 So, I want to get your take on Black Lives Matter. Your second piece in commentary is about that. But in commentary, you really talk about Black Lives Matter's view on other issues other than what they were founded for. But let's start with the shooting. So let me just say this to those who are listening, particularly in YouTube. If you want to ask a question, the Super Chat is available, so you know how to use the Super Chat. And if you want to ask a question of Jason, feel free to use it through the Super Chat. So, the whole police shooting phenomena, the rise of Black Lives Matter, how do you see that? And then I want to talk more about the broader agenda of Black Lives Matter. Well, I thought that initially I thought that the Black Lives Matter movement was a legitimate movement, which I supported in the fact that it had a singular, a very singular aim, which was to draw attention to the shooting of unarmed Black men in this country that needed to be addressed. I thought that these shootings were coming from two sources. There have always been rogue cops or trigger happy cops in law enforcement. And there are policemen who are simply weighed down by what I call statistical reasoning, which is horrible, but the fact that Blacks constitute 11% of the population, but Black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes in this country is an unfortunate thing, but it has to be admitted. And I have a number of police officers, at least two or three who are friends, who admit to this form of what they call statistical reasoning. And that when you are in a very tense situation, this form of statistical reasoning overtakes or supersedes your rational judgment quite often. When you're so bombarded with stimuli that your judgment fails you. Nevertheless, law enforcement has a course of monopoly on the use of force. It has more of a moral obligation to exercise rational judgment, no matter how challenging those situations are. So I thought Black Lives Matter was strategically calling attention to this problem. They quickly lost their moral credibility for me. Very quickly. Because then, first of all, they started attacking Israel. And I'm a radical in the book, I have a chapter on a section on Israel where I radically defend Israel. They started attacking Israel as a genocidal apartheid state. So when did this happen? Because I was not aware of the Israel stuff. So for me, the thing that tipped me on Black Lives Matter is I remember the demonstrations in Chicago, actually. Instead of demonstrating in front of City Hall or in front of the police stations, where you would think have the responsibility for the trigger happy cops or whatever, they were on Michigan Avenue blocking people from entering stores and carrying socialist and Marxist plaques that had nothing to do with police shootings. And that's when I got that this went beyond that. Because if you concern about police shootings, you have to demonstrate to the state. You're not demonstrating private businesses. You're not demonstrating just people walking on the street. You're accusing the state of abusing its power. Go after state officials. Go demonstrate to the mayor, the chief of police. Go after them. But that's not what they did. That's not what they did. That's very indicative of a much bigger, more corrupt social agenda. That's right. So they stretched completely from their lane, advocated the breaking up of US banks, adopted a cultural Marxist perspective. Some of them adopted an outright communist perspective. I read the manifesto very carefully before I wrote the article. And it was horrendous. When did you notice this Israel stuff? I'm curious. When did this enter into the jogging? Was it from the beginning? I don't think it was from the beginning. I think it came in tandem with the Marxist stuff, the breaking up of US banks. Because for them, capitalism and this notion of, you know, a Jewish takeover are both inextricably linked. It was to some extent in Marx's mind. I mean, if you read Marx's essay on the Jewish question, as an essay called on the Jewish question, he talks about the problem of the world is that Jews are self-interested and therefore capitalist. And the problem is the Christians have become Jewish in that they've adopted self-interest in capitalism. We need to eliminate Jewishness from the world, which means we need to eliminate self-interest in capitalism from the world. So he made that link directly between the Jews and the capitalist and self-interest. And, you know, they're just adopting the Marxist rhetoric. So my position really, and I state this in the book we have overcome, is that Black Lives Matter should have been turning, the movement should have been turning its signs towards the Black community, making strategic alliances with police law enforcement officers to reestablish trust with the Black community. Because we cannot do without law enforcement. And two, to be facing these gang members, these thugs head on. You know, they have a moral voice. They have some sort of credibility. Facing these gang members that are wreaking havoc, for example, in Chicago, where we have up to 60 to 75 shootings and killings a week, which they all go unreported because it's so common nowadays. Instead of turning, instead of marching, some of them are marching into Jewish neighborhoods. Instead of turning your signs towards White people and towards the White community, why not go into the Black community now and hold some of these gang members accountable, talk to these people, try to rebuild the community from within. Instead, it's almost as if they expect White lives to care about Black lives more than Black people should care about their own lives. I mean, there's something in me that dislikes the whole conversation in the sense that individuals should value individual lives. I mean, who cares, right? Who cares, exactly. Individual lives. That would be a great message. Let's be colorblind when it comes to these things. But let's go to the criminals, whatever color skin they happen to have, and let's attack them. And I do think they had a claim against the police. But the claim against the police was, we need better training. We need, I mean, I think there are programs. Some police forces have anti-bias training to deal with the statistical issues that you raised and things like that. That should have been the message, more education, more training, and then try to use their moral credibility to bridge the gap within these communities to address the gang violence. That's right. That's not where they went. And they also started advocating things like free education for all Blacks. And I wondered, well... Isn't that what they're getting now? Oh, this is part of their manifesto, actually. Free education for all Blacks. So this is college education, you mean? College education, yes. Because right now, they're getting government education at the lower levels. And the quality is pathetic. And that's probably one of the biggest problems is public education in these cities. I mean, in a city of Chicago, the public education system is so corrupt and so horrific. It's a wonder how anybody escapes poverty in Chicago. That's right. And I think what I raised in the article, and I raised it in the book also, is a philosophical question of whether people should be responsible for the procreational choices or the reproductive choices that other people make, which is the heart of what they're asking. And of course, I think the answer is no, right? You bring a child into the world. You cannot, in a sense, you cannot ask that to be a collectivized social good for the rest of society, right? It's a value that you brought into the world. Your responsibility. And it's your responsibility. So they, when you say in the article, you talk about the fact that Black Lives Matter is wrong and crime. What do you mean? What I mean is that they, it's more like they're dishonest on crime. Okay. Because they're not really admitting, they're following the Tanahisi cult's line of argument in the sense that they're not really admitting to the real problem of black on black crime in this country. And that there needs to be a real honest conversation about the fact that it is not whites that are killing blacks in disproportionate numbers in this country. White people are not marching and droves into black communities and killing other black people. It is these black predominant, these black gang members and other blacks that are killing blacks. But when you read the manifesto and you listen to the Black Lives Matters advocates, you walk away with an impression that it took, well, two things, either implicitly that white people are somehow killing black people. That's not the main message, but that's implicit message or be that black on black crime is causally related to systemic racism and the legacy of Jim Crowism in this country. And that's what Tanahisi, that's Tanahisi's claim, right? That's right. And I think that's a bunch of malarkey.