 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Brookshow. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Tuesday, November 29, 12 p.m. here in Puerto Rico, kind of afternoon evening in Europe. And morning everywhere else in the United States. So I really appreciate it that you guys are joining. Thanks for participating in this experiment of daily news updates. This will be the last show for November. I won't be able to do an update tomorrow. We'll see about Thursday. We'll see about Friday. But next week, I'll be back in Puerto Rico. I'm traveling, I leave later this afternoon. I'll be back in Puerto Rico for the month of December. And we'll try and see what happens if I do these things every single day, whether you keep watching, whether you keep supporting, whether there's fatigue, and we'll see how it goes. I am interested, particularly for this month of December, in any feedback you might have on how we make the show better, more widely viewed. We need to get more subscribers, more financially lucrative. So any ideas people have on how we improve the show would be great. Let me know. Also in December, I will do a members only show, the first members only show. We'll try to make those once a month shows. You can become a member by clicking below. It's pretty easy on YouTube and become a member. So we'll start doing those in December. What else? Tomorrow, I'll be in Austin, Texas. I'll be doing a few things. I've got a lunch with students. So we're going to be interacting with students at lunchtime. And then at 1.30 tomorrow, we'll do a special edition of the Iran Book Show. It will be co-hosted with the Salem Center. The Salem Center is kind of a free market center at the University of Texas. Greg Salmiere will be on the show with me. He will actually be interviewing me. But it will stream on at least the plan is. Hopefully the plan will be executed, because I can't control the tech there. But the plan is to stream it on both the Salem Center YouTube channel and on my channel. So that will be 1.30 central time. So that will be 1.30 Austin, Texas time tomorrow. Then in the evening, I think the debate will be live streamed. And if it is live streamed, I'm going to try to have them live stream it on my channel as well. So you will be able to see the debate on Iran versus CS Lewis, if you will, tomorrow night. I mean, if it's not live streamed, I'll definitely put up a recording of it. But hopefully it's live streamed tomorrow. If you like the live stream while you're watching it, please do some, you can't do super chats, but please do some stickers or something and support the show financially to show that it's worth my while to go get these other entities to live stream to my channel as well. During the show tomorrow, I think we'll have the super chat on with Greg and maybe take questions on the super chat. So that will be available tomorrow. Again, 1.30 Texas time. And again, the logistics of all that we'll have to figure out, I guess, this afternoon and tomorrow while I'm traveling. Let's see, what else do we want to see? What else is there? No evening shows this week, so there won't be any evening shows this week. And so the next full length show will be on Saturday, on Saturday, not exactly what time. But next week, we'll go full throttle on the new model. And of course, if you could send me any comments, suggestions you guys might have on the new model, on how you would like to improve this, how you think we can make this better, how we can attract the new audience, please send them to me because December is a good month to recalibrate. December is a good month to do some experimentation. All right, so let's jump in. Remember, we've got a target for these shows. November is going to be one of the best super chat months ever. How good it is will depend on how we do today and how we do on the live streams tomorrow. We do have a target of $250 on the news roundup shows. So if you want to ask a question, if you just want to be supportive of the show, please use the super chat feature to do that. Of course, those of you who support the show monthly are already supporting all this. I'm doing more. So it would be great if some of you would consider raising your monthly contributions or some of you who don't yet contribute monthly. December is a great time to really get a gauge. Today, I think it's Giving Tuesday. What the hell that means? Giving Tuesday is today. So consider on Giving Tuesday subscribing to The Iran Book Show if you haven't subscribed yet. Go to Patreon or SubscribeStar or theuranbookshow.com slash support or become a member here on YouTube or whatever. Today is a good day when everybody else is asking you to give without necessarily providing you with a value in return. Here in The Iran Book Show, I provide you with real value, I think, almost every day. Or that is going to be the plan going forward. So hopefully, hopefully, people can respond. And this Giving Tuesday, Gold Tuesday, Scott said, not bad, Scott. Gold Tuesday, support The Iran Book Show in one way or another. Patreon, SubscribeStar, youuranbookshow.com slash support or even locals or even any way, Venmo or whatever you want to support the show. Let me know and I'll make it happen. All