 you can think about how many regulations are and how uneasy for small companies to deal with these regulations, but then these are not only the costs. The costs are also the other side that there are regulators, there are inspectors, there are many guys who need to tell you, teach you how to do these things and etc. And then we went to the COVID period and I will finish very soon. During the COVID period, there was one thing definite that many people understood. There was such a high emotion that in these kind of big events, we need somebody strong who can take the responsibility, who can buy the masks, who can bring us the vaccines. And one of our greatest politicians said that when you are Ronald Reagan, he was saying that when you are increasing the power of the government, then you are decreasing the freedoms, of course. So step by step we are losing our freedoms with these kind of things. And we never try to understand how to stop this in future. We need to have some kind of mechanism how to stop, how to make red line visible for the politicians. And I finish with the Georgian experience. In 2011, Georgia implemented an amendment in the constitution which is prohibiting government to increase tax rates without referendum or implement new tax without referendum. And what I call this, this is a kind of rebel of individual against the majority because you can imagine what happens with the individual. I am against of high taxation, what can I do? The majority wants to have high taxes and I am an individual and I'm thinking that half of that is enough because I'm not really getting enough from the government maybe or other reasons, but I'm an individual. How can I fight this majority in the country, in my country or your country or US or Germany or elsewhere that one individual wants to rebel and say that I don't want to pay so much taxes? What can individual do that in that situation? They will tell you that no, nothing, just pay. That's the reality. So Liberty Act, what we call this amendment in the constitution makes a barrier for the majority because you know that Jim Gortney explained this very well and Buchanan in reality invented this. When you have a government, when you have elections, there are a bunch of ideas. In the bunch there can be increase of taxes but you support the political party for other reasons not for the high taxes. So if you put the issue of the tax rates and the new taxes on the side, not in the politics in the elections then people need to vote for the higher taxes individually on this topic. So this is kind of barrier for the majority because when they come to the decision that they need to increase tax or not, then not all of them are happy with the increase of taxes. Another example and a good experience is from Slovakia. In Slovakia they have a law which is saying that if government implements one new regulation it needs to destroy two old regulations. So you bring new regulation okay but you need to show us that you are eliminating two old regulations. Otherwise this law cannot pass the parliament. So this is what I wanted to say about this. Thank you very much. Maybe I was talking. All about to me there, there are five or six flights every day. So anyway, maybe you have questions to Barbara and Hans? No, I was talking about Georgia reaction. So I need to say that with our Soviet past we were ready for the market. Because half of Georgia's Soviet Socialist Republic was the illegal economy. Half of the economy was illegal. So only bad thing was that there was a wrong practice of course. Some people were thinking only that business can be done only through bribes and that was. But by the way one of the interesting things is that until 2004 many Georgians would tell you that Georgians cannot live without corruption. But we were 130 seconds in the Transparency International Index and after some market reforms we are now 40 seconds, upper than many European countries. And we proven that there is no such a thing like illness with the corruption. We don't believe in this. There are mistakes of policies. There are mistakes of the politicians who are always eager to implement new taxes and regulations. And there was one particular guy who was the leader of the reforms. He read all the laws. Can you imagine this? We had a very great speaker about environmentalism two days ago. And he read the report about the climate change. And he discovered many things that this report was not really that bad. But Kache Bendukidze was a great man. He died unfortunately some years ago. He read all the legislation and was, oh, we don't need this. We don't need this. We don't need this. He eliminated 800 permits and permissions and licenses. 