 the radical, 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 Monday evening. It's 7 p.m. East Coast time, 8 p.m. over here in Atlantic Standard Time, which is where we are in Puerto Rico. Doing this on Monday because tomorrow I will be traveling. I'm giving a talk in Champaign, Illinois, University of Illinois, Champaign. Let me just warn you, those of you who are coming to it, it's probably going to be a room change. So when you get to the room that is advertised, there will be a, hopefully, hopefully there will be somebody or a sign or something that indicates where we are going to hold the event. But I still planning on doing the event. I'll tell you more about the event and what's going on later, but I mean, not later, but after the event. But expect a room change, expect some changes. I'll put it that way. All right. Let's see. Any other announcements? Yeah, I'm going to try. I will do a show on Wednesday. I'll be in Chicago on Wednesday. I'll do a show on Wednesday, probably during the day. And I will probably not do anything on Thursday. I will do a show. Definitely try to do a show on Friday, also during the day. And again, nothing on Saturday. So traveling this week will be back to a regular schedule on Sunday. Well, Sunday won't be regular because we'll do a show in the evening on Sunday, but that's not regular. That will be to compensate for the fact that I haven't done all the shows during the week. So anyway, yes. So that is where we are. We're going to be talking about today about anti-Semitism in the left. Yesterday we talked about the left's attraction, support of Hamas and what drives that. We delved into kind of the philosophical ideas that animate the modern left, animate the new left, and that lead it almost inevitably to be supporters of Hamas. Today we'll talk about those same ideas in the context of anti-Semitism and why it fundamentally is inevitable that that the left, given the ideas that it holds, hate the Jewish people or hate people who are Jews, however you want to, yeah, hate people, individuals who are Jews. That is a better way to phrase it. So we're going to get into that. Remind everybody, the Super Chat is available to ask questions. Pretty much about anything already. JJ Jigby's is asking a question about anything, something completely random. So feel free to ask questions about pretty much anything. We do have a goal to reach $650 for these evening shows, and I'm hoping we can reach that goal today. This is how I fund the Iran Book Show. This is my income. The income is this show. So if you get value for value, if you get value, then please consider supporting the show as an extension of that value. I'll also remind you the show is sponsored by the Einren Institute, in particular by this conference that we hold in Europe, ARC Europe, where we are going to be delving deeply into the philosophy of Iran, and we coverage students who are interested in delving deeply into the philosophy of Iran to apply for scholarships. All expenses paid to Amsterdam, an amazing city, one of the great cities of Europe, of anyway, beautiful and amazing art museums and everything else. And of course, you'll have great lectures by myself, by Nkogate, by Nikos, and others. So yeah, we will see. So that is, you can, oh yes, you can get to the scholarship applications at einren.org start here, which is in the description down there. All right, so let's talk about anti-Semitism, and we'll start with what it is. What is anti-Semitism? Because there's always confusion about this. Anti-Semitism is not being anti-Semites. They really are no Semites. There is no tribe that is a Semite tribe, and there's the really family of tribes that are Semite tribes. Anti-Semite means hostility to prejudice for antagonism towards, you know, the Jewish people, individuals who are Jewish. So it is discrimination against Jews and hostility towards Jews, which is what anti-Semite denotes. It really should be anti-Jew. That should be the terminology, but anti-Semitism is what has stuck as the term for prejudice against Jews. Where did this start, and why? You know, what did the Jews ever do to anybody? How did this even get started? Why is it that anti-Semitism is so common in the world in which we live? So common in Europe, so common in the Middle East, and now you're seeing anti-Semitism on the rise in a place that I don't think had anti-Semitism in the past, which is China, and I'm sure in other parts of Asia, but I mean, it is a universal phenomena, which is quite strange. For the most part, Jews, in terms of appearance, skin color, look like the people that are in their surroundings. European Jews look pretty much European. You know, North African Jews look pretty much North African. Asian Jews look pretty much Asian. So what is it that drives this anti-Semitism? And we'll get to the modern causes of it in a minute, but if we look at the ancient sources of it and the original anti-Semites and the people who not only embraced hatred of Jewish people, but then celebrated it and expanded it and made it part of their dogma, the beginnings of it all are with Christianity. Christianity tells the story