right, of course, Super Chat is also open here. You can do that today. Today is a big day, should be a big day for Super Chat, given that it's the day where all the non-profits ask for money. I'm not a non-profit. I'm still asking. All right, value for value, remember that. All right, let's just jump in. So before we get to the Twitter Apple Wars that are starting, I just saw a quick story about Iran that I want to update you. We always try to do that. So last week, I think it was late last week, the niece of Supreme Leader Khamenei, the niece of Supreme Leader Khamenei in Iran basically went on video criticizing the regime, supporting the protests, supporting the young girls, and condemning Khamenei and condemning his regime. Supposedly, yesterday, she was arrested. She was detained in spite of the fact that she is a part of the family, if you will. She's the niece of the Supreme Leader. She is now in jail. The Iranians have already arrested 1,500 people. They have death sentences on 21 of them. I don't think they've executed anybody yet. I think there's some kind of appeal process. But it is 1,500, not 1,500, 1,500 people have been arrested. And we'll see how this all evolves. So that is kind of the latest from the Islamic Republic of Iran. I think the United States is playing Iran today. I hope they thrash him. And yes, hopefully the demonstrations will continue. Quick on China, no real new update. There's still a lot of talk about the unprecedented nature of the demonstrations. Still a lot of talk, I think, on Chinese social media. Chinese police are stopping people in the street. And Chinese police are stopping people in the street. They're checking cell phones. They're also, from what I can tell, in areas where demonstrations were on Sunday. But from what I can tell, I saw a news story that said that they're actually now hunting down the people who are at the demonstrations. So they are actually going to their homes. And I don't know if they're arresting them, detaining them, or what they're doing, or just harassing them, or just searching them. But there is a concerted effort by the regime in China to clamp down on this and not allow this to develop and not allow this to get bigger. So all I can say is my mind, my heart is with the Chinese. And I hope they withstand whatever it is that is going to be inflicted on them. All right, let's see. OK, so let's jump into Twitter and Apple. Just a bewildering story, in my view. Just a little crazy. So Twitter is struggling. It's losing money every day. Elon Musk has already talked about the possibility of bankruptcy. It still does not have any kind of standard for objective moderation of the platform. It hasn't announced anything really with regard to that. It is losing advertisers. It is so it is losing revenue. The pay for the check mark, which Elon Musk started has not really done much or gone anywhere. We'll see. He says he's going to relaunch it on Friday. They suspended it for a while. They're relaunching it Friday. Maybe that'll generate significant revenue. It's still to be determined. Obviously, he's trying to switch the model from advertising to some kind of subscription model. We'll see if that works. In other words, Musk is trying to make the platform better, introduce new features, make it more robust, make it more competitive, bring real innovation to Twitter. So he's trying to do a lot of good things and trying to do a lot of significant things. And he's also trying to bring, I think, some more visibility, some more transparency, some more objectivity to the moderation. But he hasn't done that yet. So far, as I've said in the past, moderation basically is at Elon Musk's whim or at the whim of polls that he takes. So this is where we are. And then Elon yesterday decides that he doesn't have a big enough challenge. He doesn't have a big enough problem in his hands. He decided to basically go on a PR war against Apple, the largest company in the world, the largest by market cap, the large temp company, a company that has a billion people using its platform, on which many of those people could use Twitter or not, if Apple decided not, and to engage in a war. Now it could be that he thinks he would beat Apple, that's quite possible. But one has to wonder. And also, one has to wonder about the timing of this. Again, he's got a lot of his hands. He's tweeting up a storm. He doesn't stop. He's constantly on Twitter, reminds me of a president who spent more time on Twitter than governing the country. Is this really the best way to run Twitter, to get Twitter on the right track, to get Twitter to where it needs to be, which we all wanted to be hugely successful? So first, Elon Musk complained about the fact that he started by complaining of the fact that, you know, that Apple has almost completely stopped advertising on Twitter. Now, this is not just true of Apple. A significant amount, two-thirds, I think, of the advertising on Twitter have withdrawn, kind of waiting to see what Musk does with it. And I think the extent to which they've withdrawn, and to the extent to which they are wait and hold, is the large extent Musk's fault. He hasn't really conveyed, in clear objective terms, what the policy is going to be. So he started by