800 out of 950. And guess what happened? Next day there was no corruption. Because this corruption is how to avoid the rules. Not how to act according to the rules. But how to avoid the rules. This is because this was the same in Soviet Union that why there were so many corruption deals there. Because people were trying to avoid the Soviet rules. And if you wanted to have the pharmacies, I mean pharmaceutical goods, which were not available in the Apotheca, then you were going to somewhere named Chaika. By the way, he was Jewish. But everybody were going to him to buy prohibited pharmaceutical goods. And everybody knew him. And why did not help? We were talking about so many institutions who were to punish you and imprison you, etc. For instance, there were private tutors completely prohibited. They were fighting them. They were imprisoning their private teachers. But then even KGB guys understood that their children needed the private teachers also. And it ended with this. This is the reality. Yes, short break. Barbara, enhance if you'd like to add anything before the break. Sorry, we didn't hear you. Was? Hi Barbara, can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, so. Very well. If you'd like to add anything before we wrap up this session, you and Hans, welcome to add anything. Hans, do you want to go ahead or shall I? Just a glimpse to Gia's explanations. I agree because in the statistic system, bureaucracy is a kind of self-sufficient system. So the more bureaucracy there is there, the more complicated the regulations are. The more easy it is to make money on the side. So it is also a question of the system, which in the end prevents competition and quality for people. Thank you. I would simply sum it up by saying, thank you, Hans. Thank you, Hans. I would simply sum it up by saying it's always the old battle, individualism versus collectivism. And we simply need to defend our individual freedoms and always ask the question, what is the task of the state? And always kind of say, we have the rule of law that provides the framework within we move, but that's it. And the rule of law needs to be always defended. And I think this is the basics with property rights together. Everything else I think is discussable. And after all, we live in democracies, at least in the western part of the world. And we can only defend them if we keep our individual freedom and liberties up. So individualism versus collectivism is a big question and the goal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Barbara. Thank you, Hans. And thank you, Gia. And we'll wrap this up and take five minutes break till the last session about the roots of war in five minutes. So refresh yourself. Thank you. Thank you. In our next session, Yaron Bruk, Gia and myself. Hello, Mishmach. I'm here, Matille. Okay. Now it's going to be short because we know everybody. So, Ellie, can I start? Okay. So welcome back to our last session. And this is the root of war. The name of the panel is also working very well with one of Ayn Rand articles that I urge you to read. I'm just going to mention to you that if you want to read one of Barbara Esse's article, Ed Hop's article, that was published in Israel two days ago, go to Glob's website and see her article that is very relevant to the subject of the panel. So, our next subject is the root of war, Yaron Bruk, Gia, Gia, Genieri, and myself will participate. And I let Yaron start and introduce the subject. So I already kind of introduced it earlier if you were here in my talk. But I think at the end of the day, and I encourage everybody to read the roots of war by Ayn Rand. It's in capitalism, not an ideal. It's in that collection of essays. But war is a product of collectivism. Individuals don't go to war. Individualist trades. Individualists who are interested in promoting their own happiness, promoting their own life, promoting their own ability to enjoy their life and to have lead productive good lives, they choose to engage with other people as traders. Now what is a trade? A trade is when you give up something and you get what in return? Something of greater value to you. If I spend a thousand dollars on my iPhone, it's because the iPhone is worth to me more than a thousand dollars. Maybe to you it's not, so you don't buy it. But to me it's worth more than a thousand dollars. And of course, to Apple it's worth less than a thousand dollars. So I profit and Apple profits and everybody's better off. So individuals engage with other people, they respect the minds of other people, they respect the productive ability of other people, and therefore they let them produce and live and they engage with them in trade. It is the idea that individuals don't matter. It's the idea that it's the group that matters, the state, the collective, any group you want to, any name you want to give, the particular group, the parliamentarian as I said. It's only when you disregard the individual and you place the group at the top, does war become relevant? Collectiveism by its nature promotes zero-sum thinking. The Soviet Union, everybody in a sense was zero-sum, right? Because it's one big pie that the state controls, and then the question is who gets what piece of the pie? Now we're enemies of one another, because if I get a bigger piece, you get a smaller piece. With individualism, the only way I can get a pie is by creating one, by building one. And by doing so, I make you richer, I make your pies bigger. But in collectivism, the pie