 fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Friday. Well, where I am, it's late afternoon, but for most of you it's probably morning, so good morning. Hope everybody's having a, had a great week and looking forward to the weekend. As you know, I'm traveling this week. I am currently in Madrid. And we'll be talking about, we'll be talking about the conference I just attended where I participated in a debate and then participated in the rest of the conference and found it quite interesting. So I think you'll find, hopefully you guys will find it interesting as well. Let's see, why is this not working? Let's end, give me a second here. Getting all of this set up in advance. I thought I'd done this. Error requesting authorization code. All right, we'll see. Let's see, where are we? All right, let me know if there are any issues, problems I'm doing from hotel room. You never know with the internet, quality, and so on. Hopefully the picture's okay. I do see it's a little kind of focusing in and out, but we'll work on that before the next trip. There's some setting in the camera that I have. There must be wrong that I need to set up. Anyway, yeah, I've noticed the camera's doing the focus thing and I don't think it matters for some reason. I try to change the depth of field, but it doesn't seem like it actually changes the depth of field. So I'm going to have to read up and get a manual and try to figure out what exactly is going on and how I can fix it. And I will do that between this trip and next trip. The next trip is coming up very quickly. So we'll do that in between. Let's see, anything I haven't done. I'm sorry I haven't done any news roundup shows. I just haven't had time to read the news. So I haven't really been following what's going on in the world. It says that the big story is nothing much seems to be happening. The U.S. is consumed politically by the standoff in Congress that is going to lead probably to a government shutdown, or at least that's what many Republicans are trying to achieve. And you know in terms of Ukraine, nothing dramatic is happening, although I did read this morning or this afternoon that Ukraine missile hit the Russian fleet's headquarters in the middle of the city of, I can't pronounce it, Sevupol in Crimea. That'll be a major event if it actually happened it's probably high-casualty event if it's accurate reporting and a lot of very senior people within the Russian military were probably taken out. So it'll be interesting to see what reports come out of that later today. But generally the news requires serious work in terms of preparing for that show and I just haven't had the time to do this trip to do that and I fear that that's going to be case in most of my travels. It's going to be easier for me in a sense to riff about the things I'm experiencing while I'm traveling the people I'm engaging with, the ideas that I'm engaging with while I'm traveling like I did a few days ago on the anarcho-capitalism debate and today we'll do on the conservatives. It'll be easier to riff on those things than to actually prepare a news-related topic. So I apologize but when I'm home I promise I will do those every day or at least every day that I can. Alright, so I'm here at a conference it's called New Direction. This is I think my third time at this conference. I was first invited to participate in the New Direction Conference I don't know six, seven years ago. The conference was held then in Albania and I was invited by Daniel Hannon. Daniel Hannon is a free market, part of the conservative party in the UK. A big fan of Ayn Rand's I don't think he doesn't agree but he's definitely a big fan I said very positive things about Adler Shrugged and the Fountainhead and Daniel invited me to participate years ago I can't even remember the topic I was on a panel and this was in Albania. The conference is a conference of the major European right of centre political parties in the European Parliament. So these are all people who work in Brussels and who represent their countries at the European Parliament from all of Europe but all right of centre political parties. So the UK, Spain, nobody from France which is curious and not a huge representation from Germany but you get the Netherlands, you get the Scandinavian countries and in Scandinavia the representatives here were not centre right, they were far right. So it's kind of a mixture of centre right and far right. So Sweden it was the populist party, the Finns it was the Finland party which is the populist party in Finland Poland, the ruling party in Poland is represented here Hungary, the ruling party in Hungary is represented here in some of the Balkans and then on top of that you've got representatives of all the leading think tanks in Europe or many of the leading think tanks in Europe from the UK, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute and from many other countries around Europe you get representatives of their kind of right of centre think tanks. So it's quite a combination it's an impressive list of people list of people who are very influential in the political world in Europe very influential in the think tank world in Europe generally lean, conservative there are a few classical liberals there are a few classical liberals, libertarians who consider themselves libertarians here but the dominant group here are conservatives right of centre and even far right conservatives. So it's a great place so that was the first time I was there it was in Albania, the second time was two years ago during COVID 2021 and it was in Lisbon and they had me come and give a talk about individual rights and it was an interesting they gave me kind of a keynote talk and it was fascinating because the audience was very split there was a significant percentage of the audience that hated it, I mean hated it, they were so furious they reject the concept of individual rights they reject the concept of individualism they're very focused on nationalism and on religion and on collectivism and you know we so it was a fascinating fascinating me being there was fascinating because it clearly shook up the audience most of the stuff they hear stuff repeated to them