complaining that Apple, in Apple, I think Apple's total spending on Twitter was, I don't know, $30 million this year or something like that, which is not a huge amount of money in the big scheme of things. So again, why go after Apple? It's not exactly the biggest advertiser on Apple. But, you know, obviously it is an advertiser, and they were true. Then he started complaining about the fact that Apple, supposedly, he claims, is as threatened to withhold Twitter from its app store. And they won't tell him why, supposedly. Now, who knows if that is true or not, but what that exactly means or not. But Apple, of course, is a private company, has every right to decide what's on its platform and what is not. And the nice thing about Apple is they're staying quiet. They're not saying anything. This is all coming from Musk, who's behaving, I think, like a little child who is not getting his favorite toy and is bitching and complaining, instead of actually putting his head down and actually doing the work necessary. Now, it is true that if Apple blocked Twitter from its app store, that would be pretty horrific for Twitter. That is a lot of users that could potentially destroy Twitter. So this is a big deal. And because it's a big deal, and this is business, one wonders whether the right approach is to antagonize a major column supplier, vendor. I don't know exactly how you would call them, customer. Antagonize them. What is the point exactly? Public pressure on Apple? Really? Apple's not exactly known as a company. The response to public pressure. Musk needs Apple. More than Apple needs Musk. Now, it turns out that there is a history here that Musk has been complaining about Apple now for years. Musk has been complaining about everything Apple has done from the fact, supposedly, since Scott, the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple kind of didn't take a meeting with Musk when Musk was trying to get Apple to invest in Tesla. And Apple refused to invest in Tesla and didn't even take a meeting, or at least Tim Cook didn't attend the meeting, when Musk was trying to raise money from Apple. Then the fact that Apple, throughout the last, I think, five years or so, has been poaching engineers, has been hiring engineers away from Tesla, has made Musk unhappy. Although he claims that they only get the poor engineers. They don't get the really good engineers. They get the engineers, they can't cut it in Tesla. And if that's the case, why is he upset, right? It's helpful to him. It cleans out the not-so-good people. So Musk needs Apple as an advertiser. Musk needs Apple in order to appear on its platform. Twitter is bleeding of the $5.1 million of revenue in 2021. 4.5 came from advertising, so they need advertisers. They're trying to diversify the model. But you don't get to these numbers by selling checkmarks. That's not going to replace the advertising. Why are you antagonizing your largest customer? Now you could argue, well, because Apple is threatening, Apple is doing all this stuff, OK. But then, so Musk is just letting the world know that Apple is behaving in this way. Apple, I assume, is trying to do what it sees is its best business practices. At the same time, but then Musk launches a whole new attack on Apple. And where is this? Where is this? I've got to see it. Yeah, Musk then, he shifted the attack on Apple. And he talked about, ooh, that Apple has a secret 30% tax on everything you buy through their app store. Well, first of all, it's not a tax. Secondly, it's not secret. We all know that every app out there that uses the app to charge you money. In the first year of the use of that app, Apple gets 30% of any revenue they accumulate. They charge you. After the first year, it drops to 15%. This is an agreement, a contract, that Apple signs with every Apple store vendor. If you don't want to sign the agreement, fine. You don't appear on the Apple store. It's not a secret deal. It's so unsecret that Apple has been sued about this by, or is it the game company that sued Apple over this. And indeed, it's gone to the courts, sued on antitrust ground, of course, which Musk is now supporting, that they should be attacked or prevented from doing this on antitrust grounds. So Musk is using antitrust in order to go after his enemy Apple. Fourth night, thank you. Fourth night is the game. I can't remember. What's the name of the company that makes fourth night? Anyway, so Apple charges 30%. It's, again, oh, Epic. Epic is the name of the game company, Epic. So Epic filed the suit. Epic lost mostly. Most of the suit where they lost. It's now at appeal. The Biden administration, Justice Department, has joined Epic in the appeal supporting Epic, going after Apple for antitrust reasons. So Apple's under attack. The courts are going to decide whether it can sustain this 30% deal or not. Apple has exclusivity, if you will quote, monopoly power, over the idea that all apps on the iPhone have to be downloaded through the app store. Although that's not completely true, because I know I downloaded some stuff off of websites. But you can't have third party app stores that sell you Apple apps. And Epic is challenging that on antitrust ground. The Justice Department is challenging that on