is fixed, it is the totality of what exists. And then everybody hates everybody else, everybody is the enemy of everybody else. Another feature, of course, of collectivism is that it fails. I think Gia described and has written a lot about the Soviet Union, its economic system, and how it failed. Now what happens if your economic system fails? Well, there's a strong taintation to go and steal stuff from other people. You're a failure, you can't succeed, you can't do it, you blame others for your own failure, you blame others for your own failure, and then you go take what you need. Because you already believe in a zero sum world, so if other people have more than you do, then they must have taken it from you, they must have stolen it somehow, so it's okay for you to steal from them back. And again, you can see that over and over and over again, this view of trade as zero sum, and therefore that legitimizes the idea of violence and war. And at the end of the day, who is sacrificed? It's always the individual, there was an example before I think, Barbara mentioned, of the Russian soldiers don't know what they're fighting for, they don't know why they're there, they don't know what they're doing, they have no desire to die, they don't understand the cause for which they're fighting. But the people at the top are dictating that they do so in the name of what? And unfortunately, I think much of the Russian people are buying into this, in the name of Russia, in the name of some mystical ideal of what Russia is, which collectivism always requires a mystical ideal. So you see the pattern over and over and over again, when zero sum thinking and collectivism come to the forefront, war is almost always the solution that happened before World War I, happened before World War II. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is growing in the world today, and I fear that Russia, Ukraine, is just the beginning, not the end. Yeah, I would start with such a thing, like why Russians are supporting now the war in Ukraine? Because they are watching their government TVs and they know only what the government is telling them. This is the big problem. I was in South Africa, Johannesburg in 2004, and I met the guy from, he lived there 15 years already, but he was from Moscow, he was by the way Jewish, but making some business there. And after a few minutes, I arrived, he started talking some kind of harsh language to me, why you Georgians are against Russia. And after 10 minutes of explanation, he said, oh, how stupid I was to believe all this propaganda, what is coming from Russian TVs. And then I was in New York and taxi driver was also Russian, or I don't know, Russian speaking, to deliver me to JFK airport. And he was attacking me, just saying that why you are Georgians fighting against Russia, such things. And then people can really believe that Georgians and Ukrainians or Baltic or any others are against Russia or against Russians or such things. No, there is no such a thing that Georgians are very tolerant people. And what we want to do is just to make business, nothing else. And what comes from Russia, this is explained by a very famous Georgian leader of Georgians in 19th century, Ilya George, he was saying that there is no such a thing in Russia like private property. Georgia was the part of Russian empire. And in Georgia, there was, Georgia was flourishing, just flourishing. You go to old streets of Georgia, Tbilisi or Batumi or other places, and you find that it was the flourishing place. But most of the Russians were hungry. They were hungry in Soviet Union as well. And they are hungry now, even now. They are hungry. In many places in Russia, they are hungry. During the times when Russia is making wars in Ukraine, occupies two regions in Georgia, kills many, many people in Syria and many other places, they killed, as Chechens are saying, they killed 40,000 school children during the Chechen, two Chechen wars, Chechnya wars. And then you can have a question why they are doing this. There was a Russian thinker. I think he is alive, but he can be very old. He was an advisor of Gorbachev, the last leader of Soviet Union. And he wrote a book in 1980s and trying to explain why the Communist revolution was successful in Russia. And he said that because, and I will quote what he said, you know, because it's, I don't want to somebody to think that I'm inventing this myself. He said, let my cow die if only the neighbor did not have two. Can you imagine this? This is the ideology. Let's punish everybody. Let's punish bourgeoisie. Let's punish every rich man aristocracy. That's how they won the, and Ayn Rand was great to explain this situation in reality. And I'll tell you one more example. I was saying two days ago about this. There was a painter, artist in Georgia. He was from Poland originally. He was born in Georgia in Kutaisi, but he studied arts in Europe, but returned back to Georgia, lived in Georgia until 1937 and he was killed by Bolsheviks then. And if you read what kind of good things he was doing, you can be amazed. How could they kill him? But