 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. Welcome back. I'm back. Hopefully you had a great weekend. Had a lousy weekend. I was going to swear that I got stuck on an airplane. They took off, and then in like a half an hour in decided that there was something wrong, turned around, landed back at the airport, which screwed up my entire day, of course, couldn't get home. Had to wait at the airport for hours and hours and hours. Finally got a flight to Charlotte. But there were no flights from Charlotte home anymore. So I had to fly to Philadelphia, spend the night in a Philadelphia hotel, and then fly home Sunday morning. So basically, I spent all day Saturday, half a day Sunday at airports and flying. And so it was not a bold problem in this case. The door did not fly off. But who knows what would have happened later on in the flight if the pilot hadn't turned it around and returned and returned to Denver. Anyway, other than that was a great trip to Denver. I'm happy to meet a lot of you, or some of you, at the Denver event on Friday. It's too bad I just couldn't get home. Right after that, which is what the plan was. Anyway, it is what it is. And we're off and going. Good news roundup. All right, so really a cornerstone of economic progress, of economic prosperity is trade. Trade allows for specialization. It allows for all of us to benefit from the productive abilities of 8 billion people on planet Earth. It allows for the state of living. We have this trade between individuals, but of course, trade globally between individuals. Trade is the most important feature of the world economy over the last 200 years. Freedom within countries and then trade globally, which has allowed the kind of increase in wealth that we have experienced and that we are experiencing today. And it is responsible for much of the quality and standard of living that we have today. 80% of the trade that is done internationally by volume and 50% of the value of trade travels on boats, mainly 105,000 container ships, tankers, freight vessels that are out in the ocean pretty much all the time. The trade routes that make it possible for this trade to happen exist because of certain geopolitical realities. The first wave of globalization that hit the world in the 19th century was basically made possible and protected by the British fleet. It is the Britain who kept the sea lanes open that allowed for trade throughout the world, the spices from Asia to put aside colonialism, without colonialism. It is what allowed trade to become global. The opening of the Suez Canal was a major feat and a major shortcut from Asia to Europe. There's only so much you can carry by camel. There's only so much you can carry in trucks and railroads from Asia to Europe. You can't do either of those to get to the United States without shipping global trade grains to a halt. A standard of living quality of life collapses. And I'm not exaggerating, collapses. We become much poorer, all of us. In the 19th century, it was the British Navy that kept this trade moving. In the 20th century and into the 21st century, it has been the American Navy that has kept these ships and these moving and these trade routes open. Certainly, since World War II, the United States has been the dominant naval power in the world and its mission. This is why we have a fleet in Asia. We have a fleet in the Mediterranean. We have a fleet in the Arabian Sea. Its mission is to keep the trade routes open, to facilitate this trade. But as America has gotten weaker, as other countries like Russia and China have become much more willing to challenge America because of its weakness, not because of its weakness on the seas, not because of its military weakness, not because of the weakness of its weapons, but because of the weakness of our will to engage that fleet, those weapons, to engage in defending those sea lanes. I mean, it took years to clean up the mess of Somali pirates when it was 20 years ago. It shouldn't have been long at all. It should have been trivial. It was less than 20 years ago, maybe 10, 15 years ago. America has been tested more and more and viewed more and more as a paper tiger. And you're seeing this. You're seeing this all over the world, really. Right now, in the headlines, of course, are the Houthis basically closing down the Red Sea and passage towards the Suez Canal. We're seeing, though, that is not the only hotspot in terms of global trade. The Black Sea, an important shipping route, particularly from Ukraine and Russian ports out towards parts of Europe and to Africa and to the rest of the world, is basically a battle zone filled with mines and battleships. The Baltic Sea, this would be north of Germany and Poland, west of Lithuania, Latvia. The Baltic Sea now is kind of a shadowy place. It's, of course, filled with pipelines and cables and a bunch of different powers are struggling to dominate the area and to figure out what to do. And, of course, Asia. Right now, off the coast of China, in the waters of the China Sea, in the Western Pacific, you're seeing one of the largest concentrations of navies we have seen certainly since World War II. Not only are the Chinese deploying more and more ships, a bigger and bigger navy, but the United States is deploying significant forces. China is trying to intimidate Taiwan. We get to the Taiwanese election in a minute. Trying to intimidate the Philippines, trying to intimidate all its neighbors. And the United States is there to say, uh-uh, we're not going to allow you to dominate the space and to strangle global trade. Indeed, a second carrier group just left San Diego, heading towards Western Pacific, unscheduled. This was not a scheduled send. So America is amassing naval troops off the coast of China, one could say. I don't think certainly since the end of the Cold War, but maybe even pre-Cold War as they have been so much tension across the world in the oceans of the world. Now, I've been talking about this for a long time. I've been saying for the past couple of years, I think that the United States better be investing in its navy. It better be improving its naval capabilities. It better be increasing its capacity both to deploy forces on the sea, but also to defend them against missiles, anti-ship missiles, and the likes. Whether that happens or not, we will see. The United States is still behind in deploying the latest class of aircraft carrier. We've only got one of the new class out there, the Ford, two others. But one should be deployed sometime in 2025. I'm not sure what the next one is going to be deployed. We'll get the DEI. DEI is not affecting the US Navy. What's affecting the US Navy is a lack of political commitment, the fact that our shipbuilders and so on in our procurement offices in the military are incompetent, and therefore drive budgets through the roof. There's probably a lot of corruption going on. And of course, what really is lacking is political will from the top. And our inability to deploy those forces, and really the class case right now is with the Houthis. The Houthis, of course, have closed the Red Sea in solidarity with the Palestinians as if they care. Because nothing you do with solidarity with the Palestinians, it has everything to do with the joint shared common hatred of Israel. And a sense by the Houthis, by