antitrust ground. We'll see how the courts rule. I think it's in front of the eighth circuit. But we know, or I am at least, as I think most of you know, I'm against antitrust on principle. I denounce antitrust on principle. I condemn anybody who uses antitrust to improve their business. And in that sense, I condemn Epic. I condemn Twitter. Elon Musk, in this case, everybody who's trying to use. And I condemn the people who went after Microsoft when they did. That includes Margaret Driesen. But that's exactly what Elon Musk is doing. He's siding with the, I think, the bad guys here. Anyway, it's sad to see. It's sad to see, as you know, I kind of have gone through not thinking much of Elon Musk, thinking very highly of Elon Musk, and now thinking a lot less of Elon Musk. And this adventure Twitter is not making him look good. I think it's making him look frantic, like a child. He's whiny. He's an emotionalist. And it's sad to watch. It's sad to watch. My opinion on Elon Musk, he's gone through a rollercoaster. Partially because he is a rollercoaster. I think what happens even when he says good things, it's kind of emotionally driven. He doesn't have a cohesive philosophy to guide him through. There's a lot of pragmatism there, sadly. So in certain areas, he can plan long term. He can really think in terms of long term. Twitter has completely bamboozled him partially because he's clearly overpaid, significantly overpaid. And he can't get out of it. And we'll see what else happens. Apple is not banning him for bringing Donald Trump and Kanye a mask. I mean, Apple has Apollo on it. And Apollo, I think, is now owned by Kanye. So I don't think it's limited to that. Apple is probably just saying, be careful. Because if the place becomes, if Twitter becomes a zoo in which people are attacking one another and bad things are happening on it, we might withdraw the app because we have standards. And you can go to the app store and you can see what their standards are. There's, of course, they're not completely objective either. And they have done some questionable things. But it's a business. They can do what they want. They can do what they want. All right, let's see. Let's see what else is happening. Yeah, I mean, the other part of this is Musk is just the tweets that he's doing. He's tweeting pepper the frog memes. I mean, really? You're playing into the alt-right. He's exchanging tweets with alt-right personalities. And it's just not good. It's just not good. And I think partially just, as we know, he attacked Kasparov. He's attacking Alexander Vindum. It's just none of this is healthy, good. For Twitter, none of it is good. It's good to healthy vis-a-vis Trump or approach to Trump. It's, I mean, clearly he's behaving as an emotionalist. All right, let's see. What else do we have? All right, so that's Apple-Twitter war. I'll keep you posted on that. Apple's developed. But we'll keep track on Twitter partially because I'm on Twitter and Twitter is an important platform for me, partially because I find it interesting. And I think it's a lot of the cultural issues that are out there are going to express through what's going on in Twitter. OK, here's a story that I think comes out of, in a sense, right out of Atlas Shrugged. This is crazy stuff. So I don't know if you know, but there's a big conflict between the labor unions and the railroads in the United States. Railroads in the United States have always, railroads in the United States have always been heavily, heavily regulated, but they're still private companies. They're negotiating a new deal with the unions. The unions are playing hard, and they're threatening a strike. I think there are four out of 12 unions have not accepted the deal that the railroads have offered. Or actually, not that the railroads offered, it was actually negotiated by the government, the government because it heavily regulates the railroad, and because railroads are, quote, strategic, the government helped negotiate the deals. They sat the unions down. They sat the railroad executive down, and they negotiated this big agreement. And four of the unions have voted the deal down. And you'd expect the Biden administration, you'd expect the Democrats to say, you know, let's do another deal. We can't have unions voting down deals. Let's squeeze the railroad companies. But it turns out that's not their approach at all. This is the same approach as I think any president would take. These people are authoritarian. These people want their way on the highway. They don't care about unions. They don't care about anybody. They care about, in this case, I think they care about not disrupting railroads because it'll look bad on the Biden administration. Not disrupting railroads because, I mean, you've already got somewhat of a supply chain mess with China. If the railroads were shut down in the United States, you would really get a supply chain mess. I mean, you guys don't realize how much of everything, from oil to natural gas to all our goods, to all our stuff that is not shipped by plane, is shipped by boat, by, you know, some by truck. But railroads are massive. I don't have the percentage of all the stuff, right? But the fact is that the Biden administration is upset at the