how it happens, this is the reality. It started from 1917. Lenin was very harsh. They were killing the elites. Who were the elites? These were the bourgeoisie. These were the people who were bringing to the society, who were keeping the ethical norms. And everybody were looking at them, the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. These are the guys we need to follow. Then you kill them, you eliminate them, and who will bring this message of ethical message? Nobody. That's what happened in 1937. There was nobody to protect, to protest against the repressions. There was nobody. Soviet leadership, they needed to kill the intelligentsia, not because they were doing really big harm. Biggest harm was coming from the property owners and the aristocracy. They already killed them, but they thought that we don't need this intelligentsia as well. We need to have our intelligentsia who will be supporting communist regime and communist art and communist science and such kind of things. And those guys could be doing some harm to their ideology. That's why they killed them, because this was the end of repression. Some people think that repressions were in 1937, 1938. But no, repression started immediately in 1917. This is the reality. Everybody should understand this. Repression started there. And then if we come to the question of Ukraine, they killed all the elite in Ukraine. They killed approximately 50 million people in Ukraine, started Russifying them, the Ukrainians, send millions of Russians to live there. And what happens now? Look, even Russians who live in Ukraine, they are fighting against Russia. They are staying in their homes, in Harkov or other places, Mariupol and other places. They are mostly Russians, these guys, but they don't want to live in Russia. This is the reality what they could not understand in Russia. That if you lived in Ukraine, you are Ukrainian, not by the language, but you are Ukrainian by your behavior, by your mentality, that you are a free man. This is the reality. I'll give a short remark. A wise man once says about the saying that there is a clash of civilization between the Eastern world and the Western world. And he's saying, no, there is a civilization of clashes and civilization. And this is basically the difference between civilization who is built on the honoring of the individual and the individual spirit and flourishing. And the civilization that established on some, I would say, idealistic concept of collectivist. And then it could be any collectivist concept of race, or color, or whatever, or class. So this is basically the struggle in our world. This is the struggle that I'm running up in fascinating books. And this is also what each of us reveal when it relates to the news today. And we see it in Israel very clearly. We can see a response for Zelensky addressing the Israeli parliament and the Israeli people. Some people are made as hell. How dare he talk inaccurately about the Holocaust, twisting things, doing stuff that actually damaging the memory of the Holocaust. And other people say, who cares what he's saying? He's now drowning. And he's trying to say anything to get some help. And there is innocent people who are butchered and massacred. And what we're looking upon is the individuals, the people who didn't harm anybody and realizing that there is bad and there is good. There is aggressor and there is victim. And this is important in order to remember. And when you see the response on the social media, keep in mind who is actually tilted toward collectivism and who is actually looking on human beings as individuals. And this is the basic difference. I thought that it's very symbolic coincidence that the Russian decided to inscribe the letters Z on their vehicles. And it's remind World War Z, which is stand for zombies. And basically, this is what it takes. This is what it takes from the individual to become a zombie in order to serve a regime that doesn't consider individual as worth is living. So the only way to survive, it's either to become a zombie or to flee. And this is basically what Ainran did. She knew that what she is about to write will not allow her either to live or to survive as human being in the Soviet Union. And in order not to become a zombie and to protect her integrity as a human being of mind, spirit and body, she had to flee to freedom and to the United States. And here I'm going to take question to the speakers. I just wanted to add something that Stalin famously said that death of one person is a tragedy, and the death of million is the statistics. This is how they look at the individuals in Russia. And I had many years of discussing what is the problem with Russia with my Western friends in Europe or the US. And unfortunately, now they are waking up, not everybody, by the way, but they are waking. But then I said that we don't need many arguments, because I could say that Georgia is much older than Russia, and we have much longer traditions, etc. Okay, leave it alone. There are many historical arguments, but okay. So there are two major arguments. That Russians