 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual lives. This is the Iran Book Show. Everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Sunday afternoon. Thanks everybody for joining us. We have a, basically an open Q&A today, so we've got some people here on, some of my contributors on video who are going to start us off with the questions and then I'm going to take questions from anybody who's watching live and is willing to use the super chat. And basically this is open Q&A. So it's, I'll take questions on anything. Let me just see. I need to promote Adam and Debbie to co-host so we can get the video. Okay, so we're literally questions about anything. Everything's open, super chat is available. Priority will be given to people who ask questions with more dollars rather than less dollars. Let me just add that I now have a feature on my super chat tracking app, which is so cool. God, I wish you guys could see this, it's so cool. I know I get excited about technology that probably for most of you is like, you didn't have one of those already? I mean, it's so obvious. But anyway, not only does it list all the super chat questions, it lists the ones that are $20 or more on a separate column. And then when I answer them, it shifts it to another column, so it gets them out of the way. So I know the questions I haven't asked yet. But on top of that, it actually does add up the super chats. So I don't need Catherine. I don't need Robert to be there adding up all the super chat. I actually have a sum numbered here and I have how many dollars are remaining to 600. And that was a feature from the beginning, which I didn't notice. So there you go. I need to pay more attention. And we're going to add features. We're going to make this a really, really cool app. So I'm kind of excited. Nobody else in the world will want to use it because it doesn't have relevance to anybody. But for me, this is going to be super cool. And hey, who do I care about other than me? Not very many people. So, yes. So we now have a running tally, Jonathan. Thank you. Thanks for your support. Thanks, everybody, who was around for yesterday's interview with Ben Bear. I managed to, you know, lose a significant number of subscribers out of that interview. So we obviously hit a nerve. So that's a plus, I guess, defending abortion loses me subscribers. That's known. And we'll see how many subscribers we can lose today. It all depends on the questions that you ask. No more questions. We can set a goal. You know, what topic loses us the most subscribers? What can we do to offend the largest number of people listening to the show without compromising on our principles? All right, there's a challenge for everybody. OK, let's get started with questions from a panel. Jennifer, Europe. Since it seems like the concept of rights is pretty complicated for people to grasp. That was one of Iron Man's greatest accomplishments, I think, was explaining that. But I was thinking when I try to explain it to people, it would be better to use the word need instead of have. Because, like to say, it's a need that people have when interacting with each other. It's a need they need to recognize that we all need in our relationships, as opposed to have. Because if you say have, then people see it as intrinsic. And it's a way we need to treat each other. Not something you have. You think that would be helpful at all? I mean, yeah, I mean, the problem is with need is that it's got this negative. It's got this connotation of neediness and it's got the connotation of need. As as now you have a more, you know, now people have to give it to you. So other people have to give it to you. So that's. So, but yeah, but I can see the problem with have. You do have them, but have is not like somebody gave it to you. It's not any scientific. You're born with it. It's something that that is so maybe your climate rather than need. Because I think that's what it is. It's a requirement for civilization. It's a requirement for individuals to live in a social context. They they have to have it. But it's and but it's not something that you need and they for don't have. That's the problem with need is. It is it assumes you don't it assumes you cannot have it, but we all have it. Right. So we all have rights where the other people have recognized that need or not. But it is a requirement for life and in a social set. So I think that's better. Yeah, but it's it's complicated in the world. And I think Ben did a really good job talking about this yesterday. It's complicated in the world that can only think in dualities. Right. So again, we go back to this idea of people thinking in dualities and the duality that exists in the world around this is intrinsicism versus subjectivism. So it's either in you and planted there by God or by nature, you know, or by nature's God is the declaration states or it's subjective. And it's just whatever, whatever people decide or whatever the government instituted institutes or whatever, whatever like that. So it's it's it's a there's no way to get around the fact that the idea of an objective concept, the idea of of any kind of objective concept is going to be hard for people to grasp because they immediately go to it's intrinsic if it's not subjective, it's subjective if it's not intrinsic and they can't and this applies to so much of the struggles we have to explain our ideas to people because of exactly that because of the intrinsic subjective objective. And really, how do we how do you break away from that without giving them a class in a personality, right, and really doving deep? It's hard. All right, David. Well, I've got a question about chamber music. I'm getting ready to do a performance of Brahms Clarinet Quintet in a couple of weeks. And I just couldn't remember you ever talking about chamber music pieces. So I was wondering, what are some of your favorite chamber music pieces? And what do you get out of chamber music that you don't get out of big symphonic pieces? What are some of the differences? Good question. So I was actually when I was in London, I try in London because I love chamber music. So I like it. There's a particular hall in London, Wiggenmo Hall, which only does chamber music. It's a very small hall, very small stage, and they have some of the best chamber ensembles come there and perform. And I saw Daniel Bell do a violin and piano thing a while back, which was amazing. And I just my last trip in London, I went on a Sunday afternoon. It was like 11.30 in the morning, and they did three trios, just piano trios. So piano trios. I love piano trios. I love anything with a piano in it. I find that the contrast between the strings and the piano, really beautiful and really interesting. And I think that's why I like the clarinet. I like Brahms's clarinet. So like I think Mozart has a clarinet. I like it because it's the contrast. So if it's just strings, it can be beautiful and amazing and so on. But I love the contrast between either the piano or the or the wind instruments and the and the string instruments. Some of my favorites in terms of piano trios, piano quintets, it's kind of the I think the famous one. I mean, Tchaikovsky's piano trio is amazing. It's so emotional. It's so it's so beautiful. Rachmaninoff has this one where they do a bunch of variations on it. And I forget what it's called, but it's they did it at this concert. And it's just gorgeous. It's just gorgeous. It's a it's a it's a piano trio. It's Rachmaninoff piano trio. Then Beethoven's piano trios. But anything Beethoven, all of his chamber music. So that's piano trios. I love Schubert's piano quintet. The Trout. There's a trout in there too, I think. So I like the both, but the trout is particularly good. But I like the both. There's a I think there's a Schumann one. So I like piano quintets. Brahms has one, I think. And somebody later on. Oh, they did at this performance. They did Saint-Saint's piano trio, which was beautiful. And I didn't I don't think I knew it. I don't I'd heard it, but I didn't really pay attention to it. And it was beautiful. One of the great one of the nice things about live performances is you get sometimes experienced pieces you haven't really spent time with. And because it's live, it has an energy to it. They don't get so so that was good. Yeah. So those are my those are my favorite piano. And then yeah, I love I love Schubert's chamber music. I love everything Beethoven violin and violin piano. Oh, I think I think Chopin has a piano trio. Anyway, there's just a lot. The thing about one of my favorite is funk. Funk has a piano sonata piano sorry piano violin sonata, which is beautiful. So anyway, the thing about chamber music is there's so much of it. Like when you get into classical music, there's a lot of symphonies, but at some point you are not a symphonies. You're never going to run out of chamber music. There's so much good chamber music. It's amazing. What do you get out of what I get out of chamber music? It's more intimate. It's by definition quieter. It's less about big emotions and more subtle, although it can be very sweeping like the Tchaikovsky piano trios like it goes really hit you in the heart really powerfully. So it's I think more intimate. It's more, I think that's the main difference, but it is truly, truly it's beautiful. And I think I first this really got into it. I was visiting a cousin years ago. This was I was 21, I think. This is any a cousin who's much older than me, like my mother's cousin or something in South Africa of all places. And he had this massive collection of chamber music. And I just started listening there with headphones and it was just, wow, there's so much, there's so much richness here. There's so much variety of emotions. There's so many, there's so many. Yeah, anyway, so yes, I love it. And so it's more, if you want a quiet, more for quiet mood for, you know, you being in a very contemplative mood, it's not Beethoven's seventh where you want to get up and you, you know, I conduct it and I get all excited and I'm, you know, I can't sit still and I'm all, you know, Mahler where he's just freaking you out. Anyway, it's much more, you know, I'm quiet, I'm listening, you know, I get, I get quite emotional with it because it is very, it's very emotional, but in more subtle ways. We're talking about chamber music. People are saying Brahms violin, we're talking about chamber music, that's why. And then of course, I don't know, do you count piano solo as chamber music? I mean, it's like almost a different category, but then there's a whole world of just piano music. God, there's no end to it, right? In terms of how many sonatas they all have. I also like Beethoven's quartets. So I do like just string. Beethoven is always power, right? There's always energy and power and even wind. And sometimes you listen to like a trio or a quartet by Beethoven and you go, there's no way there are only four instruments there. Exactly. So much sound coming there. There's so much variety you're hearing. So many different things that you can hear at the same time. There's got to be a little orchestra, something back there. They're cheating. There's no way. Another benefit of seeing them in live is that you get a sense of, wow, I mean, how amazing these players are to be able to produce that kind of sound. So yeah, congratulations on the Brahms. I mean, that'll be a lot of fun. Thank you. It's, I'm really looking forward. It's so beautiful. Your favorite. What are your favorites in chamber music? Oh gosh, I consider myself still a neophyte. So I'm still learning the repertoire even after playing for eight years. I basically focus on the music that I'm playing at the moment. So I've gotten to play all four of the big clarinet quintets. The Mozart, the Weber just played those about a year and a half ago. I played the Coleridge Taylor, which was, it's really interesting. And it's really quite beautiful too. But I'm really enjoying the Brahms quintet right now. Brahms is beautiful. The other composer I would recommend is Dvořák. Oh yes. Dvořák has some excellent chamber music. Some really good quartets. I've never heard a Dvořák piece I didn't like. And I've heard many of them for the first time in the last few years. And they're just incredible. Some reason supposedly Einmann did not like his new world symphony. I don't know how you can't like his new world symphony. It's like I don't get it. So there's one thing I don't understand with Dvořák. I understand her dislike for Beethoven. I don't understand her dislike for Dvořák's. Other than he does use a lot of folk music. And she did have an objection to using folk music and classical music. But it's so good. And it's so American. The new world symphony is so... It really is an American symphony. So and it was inspired by New York City and the skyline. The American Quartet, right? I mean... And then the American Quartet. He has a piano quintet. He just is not well known for his chamber music. But it's very good. All of it's very... Yeah. So thank you. Good. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for the question. John. Nick and Adam, did you want to comment on chamber music? No. Okay. So you don't need to put your hand up. I will get to you. So the hand up confuses me. John. Yeah. My hand wasn't up either. But I know I'm just going... I've got to order. I'm asking everybody questions and the hand up kind of... Yeah. Forgive me. I'm still a little near here. I would say for a question is... When can you decide good art from bad art? I guess I'll keep it simple for my first one. What do you mean by when? How do you personally discern what is good music versus what is bad music? When you have some knowledge in the field. So I mean, I hesitate to talk about music and I try not to talk about good and bad, although I do sometimes. And I prefer to talk about what I love and what I don't because I don't know very much about music quite technical. And I don't think anybody knows much about music with regard to its relationship to your consciousness, so the interaction between music and consciousness. Rand had some really interesting speculations or theories, not speculation theories about this, but even she said she wasn't 100% sure about it. So it really depends on your knowledge. I think I know quite a bit about sculpture. I think I know quite a bit about painting. Leonard Pickup has convinced me I don't know anything about literature, so I try not to make judgments about literature. I once got a real scolding from him for recommending a book. But I think he was right. So if I say something's good or bad, I try to limit it to the things I think I have a good understanding of the history and something about the technical aspects and something about the way it works on you. That is the way the art affects you and interacts with your consciousness. I think much more important than that, or at least certainly in the beginning, before you gain the knowledge, is just to figure out what you like and what you don't. That's hard enough already. And to open yourself up to experiencing art, a lot of people, because I think we live in a relatively repressed, emotionally repressed society, don't allow themselves to really open up and really experience art. So they don't get a good sense of what they like and what they don't like. So I would focus on that. And then as you gain knowledge, take art appreciation, art history courses, classes, then I think you'll get yourself into a better position to be able to say, this is good art, this is bad art. I would agree. My best friend actually, I would go so far, say is the best metal player in upstate New York, where I live, and I'm very fortunate in that respect. And he plays the most technical, because I'm not personally into metal myself, but it's very similar to classical music in terms of the way the scales fit to the modes, et cetera, et cetera. With that in mind, it still doesn't resonate with me, despite the fact that I can still at least appreciate how good it is. So we all have our different styles at the end of it. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. And a lot of good art you're not going to like. Like, you know, Leonard, you know, it's hard to like Tolstoy, even though it's great art, because it's annoying. The naturalism is annoying. All right, let's see, Adam, we've got somebody else here. George has joined us. Let's see, you as a finance guy, what do you think of investing in Europe now that European equities are down because of the Ukraine war, but they're gaining a lot of human capital out of Russia. Many STEM people are leaving Russia before Putin can impose conscription. And also, there are all the Ukrainian women who are living with their kids, but in Europe, there's a lot of available childcare. Most of them are in Poland, where the standard childcare is Montessori. So their kids are going to be taken care of soon, and they're going to be able to go to work. Doesn't that mean that European equities are going to go up as soon as all those people join the European workforce? Well, it all depends. I'm a good finance guy, so I always say it all depends. It all depends on everything else that's going on in Europe, that is on the regulatory environment, the tax environment, which in many respects is getting worse. And it depends on whether all the good news that you've just described might be already priced. That is, it might be already figured into the value of equities in Europe. So the only time you should think in terms of should I invest here versus a diversified portfolio is when you think, do I know something the rest of the world doesn't? Do I know something professional investors don't know? In a sense, do I have an edge? And I'm just not sure that you do, maybe you do, but I'm just not sure that it's not already priced. I generally believe that for most people, and I mean most people, I mean 90 plus percent of people, they should have a well-diversified portfolio that includes some equity in Europe. And what you might want to do is if you think Europe is generally heading in a better direction, relatively speaking to America and the rest of the world, maybe weight it a little bit more, put a little bit more weight on Europe relative to everything else. But yeah, I mean, that is a plus, but there's also a lot of negatives. You've got a relatively left-wing government in Germany that you've got climate change policies going over in Europe that in spite of the Russia where you think they'd wake up, they're not really waking up. And so you've got a lot of challenges in Europe. And then the question is, is this enough to overcome all those other challenges? And is this something you know that the rest of the world doesn't know that it's not priced yet? Well, one thing that I do know is that the most involved countries, namely Ukraine and Poland and even Russia, have a much better educational philosophy than the US. That is, they have curricula that are essentially Thomas, which means Aristotelian. But it's also Poland is also super religious, which affects a lot of those kind of issues. But I would suggest that translating a better educational system into stock prices is a long-term project. I'm skeptical whether you can make that assertion. You could say you think Poland's going to do well over the next couple of decades because they have a better educational system. Whether that will translate directly into a better performing stock market or not is a different question. Good. I have a second unrelated question. Let's leave it for round two. We'll do that in round two. All right, Debbie. Hey, Ron. So my question is about, I'm not even really a question for status, comment and maybe get your thought on my comment. I've been reading fossil future and I am blown away by the quality of that book. I actually intended originally to tie it in, but now that this has come up in the discussion, that much more so to this issue of the epistemological roadblocks we run into when trying to advocate for a good idea or a good position. And what I see is that the value of Alex's book is that it's as much, at least from my perspective, it's as much about how to think about this particular issue as it is about the issue itself. And for example, he names, no, he doesn't just name, he proves, he derives the fundamental premises and standards of the different groups of, you know, the different sort of major categories of position on the issue of fossil fuels and climate change. And then he frames the issue in terms of the full context and he's very explicit about the fact that he's doing those things. Reading it, I just come away with this real sense of excitement that this type of approach really can move the needle. Not just, I mean, yes, in the issue, which is hugely important and which I understand better than I did before, why it's so important, the issue of using fossil fuels and look affordable energy and everything, but also in terms of how people think about things, teaching them, just showing them, there's another way to think about these things. It's not just about like, well, I got a bunch of facts that I cherry picked and he's got a bunch of facts that he cherry picked and we're going to call each other evil and then we're going to go home and everybody's, you know, kind of unmoved by the whole exchange. So maybe I'm being a little overly optimistic because I read Atlas Shrugged and I was one of those people who said, this is it. As soon as people read it, they're going to get it and they're going to be like all on board for objectivism and that was not the case. So maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but yeah, well, what's your take on that general constellation of issues that I have? Oh, I agree completely. So I think that when material is presented right, then it is implicitly teaching people how to think about an issue and then what Alex does is he makes it explicit. He makes that part of what he's conveying. He's not just doing it. He's pointing out as he's doing it to the reader that he's doing, which is I think very powerful. And yeah, I mean, I've said this many times. I think, I don't agree with you that this is it. It's not. I can guarantee that. No, no, not that it's it, but just that it can move the needle. Oh, it will move the needle. I think Alex has already moved the needle. I think with this book he's going to move the needle more. I do think that I've said this many times that a thousand Alexes, then it's it, right? Imagine this book on every major controversial field that we have today in the culture. Exactly. Imagine so you don't even need a thousand. You need a particular of this. You need a hundred and maybe another hundred academics and a hundred something else. So you need about a thousand intellectuals overall, but they can be all types of intellectuals. But that's what you need. I mean, you need more Alexes in order that you need that kind of work to be done and that kind of the methodology to be to be conveyed to the world. And the more intellectuals we have, the more probability is that we achieve that. So yes, it's exactly what we need. And we need more of it. So we need to clone Alex and get more of it in different fields. And, you know, it's taken him. The other thing that you gain from this is it's taken him a long time. Not a long time vis-a-vis the I think the achievement, but just a long time. And that's part of the issue is that intellectual change, intellectual achievement, intellectual moving the needle takes a long time because it requires real deep thinking and real deep work, which in this case Alex has done for the field of energy and fossil fuels. And we need a lot, lot more of that. And but if you extrapolate on if we need a hundred books like Alexes, how long it took Alexes to write the book. And even if you have more than one Alex at any given point of time, you know, we're looking at a 50 plus year battle. We're not looking at any short term quick course. Of course. So I've quit looking for silver bullets, magic bullets. I know that there aren't any. Although I do think the iron rand university initiative is basically putting up an Alex factory, if you will. And what we've always been doing now we've reached a scale where we can do it on a bigger scale. So one of the things we did for many years is produce enough people to start hiring teachers to begin. So now we've got enough teachers that you can actually create a university. So that's that's what's cool about. And now you can do scale. Now you can start thinking in terms of scale. Yes. So all of these are the steps necessary for the big, you know, for for the silver bullet. But the silver bullet is traveling at two miles an hour. It was not shot by a high powered rifle. All right, Nick. Okay, I'm gonna ask a question on politics. I wanted to give Kirk Wilcox a credit for a tweet he made. I thought it was a brilliant observation. He thought that Trump would run as a third party, because everybody's sick and tired of his, you know, recycled garbage with the insurrection and all the nonsense he keeps spewing just the same same BS all the time. And he thought then he even made an off the