unions because more than 150,000 workers could go and strike, and that hurt the economy and disrupt the flow of goods. So Biden, this is Biden's response, and I'm quoting Biden. As a pro-labor president, I'm reluctant to override the ratification procedures. And the views of those who voted against the agreement. I mean, they voted. It's democratic. The unions voted against the agreement. But, he says, in this case, where the economic impact or shutdown could hurt millions of other working people and families, I believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal. It turns out, based on some railway acts in the past, under the Railway Labor Act, Congress can make both sides accept an agreement their members have voted down. Lawmakers also can order negotiations to continue and delay the strike deadline for a certain period. Or they can send a dispute to an outside arbitrators. In this case, they've already, I think, done the arbitration and done the sit-down. In this case, they are going to pass the legislation. Nancy Pelosi has said that the House would vote this week on legislation to adopt the agreement. They're going to force the unions to accept an agreement they don't want to accept. I mean, that's pretty brazen for a left wing government and very authoritarian and something you'd expect Republicans maybe to do. But they'll probably need a few Republican votes in order to get this pass, because I'm sure that some of the progressives will not pass for this. But negotiations continue. The last railroad strike was in 1991. It lasted 24 hours. Before Congress and President George H.W. Bush signed legislation ordering the workers back to their job and setting up an arbitration process to resolve disputes over. So here you go. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. It doesn't matter. I keep telling you, it doesn't matter. They will use the force of government to achieve their utilitarian political controlling manipulative ends, no matter what. And here, Biden and Pelosi will do what George H.W. did with Congress back in 1991. They will force a labor union that is rejected to deal to accept it. Now, I think the solution to this is they allow the trained companies to fire the railroad workers who don't want to come to work. That's how you deal with a strike, or one potential way to deal with a strike. But that, of course, is off the table. That, of course, is off the table. I mean, Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, he fired them. He has every right to do that, and I wish the railroads had the right to fire their railroad union employees when they went on strike. Of course, Reagan could do it. The railroad executives cannot. There's laws to prevent that. But did you know there was a railroad labor act that allows the government to impose deals between railroads and unions? It sounds like it's straight out of some authoritarian nightmare. It sounds like it's something that, I don't know, we would have an Atlas Shrugged. All right, quickly, I just want to note that the Europeans are unhappy. They're unhappy with Biden. They're unhappy with Biden because Biden is doing what Europeans do usually, but now America's doing it and that is upset the Europeans. And that is Biden is subsidizing American business. The, if you remember, his anti-inflation bill, the bill that was involved, subsidizing American business and helping America get over the so-called energy crisis and all kinds of giveaways here and a giveaway there, where the Europeans, oh, and a big part of the bill, by the way, a big part of the bill that Biden passed, was that U.S. companies and U.S. companies would only get the subsidies, the goodies, the tax breaks, whatever, if everything was made in America, if all the parts that went into whatever it is they're selling was made in America. Europeans upset because typically we import stuff from them and this will stop that importation and bring production to the United States. So it's a terrible bill. I mean, I criticized the bill. And the Europeans are upset in the same way that we're upset at China, that we get upset at Europe, that Trump was upset. It's not fair because they're not doing free trade. I mean, we do exactly the same as all these other countries. We subsidize our businesses. We give them special deals. We give them special protections. We sometimes even give them money. We bail them out. We constantly do the same, maybe on a smaller scale, but the same stuff as the status governments of Europe and the ultra-status government of China, maybe on a smaller scale, certainly on a smaller scale, but same principle. And Macron, who is coming to the United States this week, is going to be complaining bitterly about the Inflation Reduction Act and particularly the subsidies and the tax credits for products made using parts in North America and assembled in North America because that takes jobs away from Europeans. It also raises the cost for Americans. It's just stupid policy. It's very bad economics. It's very bad in almost every dimension. But what else can we expect? The other thing they're really upset about in Europe is the fact that while America has stepped in and supplying them with a lot of natural gas via liquefied