the Iranian overlords, that they can get away with it. But they can do whatever they want in this world because America is weak and will get to. Even Israel, maybe, is weak. We'll get to that in a minute. And therefore, they can stop shipping. They can close the Suez Canal. They can close the Red Sea. And nobody will do anything about it. On Thursday and over the weekend, the United States and Britain responded militarily after weeks, weeks of doing nothing other than shooting missiles out of the sky, but doing nothing in terms of actually taking out, responding militarily in an offensive way to the Houthis. They took out some of their capabilities to launch missiles. But it was a pinprick. The Houthis don't have much military capabilities. They are a weak opponent. I wouldn't want to put troops on the ground because they're pretty good at guerrilla welfare, if you will. But in terms of actually missile projection, rockets, launching attacks against boats, they are weak. The United States not only has the capacity to shoot the missiles out of the air, but they have even the capacity to, from the air, destroy completely the Houthis' capability of launching anything. All that's needed is the will to use that capability, the Americans' capability, to destroy the Houthis. But all we did was a half measure, a pinprick, something insignificant. It won't make much difference. It's the same thing every president has done for the last 40 years. Nothing substantial. Nothing regarding the real threat. Remember, the Houthis just get their orders from the Iranians. The Iranians are scot-free. We do nothing to them. The next few days, we'll see how the Houthis respond to the US attack. We'll see if the US continues to attack. We'll see if the Iranians want to engage further. Generally, generally, I think it's important to note, the Iranians don't want a war with the United States. They know exactly what the outcome of that will be. Just like Khisbalah in the north, in Israel doesn't want a war with Israel. They know exactly what the outcome would be. What they want is to bug Israel. What they want is to kill here, kill there. What they want is to distract from the war in Gaza. What they want is to show that they can kill Israelis with impunity. What they don't want is a full-fledged war, which is exactly what Israel is not giving them, which is a massive strategic mistake. Iran doesn't want a full-fledged war with the United States. They want to obstruct their operations in Iraq. They want to kill as many Americans as they can in Syria. They want to injure as many troops as they can. They want to stop the shipping lanes. They want to obstruct and interfere and bug and harass and show the world how weak America is. But what they don't want is a war. And they know America is not going to give them all because they've been doing this for a long time. They know America will not give them a war. They were killing Americans during the Trump administration. Trump killed Soleimani. Great. Iran can handle that. That's not going to change their global plans. Did anybody go to war with Iran? No. Biden is going to go to war with Iran? No. So they're just going to continue to do this, continue to kill Americans, continue to harass, continue to disrupt, continue to destroy the capacity of the US Navy to defend the shipping lanes. Now this has implications that go way beyond the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. Because it basically sends a message to all the rogue regimes in the world out there, to all the pirates all over the world. The US is weak. Its Navy will not deploy. The US is not committed to protecting the sea lanes. And therefore, it's a freefall for pirates. And it's a freefall for the bad guys of the world. And if we allow trade to collapse, as I said, we're basically allowing Western civilization, as an economy at least, to collapse. And we know that there are many people within our countries and outside of our countries who are just waiting for the opportunity to pillage what we have, to destroy what we have. And part of that will come when economies are collapsing. So what's at stake with the Houthis? What's at stake around the world? What's at stake in the ocean? It is our way of life. It's our quality of life and standard of living. And people don't seem to care. Republicans don't want intervention. The left doesn't want intervention. Nobody wants to actually protect global trade and do what's necessary to keep it facilitated. Indeed, in the streets of the United States over the weekend there are demonstrations everywhere, siting with the Houthis. These barbarians who treat women like dirt, who throw gays on the top of buildings, who go out there and just behave like mid-aged barbarians, who kill their own people and have killed hundreds of thousands of their own people. And yet, we're on the Houthi side now. Isn't it cool to be on the side of Houthis, not realizing the barbarity of these people? It truly is stunning. Because what is being revealed since October 7th in the West is not so much the anti-Semitism, not the hatred of Israel. We all knew that. What's really been revealed since October 7th is the sheer utter hatred of so many people in the West, of the West, of America, the hatred of Americans from America. And here, the crazy leftists and the cacalsons of the right, they hate America. They hate the West. It's only explanation for supporting the Houthis. It's self-hatred. Of course, they will also be the people who are, you know, they will not survive the coming collapse when there is one. They will not survive it. It truly is stunning and unbelievable when you see these demonstrations yelling for Hamas and for the Houthis and what that means and what that signifies and who they're standing with, who are they standing with. All right, this weekend was also 100 days to the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And of course, there was a lot of press about the war, about its outcomes, consequences, prospects. And if you look through the Israeli press, the press in Israel, there was a lot of defeatism. There was a lot of the attitude of, okay, enough's enough, we need to cut a deal. There was a lot of, we need the hostages back, even if we have to stop fighting right now, even if Hamas survives this, we need the hostages back. There was a lot of, we can't sustain this, we can't keep going. And what are we gonna do? How are we, we can't get them. How are we gonna destroy Hamas? This is all a fake promise by this government. It's even now fighting an argument within the government in terms of what are the next steps and how to proceed. And of course, the United States, the Biden administration, putting massive pressure on Israel to tone down, to go to the next phase, to restrict bombing and restrict military operations. And then of course, in the Hague, in the international court, there was an accusation of Israel committing genocide by South Africa, of all people. And the fear of massive sanctions against Israel if it continues. But I think what's so significant here is Israel's own defeatist mentality. The fact that so many in Israel are calling for a stop, so many in Israel are calling for enough is enough, so many in Israel are claiming victory is impossible. Because what happens when you do that? And