cuff that Tulsi Gobber another another conspiracies would be his because she's young and charismatic would be his is running mate. Yeah. Now if and it seems very likely because half of the Republican Party is just tired of him. He's got his diehards that will die on the stake forum. But the other half has just had enough of his BS. So what I'm saying is it looks that looks like a very likely scenario. What do you think will happen if Republicans have the Rome party? The obvious favorite is the governor in Florida, DeSantis. Yeah. And then Trump Trump will go on suicide and do his third party. That's the way he is. He just can't handle defeat. And then I guess have Biden hangs around. How do you think that plays out? So first, I don't think Trump will run in a third party. I, you know, I'm super skeptical running a third party campaign. You have to build up the infrastructure for years and years and years. I just don't think he'll do it. Clearly he'll do the truth. Social. He's nuts. No, he's nuts, but he's nuts in a different kind of way. I think he'll he'll wait to see who the most viable candidate is in the Republican Party, then he'll endorse him and he'll pretend that it's because of him that the guy won and he'll take credit for anything good that happens. And but I actually don't think he's going to run for president. I don't think he'll run as a Republican or as an independent. So that's just my my view. And everybody I've talked to was any connection into the Trump universe and into Trump himself has said there's no way he's running. He's already made the decision not to run. So that means nothing. I guess that doesn't mean a lot, but at least that's that's what I'm hearing. If he does do it, if he runs a third party, then, you know, he will get his 20, 30 percent. You know, the Santas will get 20, 30 percent and whoever runs on a Democratic ticket will win easily. I mean, it won't even be part. It'll be easy. So it's a sure guarantee to get us another four years of a Democratic president, which as many of you know, I might not view as the worst thing in the world if Republicans hold on to the House and Senate, which I think they will. So that's my two cents. I just don't see. I think he takes most of his votes from Republicans. I don't see how a Republican candidate gets enough Democrats to win or independence. And I think I think I think the Democrats all vote for one guy. It's clear the Democrats win in such a scenario. Trump is not a unifier. He's not going to bring a bunch of new people to vote to vote for him. You know, same 30 percent of the Republican Party, 40 percent of the Republican Party will vote for him. It's it's it's in a sense worse than Raspuro because he's more he's more controversial. He's more what's the terminology anyway. So I don't I think it guarantees the Democrats a win. So I don't think he does it. He's not he's not going to run to lose. Do you think Biden hangs around? It depends if if he still how well how often he's breathing. I don't know. You know, it really is hard to tell. It depends. He doesn't look in great shape. And if Trump's not running, if Trump's not running, I think there's a good chance Biden doesn't run that the Democrats get somebody different. So I think Biden will run if it's Trump, but he won't run if it's not Trump. He's going to get destroyed in the midterms with the price of gas going through the roof. He was going to get destroyed in the midterms even without the price of gas going up. I mean, the country is not a leftist country. I've said this forever. The country will not vote for socially leftist agenda. But he's more of a centrist. He's not a he's not a wow. But he's the Republicans have portrayed him as governing from the left. And that's how he's going to be portrayed. And that's how I think that and you can see it in the polls that people people despise him because he's too leftist. I'm curious your thoughts on why stoicism is so attractive to so many people in the culture and not like the original Roman sense of stoicism, but the way it's been popularized by people like Ryan Holiday, Jordan Peterson, the way Lex Friedman talks about it. What are your thoughts on it? You know, why do you think it has especially with young men, why do you think stoicism really has this hook and this attraction for so many people? Yeah, I mean, I'm not an expert on this. I'll have to bring Aaron from the Institute on Smith who has written about stoicism and has read a bunch of stoicism and what happened on the show and then you guys can grill him on stoicism. So I'll just speculate. So I think there's a real, there's some understanding among people like Jordan Peterson and Lex and others that the culture has become emotionalist, that it's become hysterical. And you know, I think the whole cancer culture woke, but even before that, the safe spaces, snowflakes, all of that that's been going on now what, six, seven, eight years since the early teens, I think it's really become a big deal. We've been talking about it for a long time. So the culture is clearly in our educational system encourages this, it's clearly become very emotionalistic. And so they're looking to counter emotionalism without completely giving up on spiritual values, if you will, right? So without becoming rationalists or the perception of rationalists, so without becoming a Descartes type of, you know, or without advocating for some kind of overt repression of emotions. So their solution is to challenge their emotions into this other avenue for Jordan Peterson. It's a kind of religion. It's a kind of religion, but not exactly religion. So I think it's, socialism appeals to them because it's non-emotionalistic. It has a semblance of reason and rationality, but not as we understand it. And it's not completely repressive, although it does have a repressive aspect to it. And then, yeah, and the other important aspect, and I think Ben addressed this yesterday in the Q&A about socialism, is that it's not that challenging. So you can still be an altruist, you can still be a Christian, you can still be, it's not asking you to give anything really important up, except don't just be a bubbling, you know, a bundle of emotions, right? So you can still adhere to all the same moral code that you had before, and even the same mysticism you had before. Now, it's just asking you to be a little bit more distant from your emotions, to hold them in check, you know, and to try to be a little bit more quote, rational, observe things in a more, from a distance without taking, without jumping to conclusions and jumping to sides and getting excited. And this is the appeal. What is it appeal to young men? It appeals to young men primarily because they're not emotionalists, they're repressed. Young men in our culture are repressed, super repressed. We teach them to be repressed. We teach them to be passive. This has to do with the shootings, I think, and the whole attitude towards men that we have in the culture, towards boys, in particular, we have in the culture. We try to get them to be emotional, but it doesn't, they don't buy it, so they repress the emotions. But they think emotions are really, really important, but they repress them. They're confused, they're surrounded by emotionalism around them, particularly, you know, particularly among women who they don't understand and they don't know what to do with. And again, not so much young women, right? They're saying boys, girls, kind of, because the girls embrace the emotionalism that they're being taught. They embrace that because they're more open to that. Men have this conflict. You're supposed to be emotional, but you're supposed to be a man and, you know, which means repress them, so they've got this conflict. I think men are much more confused than this young men, are much more confused in the culture today than women are. It doesn't mean women are right, it just means they're less confused. It's much easier for them in some way to buy into the BS that they're being taught that with men. So men are confused, men are more angry. There's greater demand for them to go against their nature. Okay, so I'm going to say some stuff that I might get in trouble with. But anyway, you know, we treat boys really, really badly. And there's a difference between boys and girls. I'm sorry, but when you're growing up, you can see it. You can see young kids in the playground and there's a difference between boys and girls. And some girls do this, but most girls don't. Boys are supposed to run around, bump into each other, get into a fight once in a while, get into the mud, get dirty. It's part of growing up is being out there, engaging with reality, with the soil, with physical reality. I think girls are much better at, much more self-contained and much better at dealing without having to go, growing up without having to go out there and actually climb trees and throw rocks and do stuff like that. I don't know why, I don't have an explanation of why, but that's my general sense of it. I mean, it has to do with, I think, grand's view of femininity and masculinity. And men tend to be more masculine and female tend to be more feminine, but not always and not at every age or not every woman and not every man, right? So the variations. And then we restrain men and we tell them they can't do that. They're not supposed to do that and we treat them like they should be more feminine. And we restrain them and you add to that in an educational system that can't teach and then emphasize the emotions of a reason and which is hurting both men and women, but I think ultimately creates more anger and resentment and hatred among men and that's why you see men go out and shoot in schools, not just shoot people, but shoot in schools. And I think it's why men are looking, these young men are looking for something that desperately in search of answers because they're conflicted, they're unhappy, they're much more distressed than it seems that women are. And that's why I think you find men engaged much more in a search for answers, intellectual answers. Women are much more comfortable in the world in which we live than men are, just generally. And therefore, so if you look at intellectual movements, particularly radical intellectual movements that dominate by men, because men are constantly in search of, today, men are constantly in search of something. And I think women are more comfortable partially because for so long, women were oppressed and there's a certain liberty now, they have the freedom and they go, you know, that it's not as urgent it is for men who feel like something's changed for them in a negative sense. For women, the change over the last hundred years is mostly being positive in terms of their ability to live their life. I don't know. So that's my somewhat rambling thoughts about all of that. Thank you. Not organized as well as Alex's book. But it is, it's a fascinating issue. It would be interesting to get a psychologist to talk about it. And then stoicism, I'll definitely have Aaron Smith on because obviously, stoicism is so prevalent today, particularly in Silicon Valley. Yeah, I think the thing that really jumped out of me, I mean, you know, it is something that's everywhere. I think there is that superficial masculinity about it that men, you know, we don't show our feelings. But what really kind of made like a linkage for me is when on one of his shows, Lex Fridman talked about the phrase, you know, this too shall pass. But he talked about specifically in the context of good things as well as bad things. And that's when it hit home to like, stoicism is the denial of positive emotions as well as negative ones. I'm a very emotional passionate person. It's like, you know, I don't want to give up those, those massive highs and the aggression and, you know, how I feel at sports games, that sort of thing. It seems like you're losing a lot for a relatively small benefit of not having those negative things. So that's what really made it click for me. Absolutely. And, you know, that's absolutely right. And look, it links into Jordan Peterson's whole view that emotions like happiness is accidental. It's random. It's not caused by particular behaviors. And if you have it, you know, great, but don't expect it because, you know, most people are never happy. And that's the state of nature. That's the state of the world. So be a man, accept the fact that you're never going to be happy and just suck it up and repress those emotions, the negative emotions and the positive emotions, they're not going to happen anyway. So what the hell, right? So