that they agree with and this really shook it up and I think that was my role is to shake it up and the polls wouldn't talk to me and you know but the Americans and some of the Brits really liked it but the Brits, many of the Brits are also quite religious so it was interesting this year they invited me to come and do a debate originally I was supposed to debate Joram Chazzoni on national conservatism versus liberal ideas, classical liberal ideas but Joram Chazzoni had a cancel at the last minute so I debated James Orr, James Orr from Cambridge University, a professor, a philosophy professor at Cambridge University so very articulate, powerful mind and he represented the national conservative movement in our debate and so it was it was quite interesting and it was quite good and a lot of people really enjoyed the debate a lot of people again were very upset at what I had to say but anyway we did that debate I'll talk about it a little bit more in a minute and then there are these breakout sessions and in each one of these breakout sessions there's a panel and the panel gives short presentations and then everybody participates and I went to quite a few of those and participated in all of them and again created this real buzz because I represented views that were just not they're not the views that they are typically exposed to they're not the ideas and views that they typically engage with and so it was super interesting partially just to watch their faces but they're not used to being challenged so what was I going to say? yeah so this has been going on for two days we just ended it quite fascinating and I thought I'd give you some thoughts about the event the debate was good basically you know the framework of the debate I argue for individualism individualism both in morality and in politics and the national conservatives basically argue and here I think he was more I think accommodating in some ways than Yom Khazani would be he argued what you would call a soft collectivism you wouldn't want too much collectivism not too much emphasis on the collective but the collective does matter nations do matter and we have to have nationalistic policies and philosophically he's you know against individualism and the importance of the family and of course importance of religion and importance of religion as a source of community and a source of knowledge was quite important so I thought the debate was good I think we did a good job articulating our views and I think the audience was quite engaged there were a lot of questions there was a 90 minute debate with a lot of questions from the audience and I thought it went quite well with the importance of people afterwards it really this happens a lot when I go to these conferences is you do something and then throughout the rest of the conference in every almost every panel they feel like they have to address the points that I made during because it should come up and it seems like these are the points that need to be contradicted it means they're thinking about it which is exactly my purpose it means they realize maybe that their views are not the only ones in town and they need to really engage and a big part of me going to these conferences is to kind of bring about engagement and to get them to engage and to get them to take the ideas of objectivism seriously so I sat in on panels on geopolitics specifically on a panel that you know specifically you know on on a panel on geopolitics which was focused on Cold War 2.0 and I find that fascinating and we'll talk about that in a minute and on a panel on can conservatives and liberals get along liberals here meaning classical liberals can we get along, can we work together and then a panel on immigration which was very revealing and very interesting immigration of course came up throughout immigration as the number one issue that concerns conservatives so let me make a general comment and I want to talk about the panels if I had to say what was the common thread among you know what makes a conservative in Europe right now what is it that that really animates them and motivates them and drives them the conservative movement I would say that the number one thing is is fear they're driven by fear and it really is interesting these are smart people intelligent people motivated people but they really are fade they fear the left, they fear woke I mean constantly talking about it constantly worried about it constantly concerned they fear immigrants God do they fear immigrants immigrants are going to completely destroy the world they fear secularism they really fear secularism they view secularism and the secularization of society as maybe the biggest threat other than immigrants maybe to to Europe, to civilization to western civilization and I think that fear motivates them to take religion even more seriously than they otherwise would and motivates them to engage with religion even more than they otherwise would so they're quite religious the religion is very important to them they don't strike me as you know I have a vision I have a view of religion maybe shaped by the fact that I was raised Jewish of people who really take religion seriously as dressing like 18th century people and devoting me basically their entire lives to their religion and focusing almost everything on the religion and it strikes me how Christians can be super religious and you can't even tell until they actually bring it up so I don't know how religious they really are and how to what extent is their religiosity motivated to what extent is their religiosity motivated by fear of losing values if you're secularized fear of you know of you that holds that you know to have morality you must have religion that motivates them fear of not being able to transmit values to young people unless they are themselves religious it's hard for me to tell how deep the religiosity goes but it's everywhere I mean we just the closing speech at the conference was by a Brazilian intellectual and basically the message was at the end of the day without religion we are nothing religion must play a key part of a role in one's individuals life and in politics you cannot separate state from religion