it's happening. Every one of those articles, every one of those statements gets immediately translated by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by the Iranians, by every enemy Israel has in the Middle East. And it's the headlines in media sources all over the Middle East. And what does that project? That projects Israeli weakness. It projects Hamas' strengths. It projects that Hamas can win. Nothing motivates more than victory. Nothing motivates the bad guys more than the sense that if you can just hold out a little longer, if they can just survive for a few more weeks, a few more months, they will win. And Israel is providing her enemy with that ammunition. That thought, I said in the beginning of this campaign, as horrific as it is, as sad as it is, as depressing as it is, Israel must act as if the hostages are dead. Every time they demonstrate on the streets for the hostages, every time the newspapers are filled with columns demanding that the government cease military operations for the hostages, Hamas views it as a victory. Hamas is emboldened, Hamas is strengthened. They're all Israel's enemies, are strengthened and emboldened. Israel should do whatever it can militarily to free as many hostages as it can. But it has shown that it cannot. It is not capable of freeing the hostages, which is tragic and sad. It's intelligence and its capability of fighting in these tunnels just isn't there. They don't have it. Nobody maybe has it in the world. But it is, but to demand stop military operations, to tell the world that it cannot succeed as many, many Israelis have done this weekend in Israeli newspapers and the leading Israeli newspapers translate into Arabic, splashed across the pages of every enemy newspaper in the world out there that will only strengthen today there was a significant terrorist attack in Israel. A woman died, 19 people injured in Ra'anana, inside Israel. That will only increase. The more they think they can win, the more they think they've got Israel cornered, the more they think Israel is weak, the more they will strike. Victory is possible. But victory requires immense moral courage. The kind of moral courage that sadly, none of the good guys in the world have today, none of them, not on the right, not on the left, not in the middle. Nobody across the entire political spectrum, not in Europe, not in America, and not in Israel. In spite of the fact that for Israel, this is existential. All right, talking about existential. There was an election in Taiwan on Saturday, an election between three presidential candidates. Initially, a few months ago, the two opposition candidates, they tried to broker a deal where they would only run one candidate against the current vice president, so as to have a shot at beating him. By the way, a process, I think, that was, to some extent, at least, coordinated by the Chinese. The Chinese want this current government in Taiwan out. They've invested hugely in propaganda, in funding, in helping the opposition in all kinds of ways. Now, it's none of the opposition parties actually wants reunification with China. But the current government is the most adamant about standing up to China and is the closest to kind of a, you know, independence, declaring independence. The two other opposition parties, one of them, which has led Taiwan for many years, that political party wants more cooperation with China. It doesn't want unification, but it wants to be friendly towards China and it wants to consider unification one day in the future. The third political party is pretty good on self-defense, but again, is much more favored by the Chinese than the current government. Anyway, the current government did win. The current vice president is going to be the president of Taiwan. In that sense, China lost. This is one of the few bits of good news in the world out there, in terms of politics. China did lose. And you will see a continuation of the existing administration in Taiwan. The vice president is very pro-American. This government is relatively speaking pro-free markets. The other two political parties are much more statist, are much more socialist, are much more interventionists. This government is actually, again, pretty pro-markets and deregulation and all of that. Good news for Taiwan, I think. They are going to have to get their act together economically. I think they need to be a lot more aggressive in terms of deregulation. A lot more aggressive about, for example, the cost of housing in Taiwan is very high. A lot more aggressive about building more supply and lowering the cost of housing and allowing the private sector to do that. A lot more aggressive on the economic issues in terms of liberalizing the economy more so that more people can benefit from the economic growth that exists in Taiwan. Right now, it is the tech industry that primarily drives wealth creation. But in order for more people to feel like they're part of that, you need more freedom, more liberalization, particularly in sectors of the economy where the government interferes a lot like everywhere in the world, like housing. So congratulations to Taiwan. He's president and let's hope that he acts in ways. Because one of the reasons he was going to lose, he might have lost if he ran it just against one opposition. It is the economy. Too many Taiwanese now feel like they need a government that is more redistributive. This government has to do more to show the Taiwanese people that they need exactly the opposite. We'll see if they're capable of doing that. Otherwise, they risk losing in the future. All right, God, today are the first primaries. We've got the Iowa caucuses going on today. Maybe the coldest weather they've ever had a caucus in. I mean, Iowa is always cold in January, but this week is particularly cold, so you're gonna have freezing, freezing cold. Caucuses are these weird things where people get together, discuss, and then vote. Not typical primaries. In this weather, to go out of your house, to get together, to spend time, to discuss politics, to vote is gonna require a lot of commitment, a lot of passion. I think that the result of tonight's caucuses are pretty well understood. Donald Trump will run away with it. I mean, by a big margin, he will lose. Haley and DeSantis, where we weigh back, maybe by 30 points, they'll be close to one another where the Haley beats out DeSantis as the last poll show to where the DeSantis beats Haley as it's more likely, given that Haley's supporters are the least committed supporters, so at least likely to brave the weather and go out. It doesn't really matter. I mean, it probably matters to DeSantis. If he comes in third, he might actually withdraw from the campaign. He might throw the towel in. So we will see, right? We will see. But I don't think he will come in third. I actually think that DeSantis will come in second and Haley will be third. We'll see. Haley's getting a lot of independence, signing up to the Republican Party to vote for her, as well as Democrats, shifting over, which I think is great. It again suggests that Haley is probably the candidate that has the biggest chance of actually winning a general election and beating a Democrat. But it doesn't, all of this doesn't matter. The reality is, the reality is that Donald Trump has this done. It's