruising through my calendar. Yes, Amish will be on next Thursday. He'll be on. All right, we are way off the target. Come on, guys. Yeah, we're not getting huge live audiences because I'm doing these shows earlier. I think later in the day we'll get bigger audiences. But still, if everybody listening around does $3, we make it. So please consider doing a sticker for 3, 5, 10, 20, 100, and see if we can get us closer to the show. Don't forget to like the show before you leave. But please, if you can afford it and if you find value for value, please consider making a contribution towards funding the news roundup shows. Andrew says, Rand said both parties were socialist in the 1950s, worse now. And though Republicans are for some economic freedom, some Republicans in some areas, their controls are advertised as capitalism makes their economic program more dangerous in some ways. I agree completely. Their fascist views, which is basically what they are in economics because they want to control, that gets connected and their conyism, that gets connected to capitalism because they promote it as if it's capitalism. And because of that, capitalism gets tainted with republicanism or conservatism. And that is very, very bad for all of us. All right. Frank says, you like Russian movies Einstein, Tarkovsky. I can't say I really like Russian movies. I appreciate the artistry. I appreciate what Eisenstein did for his innovations and for movies back then, Tarkovsky. So I appreciate that. I can't say that I enjoy the movies, but I have an appreciation for the contribution that they made. Ryan says, Finland should build a land bridge to Estonia. And yeah, I mean, Finland Helsinki, they should have a bridge at the very least. But I'm not sure, Ryan, you can afford to fund a land bridge. That stuff is expensive. Thank you, John. That's amazing. John did $20 with a sticker. You too can do a sticker. We're down to just $2 a person and we can make the goal. Daniel says, Tom, we're just still ranting about you. I noticed that. I don't know exactly what the motivation is other than he likes to rant. And I pissed him off in some way. And it goes deeper than just what I said about him. But he's telling stories about me that I'm curious of the origin because I have no idea what he's talking about. Ryan says, $10 for watching the Tate Carlson interview so we don't have to. Yeah, I'm going to watch it. I'm not looking forward to watching it. And I despise Taka and I despise Andrew Tate. But given the millions of people now have watched this interview, I'm curious. I'm curious what is actually being said and how it's handled. God. So those interested in what's his name in Tom Woods, you can find it all on Twitter. His engagement all on Twitter. I'm not firing back to Tom Woods on Twitter. He doesn't deserve it. Let him rant away. I'll use my platform. This is my platform to say what I want to say. Everybody thanks tonight. Don't forget tonight. We've got Jim Lennox. Jim Lennox is a philosopher of science and an expert on the philosophy of science vis-a-vis evolution. Darwin. Also an Aristotelian scholar. We're going to talk about the connection between Aristotle and Aristotelian scholarship. And I ran. We're going to talk about his career in academia as a philosopher of science. He is now retired or semi-retired. We'll talk about evolution. We might talk a little bit at least in broad strokes of evolutionary psychology. So if you have any questions about that, if you have any thoughts about biology, evolution, philosophy of science, but particularly on the side of biology, if you have any questions, I might ask him some stuff on bioethics. I'm interested to know his thoughts there. So yeah. Join us. I think it's going to be a really fascinating conversation. I don't think many of you know Jim Lennox. So he's spoken at a few Alcons, but I don't think many people know him. So I think this would be a good conversation and a good opportunity for you to ask the kind of biology-slash-philosophy questions you might have. And I find biology of all the sciences the one most interesting and in many respects most relevant because I'm a biological entity and it's super relevant to my life. So evolution is really interesting. And there's a lot of misconceptions about evolution. So feel free to jump in and join us. Tonight, 8 p.m. East Coast time. Lewis just came in with a question. Do you think any rant was wrong? Do you think Ayn Rand, I assume, was wrong to not compromise on having Atlas Shrug movie made by the producer of The Godfather? I don't know. I really don't know because I wasn't there and I don't know the details and what we really have is just his side of the story and I don't know what hers was. And so no reason for me to think she was wrong, but I just don't know. Obviously he's a good producer and it would have been better than the movies made now. But whether he would have done it justice or not I've no way of knowing, right? Jeff, he says, come back to New York. New restaurant opening eight seats. New restaurant opening. All right, send me, can you send me an email? I'll be in New York in September. Will they be opened by then? September, middle of September. I'll have my wife with me. Let's talk. I'm eager, eager, eager to come. I was actually going to write you an email about a new restaurant with eight seats. Sounds super interesting. So, yeah. All right, Jeff, send me an email. And some off topic. I sent you some mildly organized information and arguments about non-proliferation. I'd like to confirm that you received it. And I'm wondering if you want anything more from me or a thought on it. I did receive it, skimmed it. I intend to read it more seriously and comment on it maybe on the show. So thank you. I really, really appreciate the effort. So I will promise to get back to you on it probably on the show, some future episodes. But I'm just swamped right now. But I will get to it. I've got these long lists of emails that I have not responded to. They're all flagged. They're all there waiting for me to get engaged with. And that will happen. All right. All right. Jeff, he says it's opening in August. I am excited. Cool. Very cool. All right, guys. We chipped a little into the deficit, but we didn't quite make the goal, but we chipped away at it. I see we've got some additional people just joined. So if anybody wants to do some stickers quickly to get us through the top, that would be great. All right. I will see you all tonight. Jim Lennox, philosophy of science, biology, evolution, maybe even evolutionist psychology, stuff like this, come over, bring questions. Bring questions that quality, the scope of the show will be determined by you. Aristotle. We'll talk a lot about Aristotle. His connection to Iron Man. All fun, interesting stuff that we haven't talked about before, come on over, and it should be a great conversation. Bye, everybody.