continent that is super secular in a continent where religious observance is in the decline in a continent where religion is not taken very seriously particularly in western Europe but even in eastern Europe even in places like Hungary where they talk about Christianity all the time they don't take it that seriously they don't go to church they don't practice you know here are conservatives trying to appeal and trying to gain traction and trying to combat the woke on the basis of religion it's all they have to offer is this primitivism this primitive form of philosophy this debunked ridiculous notion about a god in the sky who you know cares about what you actually do and it's it's not surprising they're losing and I think they know they're losing and they're panicking so you know one of my arguments to them one of my arguments to them throughout in the different panels was look if you want to attract people if you want to get people on your side if you want to combat the left you have to offer a positive vision you have to offer a real vision for the future you have to offer an alternative to what to the kind of utopian nonsense that the left offers but all they have and all they can come up with is an alternative is religion that's it they can't go anywhere else but to religion so it's it's truly it's sad but not unexpected they talk a lot about freedom a lot about freedom but when push comes to shove on any particular issue you get to give out freedom if it achieves their cultural, political nationalistic goals they talk about freedom but it's freedom for their own people often at the expense of others and it's limited freedom it's limited by so they don't want to privatize education they want to control education and the values that are taught through education they want to dictate the curriculum instead of the left dictating the curriculum they want freedom of religion but they don't want freedom not economic freedom and not political freedom not if you understand what that really means so in that sense again quite sad quite depressing you know and when discussing you know whether there can be a cooperation between classical liberals never mind objectivists but classical liberals and conservatives you know the conservatives say some of them at least say sure as long as you're willing to subservient as long as you're willing to give up on your absolutist notions of liberty of freedom as long as you are the liberal the classical liberals are junior partners in the coalition as long as you accept the fact that religion has to be at the forefront as long as you accept the fact that nationalism and nationalistic goals can be it should be and legitimately should be used by coercion so they offer an alternative to left wing collectivism they offer right wing collectivism they offer to left wing subjectivism and left wing woke they offer right wing subjectivism and right wing woke religion the idea that religion is better than woke or more rational than woke is absurd both are completely irrational both are finally ultimately about emotions a guy who's actually an objectivist a young objectivist was at the conference he was invited to the conference he's a Brit and well he's an Israeli who lives in England and he came up to me and said one thing that is common to everything that I hear at this conference is that all talking about emotions and intuitions he says it's not exactly like the left just their emotions and intuitions are different so it's so the conservatives latch onto religion because they view it as some remnant of you know of the past of the cause and the origins of western civilization I've talked a lot about why religion is not at the base and the origin of western civilization and I'm sure I'll have future opportunities to talk more about it and happy to answer questions in the super chat if you have about that by the way super chat is open so if you want to ask any questions please feel free to do so I think so far Michael has asked other questions or almost all the questions one question in there but feel free to join Michael in asking the questions no religion destroys as well Wokeness destroys and religion destroys religion doesn't build and elevate religion destroys it destroys the human soul it destroys the human spirit and it destroys the most important thing it destroys individual autonomy it destroys your ability to think it undermines your ability to think and therefore it destroys life and it destroys liberty it destroys freedom this is why religious conservatives cannot be and won't be for individual liberty because they understand they understand that individual liberty ultimately is not consistent with religion religion is an epistemology of authoritarianism religion is the epistemology of revelation religion ultimately has to undermine reason it has to negate reason when reason comes to conclusions that are not acceptable to a religionist reason is out so you know instead of seeking to ground morality just like we ground science in reality to ground morality in facts in man's nature and the requirements for man's survival the requirements for man's flourishing which is the way Aristotle tried to grind morality and the way Iron Man completed that mission by grounding reality in the nature of man and the nature of reality and the nature and facts about the world out there they think that the fantasy of religion you know is a grounding religion is not not grounding of reality religion is grounding reality in myth religion is grounding morality in myth religion is grounding morality in fantasy religion is grounding morality in complete subjectivism there is no more subjective of morality than as religion and you can tell by the fact that religions don't agree about many things including in morality but each come and there's no way for Islam to prove to Christianity to prove to Judaism to prove to Buddhism to prove to any other morality that they're right or wrong because there's no standard the standard is God well who's talked to God lately none of you have talked to God lately nobody has talked to God lately nobody's ever talked to God because God does not exist so it's a grounding in morality in a fantasy