pretty early on in Christianity. The story develops of the Jews killing Christ, the Jews betraying Jesus, and Jesus is crucified or sent to the crucifix. It is the Jews who celebrate it. It is the Jews who relish it. And that story has fueled Christian hatred towards Jews, you know, for a couple of millennia. During the Middle Ages and then later on, these stories morphed into all kinds of, you know, conspiracy theories about Jews. They would drink the blood of babies. They were responsible for the death of Christian children. They were responsible for all kinds of horrors and bad stuff. And again, this is expanded during certain periods of Christianity. They also resisted conversion to Christianity. That was a major sin of theirs. Most of the other peoples that Christianity ultimately inhabited, took over their land, deals with the Christians and ultimately converted. The pagans of all kinds of varieties converted to Christianity over time. The Jews did not, or at least a significant number of Jews did not. Many of them did, obviously. Many of the Jews in the Middle East ultimately were Christianized. And then after the Muslims took over the area, they became Muslims. Whereas they switched religions based on who held the power. But a significant number of Jews stayed Jewish. Somebody says, but Jesus was a Jew. Yeah, Jesus was a Jew. But Jesus started a new religion, a new line, and indeed a universalist religion. And this is another thing that people have against the Jewish religion and those who practice it and those who associate with it, is that the Jewish religion is exclusionary. It's not universal. Jews believe they are the chosen people. And you know, not everybody can become a Jew. Anybody can become a Christian. And it's very easy to become a kitchen. They kind of dunk your head inside water or something like that. Never done it. To become Jewish, not only do you have to be circumcised, but you have to learn. You have to study. You have to convince a rabbi. You have to do stuff. You have to commit yourself. That again was resented. What's so special about those people? And of course, Jews stuck together. They lived in their own communities, in their own towns, in their own villages, ultimately in their own ghettos. That was by force. And they very much personified for Christians the other. Something foreign, something strange. Jews often had their own language, usually derived from the common language around them, but, you know, kind of their own dialect. Yiddish is in a sense a dialect of German. Jews from Spain had a Spanish version that they spoke. That also, in a sense, was a dialect of Spanish. They often dressed differently. They ceremonies were different. They holidays were different. Their religion was different. And they became, they became for, you know, to millennium, they became in Europe the other. And of course, the other in every society is often particularly mystical societies and societies that don't understand cause and effect, don't understand what is going around them. But then they get the plague, or they lose in a war, or something bad happens. Well, there has to be an explanation. And it's often the explanation is that the others have cursed them. The others have done this. The other, and the Jews were convenient other to blame all the problems of Europe on. And it's a theme. It's a theme over the last 2,000 years. Every time there's a crisis, every time there's a problem, antisemitism rises, Jew hatred increases. They're the other. They're foreign. They're not part of us. They're weird. They're strange. They're different. They must be the cause of our problems. Now, add to that then. The Jews early on, because they were prohibited from owning land, prohibited from certain professions, Jews basically embraced two professions that they were allowed to engage in. One was what people called huckstering. Huckstering was the trading of goods, buying from suppliers and selling to consumers. This was viewed, and still is to some extent, this is viewed as not a positive thing. They took a profit. Merchants, what are they adding to the story? They're not adding any value. Taking a product that already existed. They're marking it up and selling it to somebody else. And of course, everybody depends on them. Everybody needs them. So they became these middlemen, these merchants, and people resented that. And then of course, they became the money lenders. And as I write in an extensive essay I did on the morality of finance and the book Morality of Finance that I published with Don Watkins, but this is an essay I wrote way before that and was published and I gave a talk over it, Jews were the money lenders. And as money lenders, they were despised and hated. They charged interest on money, but money, according to Aristotle, is barren. Money doesn't produce anything. Money is not productive. So where does this interest come from? It must be just exploitation, who just redistribution. So a large segment of the population, and really until the 1800s, well maybe the 1700s, late 1700s, people had no understanding of finance, no understanding how banking was productive, no understanding