a done deal. Donald Trump will win Iowa by a massive margin, the highest margin probably ever. He will probably win New Hampshire, even though the margin might be very small. And there's a chance, small chance, that Haley beats him in New Hampshire. But after New Hampshire, he beats Haley in their own state of South Carolina. He probably beats DeSantis in his own state of Florida. I think evidence of that is the fact that Marco Rubio, Rubio, one of the people who warned us against Trump, who said Trump was, the epitome of evil was gonna destroy this country. He has endorsed Trump, as did Mike Lee to horrible senators who are between the Republican party and sending it down into the abyss. Trump is going to win the nomination. I mean, the only thing to prevent him is maybe jail. But Iowa Republicans are saying that even if Trump is convicted, they will vote for him. This is, you know, I've said this so many times, but I'm gonna say it again. The horror of the Republicans electing Trump as their nominee, it is so disgusting. It is so despicable. It's just, it's hard to imagine, given his behavior, particularly since he lost the election in 2020, but really his failure with COVID, utter, complete failure during COVID, his complete, you know, his lack of any kind of positive character traits, the complete, you know, moronic nature of his statements and his outbursts, and the fact that he was so pathetic on almost every single foreign policy issue, with exception of Israel, of all things, that he had. The fact that the Republicans, he's gonna win it in a landslide, says so much about the complete and out of bankruptcy of the Republican Party. It says so much about evangelicals. Iowa, evangelicals, he will win Iowa, he will get 80% of evangelicals. It's why DeSantis is not doing well, it's because he couldn't capture the evangelicals. Even though he got the endorsement of the top evangelical in the state and of the governor of the state, Trump just captures the hearts, and maybe mine, so I think hearts, of the evangelicals throughout the state, evangelicals, who claim to care about character, you remember the days where character mattered, who claim to be pro-American, who claim to care about this country, are willing to hand the reins of power over again, to, I think, in terms of, certainly character, the worst president we've ever had. So that is the outcome is done, it's finished, and it is a, Scott and everybody else will remind me, but it's gonna be, you have to vote for Trump because the alternative is Biden, but it's not Biden as I keep reminding you. And yet there you are, continuing to vote for Trump in spite of the fact that there are alternatives to Trump right now. And yet the Republican Party cannot give up on Trump, and by not being able to give up on Trump, the Republican Party deserves, in terms of justice, deserves to lose. And this time I hope that Trump, the nominee, loses not by the small margins he lost last time, but I really, really, really hope that this time he loses big, because only by him losing big will we ever get rid of this ugly, disgusting, you know, a phenomena that is Trump. Democrats get justice every time they lose, right? And the Democrats have never nominated anybody who comes close to a Trump. Nobody, maybe Bernie, but they didn't nominate Bernie. All right, finally, there is real panic on the right about DEI and the airline industry. Right wing commentators are telling us, by the way, there's a great column on this, highly recommended by Richard Hananya today. I have lots of misgivings about Hananya, but I have to say he writes some of the best stuff out there on a lot of these issues. I mean, he's really good. Anyway, he wrote this really, really good piece, and so you can find it on his sub-stack. Anyway, a bunch of right wing people, including Steve Saylor, Amy Wax, a lot of these kind of semi-racists, and then Fox News, all now worried about DEI and pilots. Planes are gonna start dropping from the sky. They already must be happening already, because DEI has been in place at the airlines for years now, and Elon Musk posted recently, when was this? January 9th, it will take an airplane crashing and killing hundreds of people for them to change this crazy policy of die at the airlines. And given political correctness, given affirmative action, given DEI's existence over the last few years, you had expected planes to be dropping out of the sky constantly, and yet this is where theory smacks against reality. Their theory, anyway. The reality is that it's safer now to fly than ever before. There hasn't been a fatality, never mind a crash, on an American airline in years and years and years. Yes, once in a while you hear about bolts loose and a dough flying out. I mean, given the millions of flights that happen, that it's that rare that you hear about it once a year, or once every couple of years, that something like that happens, is astounding. Astounding. It's never been safer. There'd never been more planes in the air. There'd never been more people in the air, and there'd never been more people not dying than now. And this is the thing about DEI. He really takes it seriously. When a company's fate is on the line, when safety is on the line, when customers' lives are on the line. At least I don't think we've gotten to the point where people don't care about those things. Is United Airlines, American Airlines, or Delta Airlines, in spite of having DEI programs, going to put an unfit pilot in the cockpit? Probably not. They might pass them because he's, I don't know, the right ethnic group or whatever, and then stick him some desk job. But the likelihood they're actually going to put him in a plane and fly when they're not competent to do so, it ain't happening. And as a consequence, I mean, in spite of the fact that a door blew out the pilot of that plane, I can't remember what airline it was, landed that plane safely, competently. Pilots are highly trained, highly qualified individuals. And not to a God merit would destroy one airplane crashing by one of the major American Airlines because a pilot error would destroy that airline. I spent a lot of effort avoiding that. If you look at the number of passengers dying, I mean, flying was fairly risky back in the 70s. But since somewhere in the 70s, and I'll do a show sometime and describe why this has happened, but since the 70s, mid 70s, the number of casualties, plane crash deaths of any kind has plummeted, plummeted globally. And it's basically zero in the United States. But the right is freaking out. They're trying to scare everybody for not to flying because they might be a black pilot that has a low IQ than a white pilot, or they might be, God forbid, a woman pilot with a low IQ, or maybe she's black and a woman. And they're scaring people, but the reality is, woke only goes so far. I think Disney's realizing that, right? Disney, of course, all they have are profits, people's lives are not at stake. Now, I'm not saying it can happen. I'm not saying DEI couldn't, but it isn't, and it's likely won't. It won't manifest in this way. It's manifesting in lots of other ways, but it won't manifest in this way. Even Disney, where it's just the bottom line, is changing its ways, all right? And you can keep scaremongering, that's fine. You can keep scaremongering. You