are not trustful, as Otto von Hasburg once said, any document signed by Russians does not worth the paper, which is the sign. And the second thing is that they don't respect individuals. They don't respect, they don't care about individuals, what happens with their lives, what happens with the businesses. You look now, Putin is doing his business, and he doesn't care about millions of businessmen who are now suffering from his stupid things. But he thinks that this is the Russian rule, and this should be done this way. This is what I wanted to add, thank you very much. Okay, if somebody wants to ask a question, please yeah, Eldad, I'll repeat it for the recording, if you can explain the idea of Putinism and the affiliation of some people in the West with this. Yeah, but I don't think there really is anything unique about Putin. I don't think there's anything, there's no, there's no such thing as Putinism, right? It's nationalism. It's pure unadulterated nationalism. It's the primacy of Russia. It's the primacy of the Russian Empire. It's a longing for some greatness of Russia. It's the idea that Russia is the West equal, it is the West, it is America's equal, that they are rulers born to rule somehow, and that they should have their, they're an important people, so they have to have a sphere of influence. They have to have an empire. It's not enough to have the largest country in the world by landmass. They should have what they had in the past. So if you look at nationalism, it Hawkins back to that. It's got the same spiritual content, there's kind of a particular soul of Russia. It's special, it's better, it's unique. He sounds, you know, in that sense he's very similar to World War II Japan, which was all about the superiority of the Japanese over any other people and that they should rule Asia because there's something special about them and unique about them. So I think it's nationalism combined with a zero-sum view of the world. And look, you can see the zero-sum view of the world even internally in Russia. Russia has not embraced markets internally, encouraged trade among Russians, encouraged industry, encouraged entrepreneurship. It's created oligarchs, it created government-sanctioned monopolies, non-markets, government-sanctioned monopolies protected by the government. And it's focused on what? On the one thing that kind of has a sense of zero-sum, natural resources, which is not something, I mean there is creativity there, but it's less the least of the kind of creative ideas, sciences, right? It's not technology, it's not entrepreneurial, it's big and it's a matter of pumping it out of the ground, you don't even refine it in Russia, you send it overseas and they refine it overseas, right? Russian oil is refined elsewhere. So he's very much got that zero-sum mentality. If the West is thriving and Russia's not, then let's take a chunk of the West. And look, the struggle between Ukraine and Russia right now is a struggle between a collectivist, the collectivism that has been inherent in Europe over the last 100 years and the remnants of liberty and freedom. And I mean we've been to Kiev, I think we've been to Kiev together. I mean Kiev was striving to be a Western city. It was quite there, corruption is still big in Ukraine, it's not completely free, the political system is so-so, but they're moving in that direction. If you speak to Ukrainians, what they want is to be like the West and it's a real challenge. Now why do people in the West like him? Because right now we are moving in a direction in the West towards nationalism, towards collectivism. There's a real rebook, particularly in America, of nationalism and collectivism and you can see that the people who like him tend to be the national conservatives, the people who have adopted American nationalism. Also they have a zero-sum mentality, the anti-trade, the anti-immigration, the anti-anything that will dilute what they view as this precious thing that is America. But they view it in material ways, not in an added value way. And they love strength, zero, some people love muscles. So you see even the emoji that they use on Twitter to describe Putin is always muscles. It's always like a so it's the revival and the spreading of nationalism on the right and to some extent on the left that is encouraging, that is what is supporting Putin. That's the mentality. I would add something more. There is practical thing with Russia also that Putin or some other leaders maybe also. We are looking forward and we don't know what will be after Putin because it's not that much sure that there will be better leaders there. So the problem with Russia is such a big territory, they don't want to, they don't know how to manage this territory if not with the collectivist ways, if not punishment ways, if not propaganda ways. They don't believe in the individual liberties, but they don't believe in decentralization of the country. They think that if they decentralize, the Russia can be dissolved very quickly. Because some regions have oil, some regions have brilliance, some regions have different