it really is all about sucking it up and being a man. And I think to some extent they use that terminology. And again, they're hooking into something real about men. But it is a distortion and a perversion at the same time. And young men really, really feel it. And it's horrible. And I think that's why nihilism is so much more prevalent among young men than among young women. All right, we have a bunch of super chat questions. By the way, so we're at $211. So now that I have the numbers here, I can let you know exactly where we are. So $211, I'll put it, I'll stop putting it up in the chat so you guys are up to date with it. All right, let's start with a couple of $50, then I'll do 20s. We'll go back to our panel, and then we'll come back to do the lower numbers. We've got a big panel today. So we're not going to go as many rounds as we sometimes do. Dave asks, do you think if not, do you think many, if not most people, can't register logic? Truth and integrations of that truth, don't click in their minds as a aha moment. If people have some kind of blockage and can't resonate and absorb rationality, how do we win it? Rationality is not something we absorb. It's something we have to actively engage in and actively do. It's an action, and it requires focus, it requires engagement. And it's absolutely true that a significant number of people never turn it on. They never engage in it. So yes, you can talk logically to them, rationally to them, and it doesn't go anywhere because they haven't really turned on their mind. They aren't really thinking in any kind of significant sense. And there's no way to convince them to turn it on. And this is why you're not going to be able to just change the existing culture. It's not like tomorrow, there's no silver bullet. This is why there's no silver bullet. There's no one argument. If we had a million rational people, we could convince everybody, we couldn't. Now if we had a million people, then the second-handers would start following us. So they would adopt our ideas not because they agreed with them, but because they would be mimicking them because, oh, a bunch of these people are saying the same thing. It must be right. Therefore, I'll follow it just like they do today. It's not that they understand that socialism is better, that this idea is better, that they just follow. And if we are the leaders, they will follow us. So no matter how you look at this, we have to capture the intellectual high ground. But the more important thing is we need to create a culture that encourages people to think, and that happens at a very young age. Now there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who never think, just don't turn it on. They just follow. They just are what they are. But that percentage is going to be low in a free, rational society and with a good educational system. So this is why I keep emphasizing that the really, really, really important work is in early education. It's in getting kids from the age of five on and four on or whatever, three on, and teaching them to think, teaching them about logic and providing them with a positive incentive to think so that they don't get slapped down, knocked down, discouraged every time they do exercise thought. So the earlier we get them, the more influence we can have. But the more of the intellectual high ground we can capture, the more of them will just follow us anyway. You can't convince most people today. It's unachievable to convince most people. Not all most people today. You cannot convince them. There's just no way around that fact. And once you realize that, you realize how long it's going to take. This is not a short term battle. All right. Hopper Campbell asked, just because the government has tanks, nukes, doesn't make 100 million Americans with AR-15s useless. Ukrainian militias are holding off the entire Russian army with AK-47s. If gun ownership really were feeble, the left wouldn't be trying hard to restrict it. I don't know. I mean, I've said everything. I've said it all with regard to guns. And I don't know what more to say, Hopper. The fact is that the Ukrainian military would have been crushed by the T-72s if not for Stinger and other anti-tank missiles. I might be able to have an AK-47 in my home, but not an anti-tank missile. There's no right to that, and you're not going to get it unless you steal it. Right now, the thing that's stopping the Russians from overtaking Ukraine in the East, how it's what do you call it, cannons, artillery. It's not something you're going to have in your neighborhood. It's not something you're going to put in your backyard. The Ukrainians have drones and they have airplanes. One of the big criticism, one of the things that you illustrated the Russian weakness in this war was the fact that they did not control the airspace. If they did control the airspace and if the Ukrainians didn't have anti-aircraft missiles, the Ukrainians didn't have drones. If the Ukrainians didn't have their own migs, forget about your AK-47. It doesn't matter. You'll be bombed and into oblivion, into oblivion. I mean, you guys have no clue what one of those bombs will do and can do and is doing. They're kind of damaged. I mean, you've seen these cities devastated. An AK-47 cannot do anything. Now, yes, you can have a guerrilla warfare and you can live as a partisan against. Sure. That's one. Second is, and I'm going to get a bunch of unsubscribes for this. The left is not motivated. I'll put it this way. A majority of people who vote left, a majority of people who believe in gun control are not motivated to believe in gun control because they want to take over the country, establish a dictatorship, and they don't want opposition. I think if you actually got into the minds of most people on the left, almost very few of them, maybe 10%, maybe 20%, want a dictatorship and are therefore motivated to take away our guns because they want a dictatorship. It's not how the world works. It's not how they think. Now, I'm not saying they won't support a dictatorship when the time comes. They will. So will people on the right. But their motivation around gun control is not a dictatorship. I know people including me who believe in gun control. And the motivation is not that I want a dictatorship, and therefore I want to disarm you in order to establish a dictatorship. And that's true as well of many people on the left. They have a whole list of reasons why they believe in gun control. Justified or unjustified, we could debate. But their motivation, their primary motivation is not, ooh, when the leftist dictator comes around, I don't want those people to be able to resist. It doesn't come into their mind for the most part. So I mean, we have this tendency to view the other side as even because we see their policies leading to a dictatorship, which they are, therefore they want a dictatorship. No, they constantly rationalize that thought away. They don't want a dictatorship, even though their policies are leading to it. They don't hold it that way. They don't conceptualize it that way. But yeah, I mean, I shot an AR-50 and I've also shot a tank. I was a tanker. I was a gunner in a tank. So I pulled the trigger and had one of those projectiles fly out and destroy buildings on the other side. You do not want to go up against a tank with, and plus the three machine guns that a tank has, three machine guns, that a tank has two or three. One that the gunner is controlling and one that the tank commander is controlling. It blow everything. Everything around it would be one tank without anti-tank missile. One tank could kill hundreds of people. There's no limit with AR-15s. Your AR-15 is useless against a tank. It can't penetrate anything. So it's just, yeah, and I'm also cocktail from modern tank can't do much. I mean, you really need sophisticated anti-tank weaponry. We live in a different world than even Ukraine is fighting in because Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Russian equipment, but Ukraine has Western military equipment, a lot of it. Otherwise, it would have lost in the first week. So yeah, I mean, look, and you know, I've said this often. I've said this from stage. I've said this in public. When the time comes for revolution, we will have to break into military warehouses and steal the weapons we need. We will have to get our hands on stinger missiles and anti-aircraft missiles and howitzers and tanks. We will have to get a few pilots to come on outside with maybe a couple of F-22s. I don't know. Suddenly we'll have to have anti-air missiles and anti-tank missiles when the time comes. But we'll have to break into military constellations, steal them. Now, yes, you'll need the AR-15s to do that. So okay, save your AR-15s for the revolution. But this is the other thing. This is what's right between us. Who is going to be on outside? I mean, are all people with guns in America on outside? None of them are, like five of them are, right? Five of them. I know all five. Maybe it's 5,000, but that's it. The rest are not on outside. As soon as they finish killing the leftists, they kill us. I mean, God. We're pro-abortion. Or at least I am. Right to the firing line. All right. We got $320 questions. Then we'll go back to our panel. Michael, is the welfare state designed after the Mother Teresa model give poor people enough to survive but not enough to live in kind of meaningful life so that they exist in a miserable state for as long as possible? I think I don't think it's quite that bad. I don't think it's ideologically that bad or purposefully that bad or in reality that bad. But it is somewhat, right? It's most of the passion around the welfare state. The programs that politicians really get excited about are not programs targeted at the poor. They're programs targeted at the middle class. So the things that are biggest welfare programs, Medicare and Social Security, for example, or a lot of the tax deductions, tax breaks, a lot of the other things are all targeted at the middle class. The fact is nobody actually cares about the poor. They don't. And indeed, if they did, then they wouldn't be pro-capitalist. Nobody cares about the poor. Welfare is not about the poor. It's about looking like you're doing something about for the poor and in the meantime, shuffling a bunch of money for the middle class because that's how you gain their vote. And then you can't undo it because if you say anything about, I don't know, privatizing Social Security, the middle class is who comes after you. If you voucherize Medicare as Paul Ryan suggested at some point, Paul Ryan, who I think wasn't that bad, and has become a villain in the Trump era, voucherizing Medicare, everybody was against it. Republicans, Democrats, everybody because you're supposedly hooting the middle class. So nobody cares about the poor. So it's not that they want to keep them poor. If they want them to give them enough so they don't complain too much, they want to give them enough so they can get their votes. They want to give them enough to keep them pacified, but they don't have enough and they don't want to tax everybody else enough to actually help them. They never say that because to get the votes they need to present themselves as real altruists, but that's their motivation. Okay, Jean-Gypsy, somebody left us. John, I think left. All right, your thoughts on civil war reenactments in the South. Between that and the memorial statues, Confederate flag, does the South have an unhealthy preoccupation with antebellum culture? Should they dispense with the completing? I don't know about these reenactments. I mean, are the reenactments meant to glorify the South? Are they just meant to present history? I'm not familiar enough. I do think that the Confederates flag and the statues are offensive because they are celebrating antebellum culture. I do think there's generally too much celebration of antebellum culture, which is not healthy and not good. Yes, they should dispense with as much of it as possible. Generally, the only real thing we should be celebrating in our past as a culture is the founding and industrialization, like the founding and the Vava balance. Those are the two things we should really be celebrating in our past. Almost nothing else is worth a celebration. So because the past is the past, but those two things are really devoting yourself to something like the antebellum South. It's really unhealthy and bad. Michael asks, Ben Baer seems to think we're headed towards a civil war. What will start it? Hype inflation, abortion bans, where will objectives movement be during