natural gas and filling in the hole created by their overreliance on Russia and the abandonment of nuclear power, we're selling it to them at market prices, which means the gas that they are buying for the United States is expensive. And they're going to complain to Biden and demand that Biden, I don't know, do what, force American companies to sell the natural gas to Europe at a cheaper price? America doesn't intervene yet in that way with its gas companies, but they are really ticked off that we are using market prices to sell them natural gas. Of course, it's not we. It's energy companies are doing this. And that makes the Europeans unhappy. So they're generally unhappy because the US economy is doing okay, whereas the European economy is doing really badly. They're really unhappy that this winter they are going to freeze because of the energy crisis and the United States is gonna be fine. We'll see how much they freeze, but certainly they're gonna freeze more than we are. The whole thing is they're accusing the US, the US law could trigger a wave of deindustrialization in Europe. It's not exactly what we accused China of and Japan before that and North Korea and Taiwan. It's just, God, I wish people just get economics, but yes, the US law is bad. It's bad law and it won't end well because there will be raised prices for Americans, but it'll also make products that are sufficient, there'll be less competition. And ultimately, the Europeans will retaliate in one way or the other. Yeah, Paul, Europe is trying to get natural gas from every, but Poland is, Ayn Mika says Poland gets its natural gas from Norway. We're good, yes, and you pay market prices to Norway as well, unless you bought futures contracts, but you probably pay the market price. So Europeans are just in a mood to complain. They forget that it's NATO, which really means the United States is providing them with a defense umbrella that basically prevents Putin from being aggressive towards them. They are under the protection of America and they should be nicer. Just like to some extent, Elon Musk should be nicer to Apple given how much he depends on them. All right, that was the quick roundup of news. Let's jump into some of the super chat. Ooh, again, I can't manage to get anything done in half an hour. Everything is 42 minutes to an hour. All right, Armin, thank you. Armin has a $100 question, really appreciate it. Well, like $28 short of getting to our goal, we'd really appreciate it if we could get to that goal. This will be the last time I ask. Well, maybe tomorrow, but the last time I asked probably this month, maybe tomorrow, we'll see, but it would be great to get to the goal. And then if we do really well tomorrow, we could break the record, but it's very unlikely. We'd have to do really well tomorrow. And it's not really my show tomorrow, so it'll be hard for me to ask. Let's see. Okay, Armin, put us over the top. Thank you, Armin. I didn't mean to be you. You've already done the $100. Thank you, appreciate it. Okay, question of regulation, Armin says. There are almost no wild birds left in the whole of China as people tend to catch and kill them indiscriminately. Why not have the force of government regulate such matters to void a race to the bottom? Well, because first one has to ask why do they have to be wild birds, right? I mean, who is the government to decide wild birds should be protected, which wild birds should not? But by what standard does the government decide that wild birds need to be protected but not wild animals or not? Some other kind of animal a lot? I mean, as soon as you start interfering with man's ability to make choices about their own life, then there's no end to it. And while arguably it's not particularly healthy for the Chinese to be hunting wild birds, diseases and stuff like that, is it really, what is the real damage and to whom? I mean, the real solution to these kind of issues, Armin, is not more regulation. The real solution is private property and this is what China doesn't have and this is why wild birds are going extinct in China and they're not going extinct so much in the United States. And that is, there's no private property because in private property, I could say if I owned a big chunk of land in China, I could easily say on my land, I don't allow hunting birds. And the birds on that piece of land and the birds that didn't cross across other places or depending on migration patterns, of course, would probably be safer than other places. But that's because an individual values those birds and therefore is willing to protect them. But the government, the challenge we have today is that the government owns all the land in China. I mean, the people think they own the land but they don't, it's all pseudo ownership. It's basically leased to them and as long as they behave, they keep it but they can be taken away from them by the government at any time. There is no true private property in China but if land was owned privately, then you would create areas where there was hunting and you could create areas where there was not. In the United States, there's pieces of land where people hunt and they're vast areas where people can't. Now part of that is national parks and areas