things and they think that they will go by themselves. And of course China is there hiding to grab something from Russia. That's what makes them afraid of everything, being afraid of everything. Instead of thinking that liberalized and in liberal world in the more democratic system, people will be happy to live in Russia, not to go away, but to stay there. Then this makes politicians think that if we need such politics, that telling them that everybody are our enemies, we are the best in the world. And then they think that this is the long run chance to keep in the power. What Putin thinks is that Russians anyway think collectively they don't care about individuals and if I tell them that we will be fighting everybody, we will throwing the nuclear bombs, they will be happy that we will punish everybody because they are against us. And he thinks that Russians are happy with this kind of thing, that we can destroy everybody if they don't obey. But we are not happy if Russia is dissolving. This is what they have in their mind. And who is afraid of dissolving their country because you give the individuals and more powers and local governments more powers, et cetera. Nobody dissolved for this reason. I don't know any country, even Switzerland, which is maybe most decentralized country, has no idea. Nobody in Switzerland talks about why not to dissolve Switzerland or other countries or US for instance. There is nobody talking about this. But in Russia they are simply afraid that their country will be dissolved. And Putin is using this. Let's see if there is any other question. Yes, please. The reason for the rise of the nostalgia for the USSR, what is the roots of it? I think the roots of it are disillusionment with the mixed economy. So we live in a world which is not individualistic and not collectivistic. It's a world that is trying to straddle both. There's trying somehow to engage with both. You know, you've got to mix a little bit of freedom and a lot of control. Regulations, taxes, all kinds of controls. And what you get as a consequence is I think a population that kind of likes freedom but is not convinced of it. There's no philosophical foundation for it. There's no moral foundation for it. They don't quite understand it. They experience these big recessions. I think 2008 will turn out to be historically a very, very significant event because I think it convinced a lot of people, I think falsely, but it convinced a lot of people that capitalism is unstable and bad things happen and maybe we need to look back for stability. And if capitalism is unstable, what is stable? And maybe the Soviet Union was, you know, particularly I think in Eastern Europe, they're older people. And I don't think young people are really longing for the Soviet Union to the extent that they're socialist or communist. They want something, they imagine something better. They don't long for that. But they really do, they want to combine the philosophical foundations of collectivism, which almost everybody believes in. Like there's nobody who has a slight small percentage of the population philosophically believes in individualism. Almost everybody's a collectivist. But they like their freedoms, right? They like the mixed economy and they like to do stuff. But they don't like the ups and downs. They don't like the volatility. And they think, oh, you know, maybe I should be more consistent with these foundations. Now I don't know how much this USS on nostalgia is real or how big it is. I think it's a fad for many people. But there is definitely a rise in various forms of collectivism and a backlash against capitalism. The anti-capitalist movement in the United States has grown dramatically over the last 10 years. I've never seen America be so anti-capitalist as it is right now. And there was also something like this that I can talk about why Soviet Union was bad for one week. But okay, leave this alone. The problem is that nobody destroyed Soviet arguments. This is the reality. People can think only about Stalin, Lenin and such kind of bad guys were ruling. That's why it was so bad. And not that system was wrong and system needed millions to be killed and etc. This is, we need to destroy these arguments first. And then young people to read those things. And nobody was doing by the way this. There were lots of talks about how bad was Stalin and nothing else. But how bad was the ideology? This is still a secret for many people. They think that it was not so bad. Just Stalin was bad. And you know Stalin was from Georgia. If there is another question, Mr. Hasid there, go ahead. We will finish soon. John, will you repeat the question for the recording? So I think the question was, I think I understood it as why is the anti-capitalism growing in the United States so much? And to what extent has the COVID contributed to that? So the why, I think goes to what Gia just said. The why is that we haven't presented a strong enough defense of capitalism and individualism. We've let the, almost everybody believes that communism is a good idea in theory. It's just difficulty in