and after civil war, assuming you think it'll actually happen? I think what could start it, who knows, is you've already seen it. Imagine Trump after January 5th brings out the military and basically said the election was stolen and staying as president. Now I don't think he could have done it now because I don't think the military would have sided with him. So I don't think he could have actually done it. But imagine if there was enough people in the military that were already on his side and then the rest of the military goes, wait a minute, no, the election wasn't decided. And it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is torn and it rules. And then the future Trump says, I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm dismantling the court or I'm packing the court or I'm doing something like that. And the military split and the country split and Texas announces that it's supporting Trump and New York and California announced that they're not. And that's how I think something like that happens. I don't think it happens around a particular political issue. I think it happens around one party or the other trying to seize power in Washington and using aspects of the military, which causes the military to split. And that's what you have a civil war. It's a civil war where you split not just among the people, but also within the military. And that's how you get the weapons for a civil war. What would objective movement be doing during the civil war? Hunkering down, keeping our heads low, criticizing both sides, fighting for existence, leaving the United States. I don't know. I mean, whatever takes to survive and to get our views out there and make it clear that this is a disaster on both sides of wrong. Make sure you don't sell out. So, no, it's horrible. It's horrific. There's no good answer to that. There's no good thing the objective is moving could be doing. It's basically hunkering down and hopefully trying to persuade people that this is a unbelievable disaster caused by philosophy that should have been anticipated and a result of the mixed economy, the mixed economy and philosophy, not just in economics. All right. Let's go back to our panel. Let's start with Nick this time. What I've got you on screen here. Nick. Nick's gone. All right. We'll go back to Nick. Adam. One argument that always comes up from anti-gun people is you don't need the gun. The police will protect you. But what we see in reality is that for 50 minutes, the kids in the classroom in Texas were calling 911 call after call going through to the police chief and the police chief deciding, hey, it's nobody shooting anybody, regardless of what the kids say on 911. We're not going in until everything is quiet and safe. So please do not protect us. There is this myth that police jobs are dangerous. If you look at the actual dangerous statistics, they're in something like 10th place. There are nine or more, more dangerous occupations. And yet the police have this myth that they are going to protect us, that they take the danger on themselves. How do you account for the persistence of this myth, even though all the facts are the other way? Well, because the job is to protect us. So they're not doing the job. And, you know, I mean, critical for the police for a long time. I think they're badly trained, badly motivated. I think, you know, it goes back to they're not even in good shapes. They couldn't protect us even if they tried. They're justifiably afraid because the bad guys would beat them up. They don't know how to use their guns. What was the police woman who drew the gun instead of a taser and she couldn't tell the difference and shot a guy when she meant to taser him? You know, time and time again, we, you know, and I'm sure they're very competent police people out there, and I'm sure they are people who would have rushed into that school and they have been occasions when police have done that. So I don't want to extrapolate from this one case to all police because I don't think that's true. But the reality is the police in this country for a variety of cultural reasons. And I don't know if it was different in the past or not. That would be an interesting statistic to look up. Police in this country are being passive. I think part of it is the corruption of the drug war, which is given the gangs so much money and therefore such powerful weapons that police won't challenge them. They'd rather take a bribe than risk their life for what to stop a shipment of cocaine when another shipment's just going to replace it. What's the point when people want the cocaine? Why should I? So I think the drug war has been and I think the war and the mafia during prohibition was the same way. I think it's unbelievably corrupting of police and so I think we have this myth because we believe that that's the way it should be. That's what they're paid for. They're actually paid to protect us. They're paid to rush into that school and to shoot the bastard. Not to stop people from doing it, which is what they ultimately did. It was worse that it wasn't they did it. They actually stopped people from doing it. So we should fight for a world in which police are better and which police is a dangerous job, is a risky job because their job is to intervene, their job is to protect. What is it? Protect and serve? Isn't that on the badge or something? Serve and protect. It's there, right there in the definition. So if they're not living up to it, we should fire them all. In Georgia, they wanted to get rid of corruption among police and judges after the fall of the Soviet Union and they were very corrupt. Everything was corrupt. Everything you paid the police off, you paid the judges off, everything, the whole system was corrupt. They wanted to get rid of corruption. So they fired every single policeman and every single judge and they started a slow process of rehiring them and for a while there were no policemen and no judges but it was better in the long run to do that and to get a whole new bunch, pay them well, create expectations and get a non-corruption. Today Georgia, relatively speaking, is not very corrupt relative to how it was and relative to other Eastern European countries. So yeah, fire all of them and certainly in this police force they should all be fired and change the expectation and maybe change the pay and change the way they're treated and change the way we approach this. But one of the problems is if every time policemen shoot somebody, we assume that they're the bad guys, then they're going to be reluctant to shoot somebody. So it's very frustrating. And yes, if there's no police, this is the point about gun control. If there's no police, then we live in a state of anarchy and God, am I going to be armed if we live in a state of anarchy? I'm buying a couple of shotguns. I'm buying an AR-15. I'm getting a couple of pistols. I'm going to be ready for anything if I cannot count in the police. If I'm convinced of that, then I better be as armed as the bad guys are. And by the way, the best weapon for self-defense, not for school shooting, but for self-defense is a shotgun. If you want to protect your home, buy a shotgun. It's a scary weapon. Anybody looking down the muzzle of a shotgun will run and you don't have to aim. And this is another thing you learn when you fire guns is your aim is going to be pretty pathetic when you're in a stressful situation. Your aim is pretty good in a firing range, maybe. Mine's not that great even in a firing range. In a stressful situation, it's going to be terrible. So buy a gun where it doesn't matter how good your aim is, the bad guy's going to die no matter what. That's a shotgun. For school shooting, you need a handgun or you need a rifle. You need to be because you don't want to spay the bullets. One of my worries about arming teachers and arming janitors and things like that is just to make sure they're well trained and that they will shoot the bad guy and they won't shoot others. But I don't have a problem with that as a solution. If you run all the background checks possible, if you force them to go through mental health screening, if they go through mental health screening once a year so that you don't get one of these people who are carrying a gun into school going nuts and using it. But there are ways in which to arm teachers or janitors and have security guards say it's not a pleasant environment to be in where the school has to have a guard. So I'm not particularly happy about that. But we might be in a stage where, as Adam said, you can't trust the police. You better arm somebody else. You better have somebody else armed at schools that can take care of the bad guys. In Israel, for a very long time, even though there were terrorist attacks against schools, we did not have anybody armed at the schools. And at some point in I think 2000, they started having guards at schools. And nobody likes it. It's not a good thing or pleasant thing. If you can get by without it, it's better. Turning a school into a fort is giving up, giving up on civilization. It's giving up on education. So how about we fix our kids so that they don't do these crazy things? I mean, because you saw not just in school, schools is just one element of it, but you saw what happened in Buffalo. I mean, these things are happening. And look at a gang warfare in Chicago. More people die on any given weekend in Chicago than died in that school because of gang shooting each other. So there's a much bigger problem here of violence in our society. Somebody said about guns the other day. They said an armed society is a less violent society. It doesn't make any sense to me because America is a relatively violent society on the world scale relative to Europe, let's say, and Europe has a lot less guns than America. So it's something in the culture. It's not about whether they have guns or don't have guns. I mean, in England, for a very long time, the police didn't have guns. They still, most police don't have guns. They've changed their state. They've changed that only because of terrorism, not because of crime, but because there's no gun crime in the UK. So the police don't have guns. So and a lot less homicides per capita. So it's not the relationship between guns and the reasons for violent crime are very complex. And it's not violence. A well armed society is not violent or yes violent. Coalation breaks down. Terrorism is not exactly crime. Terrorism is politically motivated with crime, which is other motivated. So terrorism is not crime. Those are two different things, different categories. Even if you include terrorism, by the way, the UK is a less violent society than the US. Debbie. Speaking of terrorism, that's perfect segue to my question. I haven't heard of any major Islamic terrorist attacks in the US or Europe in a really long time. It seems like at least in terms of what's being reported, it appears that that's going way down. And I don't, it's not obvious to me why that would be. I mean, we're hearing so much more about these domestic like racially motivated or school shootings. And so I was wondering if you have any thought on, I'm sure they didn't just give up and say, oh, well, let's be pro-western now, you know, or let live and let live or whatever. Like, I'm sure that doesn't happen. So what do you think is going on there? Well, given that I predicted it, and I did, that it would come down, I do have an explanation. I'd say that two explanations, right? Two, let's see how many reasons I come up with, but two big ones, I think. The major one is that ISIS and al-Qaeda were to a large extent defeated. And in more recent times, it's ISIS and ISIS in Syria and in Iraq. And if you remember, when ISIS established the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, there were ISIS groups all over the world. And then all these terrorists, which in the name of ISIS, they would go out and shoot people. And I at the time said, nobody dies for losing ideology. If you crush ISIS, if you annihilate them, then people will stop doing this kind of stuff, because I'm not going to go on a suicide mission for an ideology that's lost. But if the ideology is going to win, and I'm going to go to heaven and their virgins and all this stuff, cool, I'm motivated. I'm excited because we're winning. So the first thing that we've done with the help of the fact that they're incompetent, with the help of the Russians, with the help of a lot of different things that have happened is we've defeated at least some of them. We've defeated the most violent of them and the most, the ones that