in the non-existent when the project of morality as Aristotle laid it out and should have been pursued further the project of morality the project of morality is to ground it in science in reality in the nature of man and until you do that now Rand has already done that but if you don't do that then your morality is completely subjective completely at whim and this is the point this is really about whim they're all about emotions and that's true and that makes them the same as the left the left and the right are the same they ground everything in terms of emotion alright I have a hard stop at 12 so but let me say one more thing which I found interesting about the Cold War 2.0 two things I found interesting 3.0 experts really interesting guys very qualified very articulate and again the fear what are they afraid of the global south it's a term coined by Marxists the original system is the global south people with different color skins people who have been poor they're really afraid of them even though what power does the global south have particularly if it's not free and if it's free why are we afraid of them they're afraid of China God are they afraid of China and they're afraid of Russia I understand Russia but the fear of China we'll talk about this in future shows the fear of China is I think it's both mistaken and it will ultimately make things worse not better in fearing them and giving them more credit and giving them more importance than they actually deserve but again fear is what motivated the panel on immigration was fascinating I mean there was one libertarian guy there who advocated for basically some form of open immigration or loose relatively free immigration but everybody in the room was so anti-immigration so afraid crime terrorism culture is going to disappear we just don't want immigrants we don't like immigrants we don't want them that's the Polish attitude really sad we don't really know again the positive vision they don't want to get rid of the European Union I mean nobody really wants to get rid of the European Union as long as the small economies can leech off of the large economies primarily Germany and France so they so they don't want to get rid of the European Union because of that they know they need to stick together and defend themselves against places like Russia so they have to stick together in order to have that defense I think to some extent they understand the economic benefits that the Union provides them not just the redistribution of wealth that happens between the richer countries and the poor countries but also just in terms of trade and free movement and all of that I think they value it even the very right-wing conservatives who are very nationalistic not quite willing to say we should leave the European Union we should bust it up they want more autonomy to nation states they want the European Union to have less power but they don't want to break it up which I think is really interesting because there were periods in which there was going to be an Italy exit and there was going to be a variety of different exits out of the Union but nobody's left there was real fear when Brexit happened okay that's the end of the European Union everybody's going to want to leave and they're not going to because the benefits are so striking and now you could argue with the failure of Brexit with the fact that Brexit has turned out economically to be really really bad for the UK arguably because of what they did because of what they did post-Brexit but people associate with Brexit I don't see anybody anybody else leaving the European Union a good example of that is Malone in Italy and she is who is a rockstar considered here she is you know she's of a party that might want to leave but has basically declared that she's staying with the European Union there's no way Italy is leaving again benefits enormously both from the stability of the euro and from the help of the richer countries in Europe alright let's let's do some of these superchats and quite a few of them and I don't have a lot of time so let's start with these Michael says is wealth creation not only affected by taxes and regulations but by the attitude of the population towards risk and wanting more in life if taxes and regulations were lowered in Europe would they even see a substantial increase in entrepreneurship I think they would but not as much as maybe you would in the United States for cultural reasons first of all you know shockingly for them I think the immigrants would be the entrepreneurs they would be a big chunk of the entrepreneurs the fact that people are willing to pick up their roots travel across deserts and across seas to a new place to start a new life suggests a certain risk taking mentality suggests a certain entrepreneurial spirit so I think you've got a lot of entrepreneurs among the immigrant population in Europe even though they're uneducated many of them are uneducated and so on it doesn't preclude entrepreneurship plus many of them are not you know BioNTech the partner Pfizer in the vaccine for COVID vaccine is founded by two Turkish immigrants or families that immigrated from Turkey so immigrants is one form but the other is there are some Europeans who are entrepreneurial and they're being held down they're being suppressed they're being denied the opportunity to be entrepreneurs by the system so while Europe would not see an increase in entrepreneurship like you would see in a place like the US or China or in other parts of Asia where there are cultures of risk taking and a culture of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs that admire and respect it it would see some but you're right Europe is a culture that lacks ambition a culture where ambition is not highly regarded where failure is regarded very harshly it's not a culture that views positively failures or learning experience like Silicon Valley culture and it is a culture unfortunately where fear plays a big role fear and fear, fear of failure fear of newness fear of change where even I think the so called progressives are left are conservative in that sense are quite happy to settle and what environmentalists after all if not a form