can keep signing up. You can keep following the race baiting of, unfortunately, Elon Musk is part of this, and some of these people. You can keep doing that. And as the data comes in and shows that you were wrong, my guess is nobody will actually admit they're wrong. It just never happens, right? Almost never happens. All right, let's hope I'm right, because I'm the one who's flying all the time, right? Let's hope I'm right. Let's see. Yeah, reminder. This show exists because of support of listeners like you. It wouldn't exist without that support. This is my source of income. There is no other source of income. People say, what do you do with the money? I live off of it, just like, you know, that's what you do, right? This is what I live off of. So thank you for all of those who support me monthly on Patreon or you're on bookshow.com slash membership. That's through PayPal. But you can use Venmo, you can use anywhere you want. Just let me know, and if you wanna support the show. You can also, of course, if you're listening live, and we have 164 people listening live right now, which is fantastic, you can use the Super Chat or the sticker feature to support the show. And that's great. We have targets for that, and you could do 99 cents. Like Jonathan did, and Anonymous user did, and Sylvanus did, and Ovid, he did 11 Norwegian Krona, which might be 99 cents, right? Or you could do a much more substantial amount, but we've got a whole 99 cents going. Anonymous user did 99 cents. Steven Harper did $5, so thank you, Steven. Gail, Fendt Harper, Enric Teller all did, of all you stickers to support the show, you can too, and help us get to the goal that we set for these shows. But this is supported by you, it's made possible by you, wouldn't exist without you. So thank you to all the Super Chatters and thank you to all the stickers. I do have also a couple of sponsors, XFestVisBn, you can find the link below. You'll get three extra months free on XFestVisBn if you register through that link. And of course, the Ironman Institute, the Ironman Institute is now taking this week or the next two weeks, the end of this month, are the final applications for scholarships to attend the European Conference that we have in Amsterdam, I will be there. I hope you guys join us, and you can come as an honest scholarship, or you can come and get a scholarship. Scholarship covers transportation and expenses and everything. So if you'd like to participate at the conference and hang out with me and the other speakers, it's gonna be a relatively small conference, so you'll have a lot of time to interact. Join us in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Amsterdam, I think it's the second weekend in March. And as I said, I will be there. I will be giving some of the talks, and so will others. You can find information about the conference and about getting a scholarship and about registering at ironman.org slash start here, ironman.org slash start here. All right, let's turn to your super chat questions. I mean, the beauty of super chat questions is you also get to guide the conversation. We'll talk about what you want me to talk about. Kirill says, whoops. Kirill says, you're an inspiration and I tried to spread the philosophy of objectives into my friends and coworkers. Thank you. I speak passionately about Iron Rand. I've arranged many insights, but it falls on deaf ears and renders me utterly hopeless. What should I do? I mean, you gotta keep doing it. You never know who will hear it. You never know who will change his mind. You never know who will be inspired by what you say and be curious about something that you say. So don't give up. You just need to keep doing it. And at the end of the day, if you are hopeless and if it does depress you, then you can stop. I mean, there's no duty to do it. At the end of the day, if you're not enjoying the process and if it just depresses you, then stop it. Give it a break. Focus on your own life. Focus your own understanding. Focus on proving your life, making your life the best that it can be. And to help with them, right? Take that attitude, to help with them. And, you know, you can also sign up, fine-run institute courses, you know, come, you're in the Czech Republic, come over to Amsterdam to the conference. Have a good time with people who already agree with you and also maybe learn more skills to maybe make it even better to be an evangelist for these ideas. But you don't have to be an evangelist. You might only do it if you're getting something out of it. There's no duty to do it. And if you're suffering as a consequence or you feel hopeless as a consequence, stop it and focus internally. But come to Amsterdam. Be a good conference. Liam, thank you, Liam. A lot of conservatives I speak with don't think we have a capitalist society without a Christian moral foundation preventing people from being hedonistic with their wealth. The GOP can't seem to shake off Plato and Comte. I mean, they can't seem to shake off Jesus. He makes Comte possible. And of course, he is a Platonist, right? Or at least he is a disciple as a Platonist. So they can't seem to shake off St. Augustine. They can't seem to shake off altruism and mysticism. And yes, that comes from Plato. But again, Comte is a consequence of Christianity. Not somebody who sets them up. He is a secularization of the Christian ethics. And yeah, they can't shake it. I mean, it's astounding and sad. And the more I read about the Enlightenment, the more tragic it becomes because it's so close, so frigging close to getting rid of all that religious baggage, that religious garbage, and setting humanity in a path that I think at that point would be irreversible. And yet here we are stuck with the religion, unable to shrug it off. And it's what holds us back. It's what really, really does prevent us, prevent us, prevent the world from taking off. Taking off and individuals from taking off. But yes, the right cannot shake its religiosity. And unfortunately, many people, many more rational people on the left can't shake off the association of capitalism with religion. Sylvanos, I see a lot of material growing online, casting doubt on everything related to October 7th and the Gaza situation itself. I maintain my convictions that Israel is justified in its action, but it's getting lonely on the side. It is, it is, and it's super depressing. And by the way, I should announce this, I will be giving a talk about October 7th, about the war, about the situation in America and globally. It's called Israel's moral war. And that talk will be at the University of Texas in Austin. I really hope a lot of you will come. I know a lot of you are in Texas listening to this. I hope a lot of you will come and show support. I expect, I guess I'll be surprised if we don't get any protests, if we don't get any crazy leftists coming. It is a university, after all. Supposedly they are plastering the university with posters, sending out emails to different clubs. I really hope you come and show support. And it'll be an interesting evening, whether the protest has come or they don't, it's gonna be interesting. It won't be this Friday, it will be next Friday, January 26th. January 26th, information will be up on my website within days, but hopefully today, tomorrow. But it is open to