got the most publicity. They're still out there, but they don't have quite the same publicity. They don't have quite the same spirit and motivation about them. Imagine if we actually overthrew the Iranian regime, gave Israel the green light to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas, and he said, I mean, Jihad and whatever's left of ISIS, the whole problem would basically go away. It would just go away. So nobody wants to die for losing ideology. So that's one reason. The second reason is given that it's just easier for intelligence services to monitor them because the few of them monitor them. And so a lot more is caught before it happens. Now, some of this has the potential to be reversed because of what's happening in Afghanistan. So Afghanistan, the terrorist war, busy fighting among each other, the Americans, the Afghan forces, now they own Afghanistan. They control it. It's all theirs. And they can now start thinking about, again, starting at Kalifat and inspiring people and exporting their violence to the rest of the world. So I wouldn't be surprised if you saw more terrorism with the Afghans. And look, part of crushing them is the drones, the drone campaign that I know a lot of libertarians hate. And I don't particularly like the fact that somebody has the authority to say who we can murder overseas and who we can't because I don't trust them completely. But the fact is that for the most part, they've killed a bunch of these terrorist leaders all over the Middle East, all over the world. They put up a drone. The guys, you know, driving to a mosque and they blow them up. And that happens a lot. We don't hear of it always. It's happening constantly. And it is shaking them up. So it doesn't take much. But the thing that was happening in Europe in particular, and here too, because there was a guy in the Air Force Base in Florida and there were some others, are these lone guys who inspired and they went on a shooting spree without any coordination, without anything going on. That was driven by the idea that ISIS was being successful and all you needed was a little bit more of a push. All you needed to destroy is a push. And then finally, this will be the most controversial point. So prepare the unsubscribe button again. I know this is hard to believe. I know this seems impossible. But over time, some of the Muslims, particularly in the United States, but also in Europe, actually assimilate. They actually do, they're not all becoming Western, but some of them gain enough of appreciation of the West just to not be tempted by the violence and not, you know, support the people in the neighborhood that are tempted by the violence. And just, and there's enough of them that just, you know, they want to be French. They want to be German. They want to be Swedish. They want to do it. Now, again, not all of them, there's still a long way to go. Unfortunately, France, Germany, Sweden do very little to assimilate them. They do very little to actively assimilate them. But yeah, but enough of them have an all assimilating. So, you know, I'm in London a lot. And I take Uber and, you know, Uber is dominated by Arab or Pakistani or, you know, Muslim drivers, let's say. And you chat with them. And most of them just, I mean, all of them, all the drivers I've had, they want to be Brits. They want to take care of their family. They want to be part of British society. They want to make a living. None of them, none of them, we're talking to them, want to, you know, destroy and blow up stuff and bring about Islam in England. They want, they came to England because they want freedom at some level. And not all of them, I agree that not all of them, there's a certain percentage of them that are committed to turning Europe into a Muslim state. I just think that number is overall not that big and over time that number shrinks because they become part of that society. They come to appreciate certain aspects of society. And so I'm not as, the only thing that makes me pessimistic about this is the weakness of the West, not the strength of Islam. I've said this for years and years and years. If the West had a backbone and projected assimilate, then there would be no contest, no issue at all. The only thing that gives them any kind of chance is the fact that we don't demand assimilation. We don't, not just demand, we don't expect it. We don't, we don't, we're not proud of our own culture. We don't, but that's changing in Europe. I mean, this is, unfortunately, it's usually linked to rising in kind of right wing parties that are not very liberty friendly. But it does suggest that Europeans are frustrated by the fact that they're not standing up for being proud Europeans. I would think that the women in particular would have a strong motivation to become Westernized, right? I mean, they get up. It's very hard when, but it's very hard when Western police and Western governments don't protect their rights. So, you know, saying these neighborhoods in these Muslim neighborhoods in Europe, and I don't know to what extent it's true in the United States, but in Europe, they look the other way. They look the other way. They look the other way when women are abused. They look the other way with honor killings. They look the other way, you know, look at England, which for years looked the other way with regard to grooming gangs, gangs that were literally grooming little girls to grooming, preparing them for prostitution, preparing them to be sexual objects and basically pedophiles. And there were these gangs, particularly of most of them were Pakistanis of Muslim men all over England. And this was not just one or two little things. These were big operations. And the police knew about them, and they turned the other cheek because, you know, that's their culture, all that bullshit. And a lot of the girls that they were grooming were white girls, white, poor, working class girls, and they were turning them into their sex slaves. And these are children. And I mean, this is Adam's point about the police. Oh my God, you know, the police would be like that where the police would turn the other, you know, but that's that's multiculturalism, you know, that we don't want into fear, we'll be accused of being anti-Muslim, we'll, you know, this is multiculturalism. And I think that tide has changed because that all came out a few years ago. And I think I think the less but it's still a lot of, you know, harassment of women, abuse of women that goes on in these communities, and they don't have a way to address it so that they don't they don't know how to escape the women. They don't know how to escape because it's very interesting to me that at that, that our electist, you know, the multiculturalist sort of axis of the culture, they prioritize protecting the culture of that, like it says, it's okay to beat women and those kinds of things. Female genital mutilation. Can you think it's more horrific than that? And yet the multiculturalists are like, let's say culture, what can we do? Yeah, it's that's a priority over like any kind of feminism that they might also be inclined toward. I would think that'd be like low hanging group for a feminist group to say, hey, quit mutilating and beating women. But their priority is not that it's the opposite. It's that protect the evil culture, the worst of these cultural practices, that takes priority over protecting the lives of women. Yeah, well, in the same on the right, right? So to help with the right of a woman to guide her own life, we're not going to allow an abortion, right? You know, in the name of religion in the name of some, some, you know, family, family values or whatever they call it. So it's the same, you know, there's some neither left nor right care about human life. Not really, not in your human life. Not their priority. No, bigger goals, bigger, more important things for them. Okay, Adam, you muted Adam. Oh, we just did Adam. That's right, you were just sorry. That was my mistake. So Debbie, that was not your question. That was just you commenting, right? Or was it was your question? I'm confused. All right, George. It's not so much a question, but a statement. But I really just can't get over how Mr. Sunshine is even more amazing on the second viewing than on the first. Yeah, I figured this is the show where I need to make such a statement. Just the number of details you notice in the in the production, the things you know about the characters and the foreshadowing. It just blows our mind every now and we're watching. And even though I hadn't thought about connecting my two statements today, yeah, I would not trade a single emotion, whether I'm crying or like on the edge of my seat. I want that out of Mr. Sunshine, screw stoicism. As a work of art, it's just incredible. And it's because of YBS that we know about it. Well, thanks. But what one of the one of the reasons I mean, for me, one of the reasons the second viewing was so much more powerful partially, it's because it's such good art, you just notice more things. But partially is because now you're not focusing on anymore and who's who and following the language. And you know, so the first few episodes in particular of Mr. Sunshine, the first time I watched it was like, just getting oriented. I don't know what the hell is going on here, but something good, but I'm not sure exactly what is the second time. You know who the characters is, you can make the connections, the foreshadowing, all of that is already there and you could just enjoy it. There's no work associated with it. So yeah, but I agree with you completely on the emotion side. You got who wants to get rid of the emotions you get from friendship, from love, from sex, from art, from just life, from everything. I mean, it's what makes it worthwhile, right? It's being able to experience it that deeply and then meaningfully. Right, Emmett. Yes. So I don't know if you are going to or have seen already the movie Top Gun. I won't give any spoilers, but I saw it yesterday. I found it to be extraordinarily heroic. It tugged on heartstrings, maybe a little much, but going back to your point of what's happening with boys in this culture, this was a movie that actually had heroic men and women and they were positively shown. I was reflecting on it for the last few hours. I haven't seen a movie that didn't have the trope of corrupt policemen or corrupt military actors and this movie had none of that. This movie, the people in it were heroic. They knew it and they were proud of it and it was actually a really good movie to see. So I'm wondering if you might see it and then give us a big review of it because I think it's worth it. Sure. Your thoughts on that? I'm planning to see it because I think it's a movie worth seeing at a big screen on a big screen. So I'm planning to go and watch it on the big screen if I can convince my wife to join me. Yeah, I mean the first one was a little bit like that. It had the cocky arrogance but also the heroism that goes with that and it had very much the kind of pilot kind of culture. A lot of war movies in the past have had that, have had kind of an unabashed heroism and to some extent they still do. I just watched 12, something, something 12 which is an interesting movie because it has to do with the first 12 special forces guy who went into Afghanistan right after 9-11. The first guys who were there with the Northern Alliance. So first you see the, the movie doesn't believe this but my interpretation, you see the complete political, philosophical corruption of the leadership sending these guys into battle with the Northern Alliance, on the Northern Alliance's side against the Taliban when they could have just wiped the Taliban out but put that aside. I mean they're all projected as incredibly heroic and there's no, there's nothing cynical. So that's good but you know if you, 12 strong I think it's called but if you understand their political and the whole context of it and you understand war, my perspective. So war movies tend to be that way. They tend to be more oriented that way unless they're like platoon which is there to criticize the military. The whole point of the war movie is to criticize the movie or full metal jacket if you remember, full metal jacket right. So good, I will go and see Top Gun. It sounds like a fun movie and that I didn't, I'll enjoy it. But one mistake I made was I didn't, I haven't seen the original Top Gun in a very long time. I didn't go back and watch it beforehand and there's a lot of flashback stuff going on. There is. I'll do that. Thanks a lot. Yeah, I'll watch