of well another form of anti-progress just like in many respects conservatives are anti-progress so yes, Europe it wouldn't be enough you really need cultural change and Europe needs and this is where immigrants can play such an important role and that is to bring that culture of risk taking and entrepreneurship to Europe all right Michael also asks where do you see Rand's influence today in colloquial speech like the tax and big pharma and greed or Marx's influence in the day-to-day language does Rand's contribution have that equivalent? yeah I mean it's not much but there are a variety of different words that would not be used I think without Rand or would not have the kind of meaning that they have I think one is capitalism there was a period in the 50s and 60s where capitalism was not used nobody talked about it it was very negative connotations I think she and to some extent Milton Friedman brought the term capitalism back and made it respectable and made it positive to the extent that somebody like Elizabeth Warren even will say she's pro-capitalism because she doesn't want to say you know so the attitude towards capitalism the attitude flipside towards socialism I think have very much been influenced by Iron Man I'd say statism is a term that I think was I don't know if introduced by Iron Man but certainly caught on more with Iron Man and there are a few others which I can't remember right now but but you know I'd have to think about but there are colloquials there are words that have got enhanced meaning if you will because of Rand and that's part of what we're trying to keep alive Mirkat says the new right is less nuts than woke the democrats are less nuts than the republicans so the new right is less nuts than woke it depends on the new right if you look at the integralists if you look at some of the more if you look at some of the more radical right wing parties it doesn't get quite nuttier than that but then you say the democrats are less nuts than the republicans so that the political manifestation is better I mean I'm not convinced of that but yes I think that both the new right and woke are nuts and I think to the extent that they have influence over politics they're both very very dangerous Colleen says religious people are like people who are against legalizing drugs the only thing stopping people from killing people is religion and the only thing that stops people from doing drugs are the laws they have no idea of personal values yeah I agree completely I mean yeah as if right and what's really interesting is that it's not like religion really stops crying it's not like atheists over represented in prisons it's not like most of the gangs out there are comprised of atheists so it's yeah I think that that the whole conception of morality and religion is so wrong I mean yes I'm sure there's some people that don't rape and pillage because they are afraid of God and in history there's been a lot of rape and pillage that was ordered by God or at least ordered by God's representatives on earth and people have jumped to do it violence is part of religion is always being part of religion and some of the most violent wars in all of history maybe the most violent wars in all of human history have been wars of religion the 30 year war is said to have killed more people per capita than any other war in human history Catholics slaughtering Protestants, slaughtering Catholics in the name of what the wars of Islam some of the wars of Islam you know all religious based and go back to Old Testament and the religious based was God telling the Jews to slaughter people so no I mean I don't I don't buy the religion pacifies people and or eliminates violence I think quite the contrary and I don't buy the religion makes people moll religious people that I know are no more moll in any kind of sense than the secular people I know often quite the opposite let's see Michael are people afraid to acknowledge the existence of evil I don't know but of course it's all about the existence of evil evil exists but it's not it doesn't exist in terms of a metaphysical force in reality which I think a lot of Christians believe it is that is an influence from the Zarathustrians which was the religion of Persia religion of Persia before Islam they believe the Zarathustrians believe that there are two basic metaphysical elements in reality one good one evil that is constantly at war and no concept of the devil in Christianity I think comes from Zarathustrians and gives evil in existence and I don't think Christians are afraid to acknowledge the existence of evil because they view it that way there is a devil there is evil within every soul of every man the original sin so I don't think people are afraid to acknowledge the existence of evil they just give it more power than it should really have in a sense and they make it out to be a metaphysical force rather than how objectivists view evil which is evil is the consequence of evasion evil is evading reality it's not being rational it's not using your mind Michael says what are your thoughts of Paul Volcker was he better than Alan Greenspan? I think he was better than Alan Greenspan I think Alan Greenspan made a lot of mistakes and did a lot of things that kind of solidified the power and influence of the Fed over the markets and it became kind of a kind of market whisper that kind of helped manipulate the market up and market down and rather than kind of this focus on the neutrality of money and which again you can't so I would say Paul Volcker is better than Alan Greenspan because Alan Greenspan was so corrupt and so wrong and he did so many things I think Paul Volcker was for what he needed to do he needed to question inflation did a good job exactly how much to attribute to what he did in terms of the questioning inflation I'm not in a position to really say ok Michael also asked Michael a lot of questions here a lot of this is all Michael I used to think embracing objectivism was primarily a matter of honesty but do certain convictions require more than honesty to reach they require particular method well certainly they require all convictions require rational convictions require rationality which