the public. It is free. I expect that we will be streaming it. I haven't confirmed that yet, but I expect we'll be streaming it. And of course, I still hope you come live. I hope there'll be a real energy in the room around live. We've gotta start speaking up and we've gotta start being afraid. And you will hear me say stuff publicly in front of whoever comes that nobody else will say on a public stage, that nobody else will say on a public stage. So please come. University of Texas in Austin at the university, at the university, in one of the auditoriums in the university. I think it's in the business school building. Open to the public, open to anybody who wants on January 26th. I will also be next week in Michigan. I don't think they want to be talking about Israel in Michigan. So I'll be giving two talks on capitalism, one at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and one in Northwood University in the north of... Northwood, is that right? Jennifer's on here, she correct me. In the northern part of Michigan, Midlands. I think it's in Midlands. So yeah, please come to those, Midland, Michigan. So please come to those talks as well. In Michigan, it should be fun and interesting to see. We'll see how many, hopefully we get good student turnout. I think we'll get a good student turnout in Northwood because there's a professor there sponsoring it. I'm a little worried about the University of Michigan, but hopefully we'll get a decent turnout. Hopefully you guys will come. But University of Texas should be interesting, interesting. So please, I need support. It'll be more powerful if there's support there, right? Harper Campbell, thank you. $100, really, really appreciate that. Liam and Sivanos did $50 each. Thank you guys, really appreciate it. Harper says, do you believe there was a slight increase in the moral certainty of the West's righteousness in the 80s and 90s? That's why communism collapsed worldwide in those decades. I don't think it was a coincidence. We do not give Reagan enough credit for buying us time. So I don't attribute it to Reagan, but I do think there was more confidence. I think most of that is if Reagan was the beneficiary of, that is Reagan got elected because there was a certain yearning for more freedom. And of course, in a sense, even more than one of Reagan, in terms of politics, I would give Margaret Thatcher a huge credit. So I think it goes intellectuals one, Thatcher two, Reagan three, in terms of who gets the credit for it. But I think in order to explain the 80s and 90s, credit has to go where credit belongs. And that is with people like Ein Rand, who in the 50s and 60s and 70s was a worldwide figure, but particularly in the United States was a major intellectual figure advocating for the West, advocating for capitalism, advocating for freedom, advocating against communism, and made capitalism a positive term, changed the whole dynamics and the whole debate that was going on in the world. Ein Rand did that. And but I would also add people like Milton Friedman and to some extent Hayek, Hayek certainly had a huge impact on Margaret Thatcher and Mises and their students. I mean, there was a real energy around capitalism and free markets and the people that Reagan could hire into the administration and that Thatcher could hire into the administration were heavily influenced by these thinkers and therefore competent and organized around free markets. Now the disappointing part is that Reagan didn't do more. He spoke well and at least he gave a good speech and at least in his speeches, he was pro-capitalist and pro-West and gave people a sense of confidence and self-esteem and that Reagan deserves a lot of credit for that, for the kind of taking the bully pulpit and utilizing it, right? I will be at University of Michigan on Tuesday, next Tuesday, not tomorrow, week from tomorrow, on Tuesday. Let's see, what else? Yeah, but it was so deep this change in people's attitude, it wasn't deep enough that it lasted through the 90s, it lasted through the Clinton administration. Clinton was not a part of it, but Clinton was kind of a moderate Democrat who became even more moderate during his presidency and as a consequence, the 90s, we saw the best economy the United States has seen in a very, very, very long time in terms of growth rates, in terms of stable government spending, in terms of the deregulation that Clinton did but even that happened before him. It was a real boom time, it was a real boom time and a lot of that has to do with the inspiration people got from Rand Friedman, the intellectual forces of the 1970s and from the politicians from Thatcher and Reagan and the whole spirit of let's embrace markets. They didn't, again, they didn't follow up on it, they didn't live it, they didn't give us, but what they gave us was more. So I don't discount the value of the 80s and 90s, it was huge and it bought us a lot of time, no question about that. I wish there was anybody, anybody that came even close to Ronald Reagan today on the political landscape. I mean, I would be excited, but there isn't. Andrew says, good Ben Baer talk on Aero Eyes Channel and Christianity and Pride, contrasting Aristotle's and Augustine's position, striking how antibody Augustine is, is the denigration of the body implied or by or explicit to Christianity? Oh no, it's explicit in Christianity and Augustine was one of the primary forces to make it even more explicit and to highlight it as a part of Christianity. Ben did a really, really, really good talk at Ocon this last year on Augustine and on the denigration of the body, but generally Augustine's philosophy. It was excellent, I highly recommend it, it's on YouTube, you should definitely watch it, it really, really is good. So yeah, I hope, yeah, I hope you guys watch it and take it a heart. Is it, it's definitely part of Christianity. I mean, the whole point is that this world is a fallen world, it's a sinful world. It is a world of the flesh and the world of the body. You know, the afterlife, the spiritual world is the only way to escape the sinfulness of the human body and only in death and going to the next life can one really escape the evil of this world, right? And reality, which means body. So it's deep within Christianity, the whole mind-body split, where the body is low, the body is the fallen aspect of humanity. The body is evil and bad and it is the spirit that is fundamentally good. And this pervades Christian thought, even the so-called pro-wealth evangelicals, also, you know, you can find a mind-body split all over their ideology. And it results in the guilt that they have and in the duality of the lives that they live, which is all over the place. By the way, somebody had a first time super chat, let me find who that was and let me thank them. Where is it? Huh, maybe it's that, no. All right, I lost it. Whoever was the first time super chat, thank you. All right, Thomas, maybe it was Thomas. I still think it was Thomas. Thomas was, yes, Thomas is first time super chat. All right, Thomas, thank you for the super chat. Thank you for your first time. We really appreciate the support, helping us keep this show together. Thomas, I say you're on. I hear people talking about the benefits of gold, but I'm not hearing about silver. Don't they have the same benefits? If