it. Good, good. All right, Jennifer. When we were talking about music earlier, something really interesting about it's not really known how your emotions, how music affects them, like how that happens. And there was an example on Facebook, someone had a song, it was a Nirvana song but it's, it was, the song was done in minor key originally. So it had this sort of angsty kind of feel to it and they changed it on computer to a major key and it changed the whole mood of the song. And it's like, how does that happen? Yeah, I know. We know that certain combinations, we know major minor, we know that they have emotional impact and it's universal, right? It's universal. It's across cultures. But we don't understand the mechanism by which that happens. We just know it is. It is and it is. And yeah, it's fascinating and it's really interesting. And someday hopefully people will do the kind of research that we'll explain to us in more detail what is going on there. But I think you're going to have to know a lot about the connection of ear to brain and then what it is in reality that music is recreating in a sense. So you're going to have to, you're going to have to know something about epistemology because I think what it's recreating is something about thought patterns. And Ayn Rand suggested that and I think that makes sense. But that's just pure speculation at this point. And I've noticed too in songs if you change key in the middle, like there's this one old John song where he changes key like real quickly right in the middle and you get this weird feeling and it's like and I was told, I was told this because he changed the key and it's like, oh, really, it's really interesting. But different people sing the same song to the same melody. And yet you get completely different response to it because of the speed at which they're singing or whether it's minor, major, whatever. You can make, and this is why you can listen to different conductors conduct the same symphony and get different things out of it. And this is why there's all these debates about is this a good conductor? Is that a good conductor? Who's the greatest conductor? What's the difference? I mean, the music is the music writes right down the sheet. And yet it makes a huge interpretation is huge violinist pianist playing exactly the same thing. You can put it side by side. And it's like a different completely different. You get it. It's the same melody, same music basically. And yet you get a completely different emotional response to it. So it's, it's fascinating. It's fascinating. That's fun to do is take like, I don't know, Beethoven's seventh Brahms fourth, get five different conductors and just play a five minute segment from each of them. And you can see, you can see how it affects you differently and how different the interpretations are is pretty amazing. John, I had time to think of my question this time, but hopefully we'll lose some more subscribers for this. But I'm thinking back to my elementary school days with this. I'm thinking how that a lot of America nowadays is hypersensitive. It's hyper, what's the word hyper fended and woke, if you will. But in regards to everything, not just, you know, race, homophobia, whatever, it's like people just offended at the drop of a hat nowadays. Regardless, I'm wondering how much of this do you think comes from those elementary school years, you know, whatever age five to 11, where we're inculcated to the brim, just, you know, feel like a victim because every day I can remember in fifth grade, all we talked about was anti-bullying to the point where we're so hyper focused on it may have actually made matters worse. So I'm thinking with that, you know, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, that's not my experience in school because I'm a different generation and different country too, but different generation because I did go to school in America for a little while. I also believe in anti-bullying and the way to deal with bullies is to punch them back and then they stop bullying. But I don't think that's what you were talking about and that's not what the teachers were encouraging. I think it has a lot to do with what happens in kindergarten and in early grades. Not only is there a lot of discussion about anti-bullying and stuff, but I think there's a victimhood generally. But also, there's generally an emphasis and emotion on socialization and less on actual learning and it's more about the group than it is about what do you know and what don't you know? What do you need to know? So I think Dewey has taken much more seriously in those early grades. This is why I encourage parents to send their kids to Montessori schools, good Montessori schools in those early grades because it's so different because it is about individual work and individual knowledge and individual discovery of knowledge rather than sitting around expressing your emotions to one another. And so absolutely, I think that the whole generation now of snowflakes and safe spaces and all of that is a consequence of the emphasis being put on emotion versus on knowledge in the school system over the last 20 years. If I may add at the end here that John Dewey's permeate just to the college level, I dropped out of grad school because I was not learning anything in the field I was going for was not, found out wasn't for me, but regardless, I could tell you that for three hour sessions, or I'm sorry, three hour class, two hours of that, we'd just be sitting talking about what we've read the night before. That was it whole class. It's all that John Dewey, you know, whatever was like collective learning style, but we didn't learn anything at all. So No, I think that's right. But I think it's most damaging in the early days because that conditions how you think, how you study, how you yourself esteem, it conditions so much of what you're going to become later on is your experiences with learning in the early years. And it's unbelievable damage. And I think we're seeing a consequence of that. And as we said before, how boys act out. And it's boring on top of that, right? And you hate school. I hate school. I always hate school. I can't say because I was bored there, but I just hate it. I found it uninteresting. All right, Nick, you've got the final question this round. Okay, I wanted to ask a question on the, on how the ESG, the SG movement has tried to morph this rationale. I mean, they have, you know, they've accomplished their goal of starving the fossil fuel industry of capital. No, they've set the moral imperative of the goal for zero impact as part of their, as part of the, the, the, what is it, the, the E part. Now, now they're, they're claiming that because of oil and the lack of investment in the industry, because oil has gone to 110 or 120 and it's going higher, there's never been a better time for the energy transition. I mean, they've caused a mess. Now they've got the chutzpah to say that, you know, we're morphing into, morphing into, you know, because oil has gone through the roof. We can afford, we can afford solar and wind now. We can afford, and whatever other crazy, you know, you know, crazy, yeah, whatever crazy rationale that's out there. So I mean, is anyone buying this BS? I mean, it looks like the tides might be changing. Do you have any thoughts on that? I think the tides are changing. I think that generally there's a bit of, there's a backlash in the investment community against ESG. We're seeing, we just saw, I forget his name, but put together a investment firm that is going to invest in companies that are anti ESG. It's called Aspire, by the way. I talked to people, when was it, in January? Yeah, in January in Miami at a conference, a finance conference, and they were talking about setting up a fund that would invest in all the oil projects that the ESG guys were not investing in, so that they were going to be providers of capital for oil and exploration. I, by the way, don't believe that there's a shortage of capital in the oil industry. I think there's a fear of deploying it too aggressively because of the backlash against it, but I think if they, I think the capital's there. I mean, just think of all the wealth in Texas and people who don't believe in ESG would love to invest in these things. So they all have vehicles being created to go around this ESG stuff, so there is a backlash. But on the other hand, it's still true that they've captured the moral high ground, and this is what we're fighting, and this is why Alex's book, Alex Epstein's book is so important, and we need to keep fighting them and keep making the moral case against them because even though there are people who are kind of going around it and finding ways around it, it's still true that they have the moral high ground unless we challenge that moral high ground. And I think that needs to continue. Alex is doing a great job, and there are a lot of people that have joined Alex in that. So I think there's a real potential to turn the tide when it comes to fossil fuels. Well, the BlackRock guy, the $10 trillion man, what's his name again? You know what I'm talking about. I forget, yeah, but I know what you're talking about. He's been pushing it hard. Yeah, but it's not just BlackRock, supposedly it's Vanguard as well. It's everywhere, and the SEC is going to come out with some ESG guidelines that are going to be interesting, that are going to make it more difficult for investment funds to declare themselves ESG. Right now, it's mainly a marketing tool. Most of these funds don't actually do anything ESG related, but there is going to be a pushback and there is a pushback and that will continue. How big of a pushback is going to be will be determined by whether we can win the more high ground kind of arguments, the Alex Epstein kind of arguments? What do you think happens if oil gets to 150 to 200 and it hits everybody's pocketbook? You know, it'll just mean that it's more expensive, quality of life, standard of living goes down. I mean, I don't know. But the point is actions have consequences. Yeah, the consequences are in all of our lives, we become poorer. That's the consequence. And all companies demonize even more and the pressure both from the right and the left to impose a windfall tax only grows. So I wouldn't be surprised if you get a windfall tax. And again, my guess is the windfall tax happens with the Republican President, Republican House and Senate. So it's not like Republicans are pro, you know, the profits that all companies are making if oil goes to 200. But yeah, the consequences of their 200 people are going to drill. People will drill. People are drilling now, but they'll drill a lot more 200. There's plenty of places to drill. And there's plenty of capital to drill with and they will drill and they are drilling, but they'll drill a lot more. Right now, they're not doing it as much because they're afraid of the backlash. But 200, all the hesitancy goes out the window. Amit? Yeah, I was just thinking, there's an exact scene about this exact process in Atlas where the boys in Santiago, you know, they conspire with the boys in Washington to squeeze out the copper people. The price of copper goes up and then they slap attacks on Francisco and say, why should you mind? But we've had, you know, we've had excess profit taxes in the US. Yeah, it wouldn't be a first time. So, you know, I'd be shocked if we didn't get it at some point, right, as prices went up. I'm not sure prices will go up, but if they go up. Boris is leading the charge in England. Boris is leading the charge. Taxes are higher under Boris's government than in any government in all of the history of the UK, including a bunch of socialist governments. But he came up with a 25% windfall tax you're talking about. Yeah. But he also, just generally, this is the conservative Boris Johnson is overseeing the highest tax rate in British history, which is pretty interesting, for those of us who believe that it's only the left that we have to fear. All right, let's do some of the super chats. Ashton asks for 50 bucks, who is going to win tonight? The Miami Heat or the Boston Celtics? Now, the accurate answer to that is I don't know, but I know who I want to win and who I'm going to be rooting for, and that is I'm hoping the Boston Celtics win. So I'm watching the game. I'll be yelling at the television if they're not doing well. My wife will be yelling at the television. It turns out my wife is a much worse fan than I am. She gets quite emotional and quite angry at Boston when they don't play well. So talk about emotions. Yeah, neither