is a method require logic require consistency with reality I think that method is available to almost anybody at least at some level if you are honest and that's why I think honesty is so important but you do need logic and you need reason and you need to apply them and you need to apply them consistently integrity and you need to you need to adhere to them Michael do you find it difficult to stay away from negative people? no I mean I stay away from negative people there are lots of negative people it's part of the world out there people have value beyond the specific orientation they have so I don't know if I find it hard to stay away difficult to stay away some people I stay away from some people I don't but it's not based on just being negative it's based on the totality of the value they represent Michael said thanks everyone for being one of the few good guys in history well I don't know about that but thank you I appreciate being one of the good guys or being recognized as one of the good guys Michael says do people care about their own rights do they know they have rights? I think they sense they have rights I don't think they know they have rights I don't think they really know what rights are so I don't think they know they have rights in that sense they kind of sense that they like belongs to them and who are you to tell me what to do I mean you get that kind of at a visceral level from people so viscerally they seem to acknowledge the fact of rights even if they don't have it really worked out and explicit Andrew says I told Johnny Carson that she was happy to discuss ideas but not to debate them why do you think that was her position you know I don't know but I think at the end of the day you know there's an element of a waste of time in debating them if your focus isn't convincing the party you're debating that is her ideas are new radical consistent and in a sense her presentation of them constituted a debate within every person who listened to them so every person in the audience is debating your ideas when you're presenting something new and you don't really need somebody to be their mouthpiece and you need the time to articulate fully the actual argument that you make I think that's what you would mean I think that's what you would mean you know would be the point but I'm not sure right somebody would have to have asked her Simon Gruassi says how does Rand justify her definition of sacrifice of values don't sacrifice a higher value for a lower value how does she justify it well she justifies based on the ultimate you know the standard of value the standard of value for every decision in life is life and sacrificing a higher value for a lower value is sacrificing a piece of your life it is moving against your life what are values values are the things that promote your life right here we're assuming rational values the things that promote your life the things that enhance your survival the things that enhance your flourishing to give up a higher value a lower value is to move against life it's to move towards death and that essentially is immoral right morality is about those values and virtues that move it towards life giving up those values is moving us away from life which means wrong shouldn't be done so I think that's how she would justify she justifies it it's based on which direction you're heading towards life away from life when avoid that which moves you away from life and embrace that which moves you towards life Francisco can you give the best three presidents of the united states in the last 123 years and why a sure ranking of all the president could be very interesting thanks for your commitment it's very hard to do partially because I don't know that I know history well enough but in the last 123 years I mean you've got to say the Coolidge and Harding I think you would say Coolidge and Harding and I don't know who came before Teddy Roosevelt and who came before Wilson so I don't remember the sequence of presidents kind of from 1900 on but I'd have to say Coolidge and Harding I can't think of anybody else to qualify basically it's because they did not they so government is limited they did not grow and expand government in the face of a recession they did nothing and allowed the markets to clear McKinley wasn't great McKinley got us into the war the war in the Philippines so McKinley Teddy Roosevelt then what who comes after Teddy Roosevelt so yeah I think those are the the primes you know in the last since World War II I'd say the best president was probably Reagan probably Reagan Taft when was Taft Taft was after well Taft was probably I don't know anything bad that he did that's already something good so maybe Coolidge Harding Taft maybe that's it those are the three best Reagan has his real flaws primarily the being of religion into the heart of the Republican Party the being the moral majority and giving them the party on a civil platter Taft was before Wilson so maybe it was Taft yeah I mean it hasn't been impressive I mean presidents in the US over the last 123 years not an impressive record at all Robert says if God is your co-pilot you'd better pray you don't ever fall asleep at the wheel yep absolutely let's see okay good that's our chat thank you particularly to Michael who asked a lot of the questions and got us most a goal we're only $38 away from the goals if somebody wants to as a value for value if you found the show interesting and a value then consider doing something towards a 38 you can do it as a sticker or you can do it as a last minute question but a sticker right now would be appropriate thank you to those who did stickers Antonio there were a few others no one and I think no one again and I think that was it alright so thank you guys I will be back I'll probably do a show tomorrow well maybe I don't want to promise I'll definitely do a show on Sunday and we'll do shows next week but for sure the next show will be on Sunday I might do a show tomorrow but the problem is if I do it here in the morning it'll be middle of the night for you guys for their sake on a Saturday morning we'll see thank you I will see you all I'm sure on Sunday and the rest of next week bye everybody