not, why not? They probably don't, a goal for a couple of reasons. One is gold has always been more valued than silver. There's silver jewelry and there's gold jewelry and gold jewelry is just more valued than silver. It's something about it being more pretty, rarer, harder to get. And so gold is a little bit more valued and a little bit rarer, right? It a little bit rarer. So in that sense, because it's rarer, there is less of it out there. And in that sense, it embodies more wealth. I think it's harder to mine a little bit, but generally, gold in competition with silver, silver could be money, but when gold and silver compete in the marketplace for money, gold almost always wins out and people abandon silver for gold. Gold is the superior money between the two. And I think it has to do with its prettier and there's less of it, harder to mine for some reason. All right, Ed, I noticed that people support Palestinians never bring up that the Palestinians teamed with Arab nations, they invaded Israel in 1967, 1973. Israel won both wars. That's how they got Gaza and West Bank. Yeah, although, you know, the Palestinians didn't really team up. I mean, there was no, there was no such thing. And certainly in those days, there wasn't really a thing called Palestinians. I mean, there was, but it was small. Palestinians is a concept that only really gained traction in the post-1967 West Bank and Gaza. It had some existence before then. There was a Palestinian liberation organization. But in 19, but, you know, starting in 1948, Arab countries, and in 1948, the people who lived in Israel at the time called the Palestinians attacked the Jews. 67, 73 was countries from the outside. Arabs inside Israel did not rebel against Israel during those two wars. Yes, but people never bring it up because people have, particularly the poor Palestinian side, have really no understanding of the conflict and have no understanding of history, no knowledge of history, no understanding of history. All right, Jim says, thank you, Yuan. Thanks, Jim. I appreciate the support. Scott says, in supporting Mele, is supporting Mele implicit rejection of Schwartz's claim if the libertarian movement were ever to come to power, whites by death would follow? No, because I don't think Mele is the libertarian movement. Mele is not a Mises Institute-Rothbardian. He likes Rothbard. But I get the sense Mele doesn't take the anarchism as his leading motivation, as his leading driver. Mele is a serious, is much more serious. This is why the libertarians in America are a little bit hesitant about Mele. And this is why, for example, his foreign policy is so different, so different, right? I mean, almost all the necrocapolis in the US are anti-Israel, anti-Ukraine, anti-American, let me say. Mele is pro-Israel. He waves the Israeli flag with pride. He's pro-Ukraine, and he's pro-American more than anything else. He's pro-American. He's not a, he's not a nihilist. So too many of the libertarians in the United States are fundamentally nihilists who hate the state, who hate the state they live in, in particular America. And Mele is not, Mele might be confused about certain intellectual issues like Anarchy, but that's not the driving force. It's not what motivates him, it's not what drives him. He loves, he loves Argentina. He has a deep understanding of economics. He loves the idea of economics. He loves America, he loves Israel. He loves Western civilization. As reflected by the fact that he loves Israel, Ukraine, and America, he is in many respects the opposite of the kind of a necrocapolis libertarian that Peter Schwarz condemned, that I condemn, and that I think would indeed destructive, right? Some libertarians, and some libertarians if they're in for president, I would support them. The ones who I support won't run for president. There is a reason because America couldn't elect somebody like that. Andrew says, to have the biggest military and best equipment and technology is a good thing, but the ultimate strength of a military depends on moral clarity. Absolutely, absolutely, and in that sense right now, America is weak and Israel is weakening because it's losing its moral clarity. I figure out how we can reconcile the religious secular divide in Israel, conduct wars with Old Testament savagery, secular everything else. I like that, but we might have to turn on some of our own Old Testament people in order to really win this war and resolve the religious secular problems. Maybe it's not just Arabs who would have to be warred against. Il O says, why South Africa? You know, hard to tell exactly why South Africa now. I'd say two reasons. One, South Africa needs a distraction. The ANC, the ruling party in South Africa needs to re-establish some kind of moral high ground. It is very unpopular inside South Africa. It is at risk for the first time in South Africa, since apartheid of South Africa losing, the ANC losing an election. And so it wants to capture some kind of moral high ground. It's a fight for liberty, a fight against the bad colonialists in the world. So there's that dimension, and again, it's a distraction from how awful things are in South Africa itself. I mean, they're really awful. And second, the ANC has a long tradition of being very pro-Palestinian, going back to Mandela. Mandela was very pro-Palestinian. It was very friendly towards the Palestinian cause. Partially because the white government in South Africa during apartheid was very friendly towards Israel. And partially because they're oppressed of the world, United, right? We're oppressed, you're oppressed, all friends. And I think the combination of those two, the ANC trying to elevate South Africa to a leadership position among the world's oppressed is what drove South Africa to be the one to initiate this action at the European courts. Dolan says, I keep seeing videos of Norm Finkelstein and can't stand the guy, no kidding. Would you ever debate him about Israel? No, he's too much of a scumbag for that. I think that would be a good opportunity to put him in his place. There are others as well, of course. I mean, if there are others that are available to debate, I would be happy to. Finkelstein is just so horrible, just so beneath contempt. It's really difficult to sanction him by debating him. He's so disgusting and so disgustingly dishonest. But if you have others, send me a list and maybe we can find somebody to organize a debate around. Roe will ask, as General Vidal during the Spanish Civil War coined the phrase fifth column for those who undermine the government from within, what that's what is transpiring within Israel to agree, do we? Yeah, but it's, you know, the fifth, it is, and they're doing it in the name of Israel. They're doing it as patriots they claim and it's in the government. It's everywhere and it's not just in Israel, it's all over the place. It's in the U.S., it's all over the West. There's a massive fifth column in the West, massive fifth column in the West. Liam says, do you think a dink, dual income, no kids phenomena is a bad sign for the culture? No, not necessarily, I mean, it depends. I think generally that not having kids is a sign of pessimism about the future, a worry about the future, also in spite of dual income, a worry about the cost of having kids, but, you know, it's really not