that the government supervises but also on private property. There are vast quantities of land where people have bought it so it won't be developed so it won't allow hunting in order to preserve a certain species or in order to preserve a beautiful environment or whatever it is. But what is the value? I mean, this is the question you have to ask yourself. What is the value of birds that justify, justify government use of coercion against individuals? Value has to be to someone and for something. What is the, who are the birds of value to and for what purpose are they a value? Those are the questions and given that there's no private property and given it's a cheap source of food, that's why the Chinese hunt them. As China becomes richer and if it ever adopts real private property, I think a lot of those bird species will come back. And because they're a value, you know, if they're a value and if they're not a value, they won't, you know, there are lots of chickens in the world, there's not shortage of chickens in the world, why, or in China, or anyway, non-wild birds, why? Because they're a value to human beings. So when something is a value, we pursue it and we take care of it and we make sure they're lost of it. They're a value for eating, right? But when something's not a value to human beings, then why would anybody use force to preserve it? So no, I don't think that government should get involved in endangered species, period, any species. Shazwat, I took my nieces to see an animated Disney movie called Strange World. Its environmental message is potentially worse than Avatar's, just a warning to parents out there. Yeah, I mean, I saw a preview of it. I didn't quite get the environmentalist message, but it looked like a century overload, too much stimulation, too many things going on, too much color, too much stuff, and it did not look like a movie for kids or for anybody else. But thanks for the warning, thanks for the warning vis-a-vis the environmentalist message. We'll see, and it's not doing well as far as I can tell, and we'll see if Disney manages to pivot and get, it's act together and start making money again by making stuff that people actually like. Michael says, did you watch Kanye West and Nick Fuentes and Tim Pool discussing the Jews keeping them down? God. No, I did not and will not. You know, I have no interest in watching that. How do we get to the point where this kind of talk is acceptable in polite society on a legitimate podcast? Well, you have to question whether Tim Pool is a legitimate podcast. Given this, I don't think he is anymore. I think this disqualifies infilm legitimacy. I think it is disgusting and despicable. What's to be gained other than to promote anti-Semitic ideas out there in the world? I think any, any sanction in any way if somebody like Nick Fuentes is disgusting, despicable, should be avoided at all costs. I will not show a video of Nick Fuentes on this channel. Kanye, you kind of feel sorry for because he's clearly mentally not there. Nick Fuentes knows exactly what he's doing. And the violent anti-Semitism of the whole crew. And I don't know how Tim Pool participated in this, but it sounds like he didn't exactly push back. How do we get to this point? This is where the alt-right has been moving. I've been warning about this for seven years, since 2015 when the alt-right first emerged. They have been moving, and I was getting the most horrible anti-Semitic tweets from them. They have been moving the center, the heart of the Republican Party towards their positions. And Donald Trump, I think, facilitated this, or at the very least, did not oppose it. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene embraced this, and participated in this with, I don't know, Jewish lasers knocking down, whatever. This is what happens. When you accommodate Charlottesville, when you create moral equivalencies, when you don't condemn them, when you don't rip them down, when you don't call them out for what they really are. This is exactly what happens. This is Trump and the rest of the Republican Party for years now staying silent as a significant portion of that party goes off and becomes nuts, crazies, anti-Semitic racist nutcases. And it's only gonna get worse. And the muted response that Donald Trump, by Republicans of Donald Trump having dinner with Nick Florentis and Yi, and it turns out Milo, Milo is making a comeback of Milo as well, just pathetic, pathetic. Republican Party should be ashamed of itself. And those of you who support the Republican Party should be ashamed to give them unwaiving support. All right, Armin says, any plans to visit the DC area anytime soon? Unfortunately not, nothing planned. If somebody wants to organize a talk for me in DC, happy to go, but nothing planned. Oh God, I need to answer these questions quickly. All right, Michael says, despite the evil of German philosophy without the deep economical problems of the 1920s, the Nazis couldn't have taken power through bad philosophy alone. If the economy is still decent, people don't submit to monsters. But why was the economy terrible? Why was the economy terrible in the 1920s? Wasn't it because of the kind of ideas? Wasn't it because of German philosophy? Wasn't