of us are pretty stoic when it comes to basketball, although I can manage through the first three quarters. She starts from minute one, right? I can manage further. I have a problem with the final quarter. But yes, if they win, I'm hoping to go to Boston to actually watch a live game in the finals. So I'm going to book my tickets as soon as the game is over or not, depending on who wins. All right, Charles Butt says the new Top Gun movie includes unconventional for our Times foreign policy decisions, surprisingly proactive. Cool. I will, again, looking forward to going to see it and I'll give you my thoughts on it. All right, let's run down this. Scott says Ben said his book was written for liberal, for left liberal types. Later, you said it was the first in a series. Do you mean first of many for the left liberal types? No. I mean, first in a series of books about various issues that the Institute has something unique to say about. Some of them will be attacking the left, some of them will be attacking the right. But no, they're all going to be on particular issues. But the whole point of these books is to provide intellectual ammunition for people who vaguely agree with us. So a lot of what I do is to provide people on the right who thinks that pro-capitalism was intellectual ammunition for it. And this book is to provide people who are pro-abortion with intellectual ammunition to be able to defend it. People who are pro-abortion tend to be on the left. That's why it's a book that was written for the left. But I've said before, I think we actually convert more people or convince more people into objectivism from the center left than we do from the center right. Although I don't have stats to prove that. It just seems that way to me. As I think, I think the best show I was ever on in terms of the number of people subscribed to me was the, what's his name? Dave Rubin? Dave, thank you. Dave Rubin show. When he appealed to the left. And now if I go on the Dave Rubin show, I get almost no subscribers because he's primarily appeals to the right. Okay, James asks, open marriages, relationships strikes me as nihilistic. It means you don't take love and and the sanctity of a deep connection seriously. Maybe, but maybe, and I'm not sure that's nihilistic, not taking it seriously, but maybe it's that you believe that you can have a deep connection with more than one person. Maybe it's you believe that a deep connection does not necessitate sexual monogamy. I'm not convinced that that's only interpretation and it may be that people need to learn through experience that a deep connection doesn't necessitate sexual monogamy, it doesn't necessitate and can only be done with one person, right? So even if it's true, they can only be done with one person. It's not self-evident. It's not something that when you're growing up, you, oh, well obviously this is, it's something maybe you have to learn. So I'm not, I think I've said this before, but I'm not opposed to experimentation with these things as long as you're honest about it, as long as there's no deception about it, and as long as you're willing to learn the lessons, which are almost always really, really hard, but as long as you're willing to learn the lessons from it and adjust your behavior according. So as long as you continue to be tied to reality, then, you know, when you're young, you're going to experiment because there is no rationalistic way to just know that this is the right and appropriate way to live. All right. Liam asked, can you feel people's frequency? Just how in tune they are with reality through their mannerisms, posture and facial expressions? Yes, but I don't know, I don't, you know, I don't have a, anything much to say about it, except that yeah, you get a sense from people through their mannerisms, their expressions, their non-verbal way in which they handle themselves. You get a certain sense about what, who they are, and about what they are, what they stand for, and about, you create certain expectations about how you think they'll behave. Sometimes they're not met, sometimes they're not met, because it's not a science. It's a sense that you have. So people can evoke different emotions in you by just the way they act without saying anything. I don't know what that means. It just is a fact. You still, in order to judge people, you have to judge them based on their actual actions, not just based on their mannerisms and their posture and based on actually what they say and how they conduct themselves. But yeah, you can definitely get a certain vibe from people, just looking at them, just their expressions, their posture and all of that. Be aware, because sometimes the vibe is wrong, like all emotions, sometimes they're not reflective of reality. Michael, how realistic is it for us to replace all the existing leftist, statist, intellectuals that are overwhelming majority every university in every western world with objectivism? Didn't we answer that yesterday, Michael? Maybe not. How realistic is it? How long do we have? 50 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? 1,000 years, so now we will replace them all with something better, I'm pretty sure. We don't have to replace every single intellectual and statist intellectual in every university in the western world with objectivists. I've never claimed we need that. I don't think we need that. I've said 1,000 intellectuals and we've taken over the world, because we've reshaped the culture and all those intellectuals will indeed be replaced ultimately, but you won't even know it, because it'll just be natural. They'll just be a new generation that thinks differently than the previous generation and they will be replaced. Yeah, I wonder if Friedman says, then I pick up a said that we only need 1%. Yeah, I don't know if 1,000 is constitute 1%, but yeah, something like that. Any percent you throw out there somewhat arbitrary. Same as any number, my 1,000 intellectuals is somewhat arbitrary. Let's say you say you believe in basic and control regulations like what should someone have a complete a certain number of hours of training in order to be given a license to own a firearm. I don't know. I don't have the formula for that. I'm just saying that the state and it doesn't have to be the same in every state. I think this can be optional. I don't think it has to be federalized. I think different states and different jurisdictions can do it differently. I think if you live in the countryside, if you live in a city, I said this yesterday, the regulations would be different. I think if you live in a gang infested area, if you live in a non-gang infested area, the regulations could be different. I think in terms of training, it would depend on the type of weapon. I certainly think if you're going to be involved with a high-powered weapon, you should be trained on it. So training, background checks, licenses, certain weapons nobody can own, all of that is on the table and how are you exactly calibrated to a particular jurisdiction. How you exactly do it is to be determined. I don't have an answer and it would be ridiculous to try to come up with an answer just like that. You'd have to actually study it and really be an expert in the field, which I'm not. That doodle bunny asks, police seem incapable of stopping mass shootings. There's no example of them actually stopping a school shooting. They just show up after and take pictures of dead bodies. I just don't know if that's true, so I'm not going to comment on it, but I don't think it's incapable to the extent that they don't do it. It's because they haven't been trained to do it. The expectation isn't there and suddenly units of the police have stopped terrorist attacks. So in some countries, suddenly the capabilities of their SWAT teams have, it's time we upgrade our police force, among many other things we need to do in our culture. Jason, maybe some ex-military training basis can work with the VA and set something up like an interactive event where you can play and pay with flamethrowers such in a controlled and ensured environment. Is this kind of for training? I'm not sure what the context is of your comment, Jason. But yeah, I think those kind of things should and could be done as part of training and I think police need a lot more training. I said this after George Floyd was killed. I've said this over and over again. Tessa, thank you for the support. Really appreciate it. Cook says, gridlock 2024. We'll see. Landon asks, have you seen anything on the depth, herd, court case worth commenting on? Is it so popular due to the overextension for me to abuse from women? I don't know. I haven't followed it. I have no idea what it's about. My general orientation is not to read or follow anything that has to do with celebrities. So that's my standing order. So when I look at the news, if Johnny Dapp or Hoard or anybody like that's name appears in the headline, I skip the article. So I just don't know and I don't care. And it's just not interesting. It's not for the most part important unless there's some bigger cultural phenomena going on here, which they might be, but I'm missing it because I'm not. There's too much garbage in the celebrity following news stuff to read it all, to figure out what's important and what's not. That's just my general sense. What have the concussions done yesterday? What will they do tomorrow? What are they doing? Just doesn't interest me. I don't care. And even if it does have cultural significance, I'm probably going to miss it anyway. So no, I have no knowledge of whether it's some deeper issue or not. Justin asks, why are women's physical beauty more valued in our society? Is it a result of sexism? Yes, I think for the most part it's a sign of sexism. I think the more women are independent and strong, the more they tend to value male beauty as well. That is the more they open up, the more they are open to male beauty and admiring it and be open about that fact. And I think the more open a society are, the more we appreciate both men and women's beauty. And in both sexes now, when it's the opposite sex, there's a sexual aspect element to the physical beauty of it. That is, it's sometimes attached to sexual attraction. Although you can appreciate somebody's beauty without having no sexual connotation. Same sex out of the sex doesn't matter. There's just something that is beautiful about some people that it's not unrelated completely to sex. But generally, the focus on that men have on women's physical beauty and disproportionate to women focus on men's sexual has a lot to do with sexism. And the fact that men are, it's okay for men to express that. It's okay for men to say it. It's okay for women to whistle when a pretty go walks by, but it's not okay for women to express it. And that's changing. So I think those attitudes will change. I think on the other hand, it could be part of the psychological differences between men and women. I mean, as I've said many times, for example, 95% of people who consume intellectual content on YouTube are men. But a vast majority of people consume content on Instagram or women. Women are more likely to listen to podcasts. So there is something about men and women being less or more visual, less or more whatever. I don't know. So within the scope of my knowledge, I think it's mostly sexist. But it could be more than that. It could be some basic psychological difference, which I don't know about. And there are always exceptions. So you can't completely generalize. All right. Thank you, everybody. We've gone for two hours. I appreciate it. Thanks for the support to all the panelists. Thanks for being supporters of the Iran Book Show. Thanks to all the superchatters. Thanks to all the listeners. Those of you who are listeners but not superchatters and not panelists, you can become a panelist by contributing to Iran Book Show at, I think, $25 or more on iranbookshow.com. So I support on Patreon and subscribe star on locals. And you can join the panelists when we do these monthly. But you can also contribute at a lower amount and it is valued. Don't forget before you leave to give the show a thumbs up if you liked it. And I will see you all not tomorrow but on Tuesday. Tuesday, 8 p.m. East Coast time will be the next Iran Book Show. That'll be the final show of May. We didn't make a goal the show on the superchats. We'll have to do better. We'll have to raise the goal on Thursday so we can make our average goal for the month. All right, everybody. It's great to see you. I hope you enjoyed the show. Talk to you soon. Bye. Bye, Iran. Bye-bye.