about costs in the end because you can manage with kids no matter what the costs are. I mean, I had kids when I had no money. It's more about wanting to have kids and wanting to have kids means valuing human life, wanting to have kids means valuing the process of raising a human being, wanting to have kids means valuing the future. And I think really the challenge is the fact that we live in a cynical somewhat hedonistic, somewhat nihilistic, somewhat just pessimistic culture, a culture where people are depressed and they think the world is gonna come to an end and they don't wanna bring children into the world. So I think that's what's driving it. So in that sense, it's a bad sign, but even in the best of cultures, there would still be couples that don't have kids because they don't want kids, which is fine, ain't man. Had nothing to do with pessimism or anything like that. She just didn't want kids because, and the more women work, the more it's obvious who stays home and take kids to the kids and how you do that, the more you're gonna have. Dual income, no kid households, and that's completely natural and there's nothing wrong with that. But I worry that it's also this pessimism thing and that's definitely a bad sign for the culture. Michael, a man's philosophy is not his coat, but his bones. Bones, isn't it his mind? I don't know. I have a problem with these kind of analogies, right? Well, I said, see you in Amsterdam, absolutely. That'd be great. Oh, by the way, in Amsterdam, I'm planning to do another public speaking workshop. Amsterdam conferences starts Friday night, goes through Sunday. Monday, I plan to stay in Amsterdam and do a public speaking workshop. So if you are coming to Amsterdam for the conference and would like to stay next to day and do the workshop, let me know. You're Ron at youronbrookshow.com. You're Ron at youronbrookshow.com. Amsterdam, the Monday after the INRAN conference, in Amsterdam, I will be doing a public speaking workshop. Please let me know if you're interested. I just need about five people to make it worthwhile. So if we get five people, I will do it. Ideally, we would have closer to 10. I don't want more than 10. But if you're interested, send me an email, first come, first serve. So the first people who say they're interested, it will be $750,000 to $1,000 a person. So it's not a cheap proposition. But if you're interested and willing to pay that amount of money, send me an email and we'll get it set up. Daniel, $50, thank you. Really, really appreciate it. Did I get everybody else with stickers? David Arsenault, Lewis Knoll. And I think that gives us everybody. Yes, thank you guys. Let's see, James, how do you determine when someone is dishonest and corrupt to the point where they are not worth spending energy on? Well, I mean, if they're dishonest and dishonest and dishonest, then you gotta go walk away. You give them facts, you give them evidence and they're not willing to accept. It doesn't take much dishonesty to justify walking away because dishonest people are not people that are worth exerting energy on. So you discover multiple events of dishonesty, that's it, enough, in the face of facts, in the face of evidence. Kabuta, is business a bit too much romanticized by objectives? Most real-life businessmen are doing marketing, not innovation, that is the ones who are not looking for government handouts. I don't think so. I think they are and should be romanticized. I mean, in a positive way. I think that marketing is a great thing. I think businessmen who do marketing are fantastic. What is, you know, marketing is a way for me to discover products I wouldn't have known. Marketing is a way to point out to me features and ways of me getting those products. I think marketing entrepreneurs are phenomenal entrepreneurs and good for them. It's not only the innovators who create value, marketers create value. There's a huge function to sales and marketing that is incredibly valuable for most of us. And life would be a lot more miserable and a lot poorer without great marketing and sales and marketing minds out there. So you need the innovators, but you also need people to market it and to market goods and products and stuff that we all need and consume and then we get to choose which one of them to take seriously and to utilize. Now, yes, some of them are looking for government handouts, but beware too. It's very easy to claim that all businessmen who are looking for government handouts when most of them are actually trying to defend themselves against government controls and government regulations and government everything. And yes, some of them are moochers and looters and those should be condemned. I hated Jeff Immelt at General Electric, a GE, because he was a moocher, he created nothing and he was all about mooching, but not all businessmen are like that and a lot of businessmen are mixed. They mostly produce and create and build and make. And look, just hiring people, organizing people, managing people, huge job, even if you're a marketing guy, just being able to do all that is an incredible value at its exact opposite of Marx. So no, I don't think businessmen are romanticized enough by objectivists. I mean, I can romanticize them, but I don't think they are enough. The only part that I agree with you is about the government handouts. Those who are primarily focused on that should be condemned and that whole activity should be condemned. But even then, you've gotta recognize the productive side and how much you as an individual benefit from it and how much all of us benefit from it, how civilization depends on it. Richard, please make some video shorts about Trump. I can't seem to find any good shareable rants against him. Interesting. Maybe I'll just do a whole show about Trump and then maybe it can be split up into a bunch of short videos that you guys can share. But I think I need to do a whole show about Trump. I don't know if anybody will listen and how many subscribers I will lose as a consequence. But I do think it's worth it and there's a lot to say about Trump. It's just, I find him so despicable that it's very difficult for me to devote the energy and the time to it. But yeah, all right, let me think about doing a show. Maybe I'll do it this week. Now's the time, right, during the primaries. Let me try to do it maybe this week and get something out and then Christian can make some shorts out of it. Oh, he says, see you in Austin. Absolutely, I hope. But yeah, I'll see you in Austin. Please come people to Austin. January 26th, giving a talk about Israel. Israel's Morrow War. Hopefully it'll piss a lot of people off on campus. But I do appreciate the moral support of you guys coming. I do appreciate the moral support of a lot of people being there, having a good crowd, having a good crowd that is supportive, will be great. And I think you'll be inspired by the content and the delivery. All right, thank you. We blew away the goal, really, really appreciate that. We've also gone almost an hour and a half. So it's almost one of my long shows. I will see you all tomorrow for another one of these news roundups and then tomorrow evening there will be a show. Oh, tomorrow news roundup might be late, but there will be one and there will be an evening show. Talk to you tomorrow. Bye, everybody.