practice and you had bad people doing it. But in theory it's wonderful. No, in theory it's evil. Evil. It doesn't work. And it's wrong. It doesn't work because it's wrong. And we haven't made that argument. So when you see, when people get uncomfortable with the existing system, they look for some ideals. People want to be idealistic. They want to try for something. What are they going to be idealistic? Capitalism? For greed? For individuals pursuing their own well-being? We all know Christianity, everybody's taught us that's bad. So they look for an alternative. And I think the collectivism, and in America the collectivism comes in two forms. It comes in a left-wing form, which is socialism. And it comes in a right-wing form, which is nationalism and religionism. The centrality of religion. And you're seeing both of those rise. And the one thing shrink is individualism and capitalism defense of that. But we haven't done, we, the bigger we, haven't done a good enough job in defending it and protecting it. And in particularly convincing young people and convincing kids, we've let primarily the left take over our educational institutions. So they dominate those. And then what the right does is it looks at what the left's doing. And they say, well, we know that's evil. So we're going to look for another form of collectivism that attacks what the left does. So they come up with their own. And now you've got two evils that you're trying to fight. And it becomes more difficult. And here, if I can give a plug to something I've been saying for the last six years, but everybody hates me for it. Here Donald Trump played a crucial role, a crucial role in destroying the right in America and in making the right more collectivist. And for anybody who didn't believe me in 1915, in 2015 and 2016, hopefully now you do because you can see the results right in front of us. That is, he completely separated the idea of the Republican Party and the conservatism from the idea of free markets. And he latched on to the idea of Republicanism as associated with collectivism and nationalism and statism and central planning and all those. But the thing that unified him, the thing that we should all get excited about is we hate the left. So there's no opposition to statism in America today. None. There's Republicans and Democrats, each with their own form of statism. And there's a few of us trying to argue with them. But in politics, there's maybe a handful of senators and congressmen who actually stand for kind of ideas of capitalism. Thank you. Thank you, Yaron. And the last question for Yair. Yeah. I mean, I think the most misunderstood of her ideas and the ones that our enemies use most effectively against her is the idea of self-interest. It's the idea of what self-interest actually means. And they associate selfishness, which he put on the title of a book to kind of jab at them. But they associate selfishness with not caring about other people, exploiting other people, being mean and nasty and horrible and being booty-made off, being a lying, cheating, stealing SOB. If you don't know what SOB is, ask me afterwards. And it's a real cognitive barrier to people when they hear egoism or when they hear self-interest or when they hear selfishness. To consider what she actually said, which was this rational approach to your own well-being, to your own ability to thrive and flourish as a human being and pursue your happiness, that does not involve exploiting other people, quite the contrary, involves treating other people as a traitor, treats other people as values and it is fundamentally benevolent. And I think we need to model that and I think we need to, you know, behavior and I think we need to do an ever-better job at explaining that and walking with people. And it's very hard because look, 2,000 years primarily of Christianity having grained in our brain, literally fused 2 concepts together, right? Morality and altruism. Altruism means placing the well-being of other people above yourself, not being nice to people, placing the well-being above yourself. Those 2 ideas, so altruism is morality. So when you say morality is somebody, they think altruism. It's why it's so hard to communicate with people. And we need to find a way to make them rethink the concept and therefore introduce this new idea. Okay, thank you very much. We'll close the session here. And first of all, I want to thank everybody that came over and you should clap yourself, gentlemen, 2 and a half hours in the evening in Tel Aviv when there is so many other things to do. It's very special and appreciated. And I'd like to thank a member of the Knessetcher and a Skel that came over to greet the event. Dr. Yaron Brooke from the Einwand Institute, Gia from the Georgian School of Economics, Barbara Kulem and Hans Unterdrofer. And I hope I got it close. And everybody else that support this production, Ellie and the crew behind with the cameras, and all this great civilization that we need to keep, protect, promote, and keep the light on. And this is basically what we fight for. So keep the light on. Thank you.