it because of the ideas that German philosophy applied to economic policy and economic, so yes, the proximate cause is the great recession, depression in Germany. But what caused that? Hegel and Kant paved the way for all of it, for World War I, and then for the abysmal economy in Germany, and as a consequence of that, for the rise of the Nazis. Iron make out, if building something makes a land private, how do you take possession of a natural reserve? A natural reserve, what do you mean by natural reserve? Like a national park or something? I mean, the government would have to declare a homesteading act, and in Oklahoma what they did was they had a competition. A race, whoever got there first got it, right? So you would open it up for settlement or for use and let people race to get there, or some other mechanism, a lottery. You could find a variety, a lottery that assigned it. You could figure out different ways in which to assign the land that is now government-owned to assign it to private ownership. Whoops, what happened to my mouse? My mouse just died, all right. Let's see, all right, my mouse is working again. All right, Gale says, just listen to your talk in the UK on Scottish independence again. The first 10 minutes should be a short to share. You hear that, Christian? Make the first 10 minutes a short to share. Excellent thought provoking content. I have no idea what I said in the first 10 minutes. I can't remember a thing, but Christian, if you're listening, Catherine, tell Christian that the first 10 minutes of my talk in Scotland should be turned into short and shared. Gale says so, and Gale knows. All right, Michael says, will humanity keep experimenting with collectivism for another 20, 30 years? Before we really hit rock bottom and intellectual magically discover objectivism. I don't know about magically, but yeah, we're gonna keep playing around with collectivism for a few more decades before we see the light. Frank asks, is must-behavior setting back his Mars mission? Well, not yet, but it could potentially. It could potentially as people take him less and less seriously. I don't think it's just me who's taking him less seriously. I think if he needs the support both of NASA, he needs the support of companies sending satellites into space and he needs the support of investors in order to go to Mars. And for that, he needs to be perceived as a serious person. I mean, there have been people calling from us to stop being CEO of all these companies a long time ago because of how distracting it is to work with a CEO who's doing so many different things. JJ Gigby's, did you ever do a show on the train looting that was happening in Los Angeles? The media pictures were jaw-dropping, packages ripped up and spewed all over the rail side. I remember that Total Anarchy in downtown LA, Total Anarchy. I remember that, I assume it stopped because I stopped seeing the pictures. I think I mentioned it on the show. I don't think I did a whole show on it, but I think I mentioned it on the show. But if it's still going on, let me know and I'll do another one. Kim says, thanks for sharing your vast knowledge with us, Iran. I appreciate the support, Kim. Thank you. And JJ Gigby's, don't whales have aesthetic value for many people. They are beautiful animals that can't be farmed and deserve protection. Protection by whom? Over what? If you want to protect whales and we have to figure out, I mean, one of the things that has to be figured out is private property in the oceans and private property over fish stock and over whales and things like that. And when we do that, we will be able to preserve these things in a rational way. Government's doing it as the wrong mechanism. It's the wrong way. It's central planning, which never works, but it's also, it's somebody else deciding what a value is to you. So what we need is thought, effort to figure out how to apply the principles of private property to the oceans. And it's not obvious how to do it. It's not easy how to do it. There's been an experiment that's worked very well with fishing in Iceland where private property was used in order to allocate fish rights, fishing rights. We need more of that kind of experimentation, more of that kind of thinking, more of that kind of legal philosophy application to that issue, to the issue of the oceans. All right, everybody. Great. Thanks for the support. We did well today in terms of super chat. We exceeded our targets. So thank you. Thank you particularly for Armin, who came in with a lot of money. And to Michael, who did quite a bit and Shazbot, thanks to all of you for the support. And then I'm not sure exactly when I'll see you again, but as I said, I will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow. I will be broadcasting a show at 1.30, Austin Time, 1.30 p.m. Austin Time with Greg Silmiere. We will be co-hosting the show. It's with the Salem Center. And so he will be interviewing me. So you will be able to watch that tomorrow, 1.00 p.m. Central Time, Austin Time. And then of course, I hope we will be live streaming, live streaming the talk, the debate tomorrow, as well on my channel. All right, I have to run. I've got another meeting at 12. Zoom call, talk to you soon. Bye everybody.