how money lending was a good thing. They knew they needed them. They knew they took out loans, but they resented it. They viewed it as something dirty and unnecessary and exploitative as they were some. And Jews didn't dominate the field 100%, but they were overrepresented as money lenders, partially because according to the Jews, the Old Testament allows them to charge interest, according to the Christians, it doesn't allow them. So Christians couldn't legally participate, although of course they did. The Catholic Church was a massive user, lender, but Jews were overrepresented and therefore the hatred towards the money lenders landed on the Jews. There's a good example of this of Shilach in the merchant of Venice, Shakespeare's play. Shakespeare, by the way, had never met a Jew, because one of the things that happened to Jews in England is that they were thrown out of England. They were excommunicated from England. Basically for 200 years, there were no Jews in England. And as a consequence, Shakespeare, during Shakespeare's time, Quitalism, at the first time, there were no Jews in England. So all his knowledge of Jews was stuff he read about from literature coming from Europe. He had no first-hand experience of it. He portrays a Jew in the merchant of Venice, very powerfully, highly recommend to play, beautifully written, really incisive and just horrible in terms of how it portrays Shilach. But Shilach is the prototypical Jewish moneylender, super greedy, hates the Christian. Christian, of course, lends money with no expectation of interest at all. He's a complete altruist. He lends money to anybody who needs it. But then when the Christian makes fun of the Jew constantly from the beginning of the play, but then the Christian gets in trouble and he needs a loan, and he goes to Shilach. Shilach says, you know, I'll give you a loan in one condition. If you don't pay it back, I don't want the money back. What I want is a pound of your flesh. In other words, I want to kill you. You know, he's that vengeful. He's that nasty. And he's presented that way throughout the play. He's also super smart. And also actually understands the world of money to a surprising extent, to a surprising extent. Anyway, these kind of caricatures of Jews, this kind of presentation of Jews as greedy, horrible, disgusting people is common in Christian literature. Dante's Inferno, the Jew has a bag of money around his neck, a bag of gold, and the bag of gold is dragging him down to hell, dragging him down into the fire, right? So anti-Semitism is part of Christian culture, has been part of Christian culture. You know, since the founders of the church, since the very early days of the Christian church, and it became more sophisticated, it became more entrenched, it expanded into hatred of the Jew for being the money lender, hatred of the Jew, and a lot of pogroms associated with money lending. You would kill the Jews who you owed money to, that way the debt were all written off. I think the killing of the Jews of Kent, I think it was Kent, or York. Was either Kent or York. Maybe it was York. Is a consequence of exactly that. Jews then became associated with capitalism fairly early on. Remember they were the merchants, they were the financiers, and indeed in the 18th century Jewish bankers started becoming dominant, certainly into the 19th century Jewish bankers became dominant. So the biggest banks in Europe that funded the industrial revolution, that funded early capitalism were Jewish bankers, the Rothschilds of course are the most famous, but there were three or four different Jewish families who controlled some of the biggest banks in the world at the time. And even then the stories were, you know, their financing wars, just like today you hear this from libertarians, right, who benefits from wars, the bankers are the ones who finance it, and the same ideas were happening back then. And of course, since they financed the wars and they make money off the wars, they're the ones who instigated. The wars are really being managed from afar by Jewish elites, Jewish bankers who make money off of it. Again, common anti-Semitic view in the 19th and 20th century. Jewish bankers controlling the world, Jewish bankers responsible for every war that we've ever fought, because ultimately they're the ones who make the money off the wars. They're the ones who make the money off of conflict. All right, so Jews have come to be associated very much with merchants and bankers, two significant functions within, I'd say, early and late capitalism. And here's where I think the story takes an interesting twist in terms of the left in particular. Right? Jews are successful. They're making money. They pursue their own goals, their own values. Even assimilated Jews who look like everybody else, act like everybody else, dress like everybody else, integrate into society are very successful. They achieve within their realm, they're achieving a lot. And this is all, again, in Europe. And in this environment, there's a lot of envy, and there's a lot of resentment towards their success and their profit. And into this environment steps Karl Marx. Now, Marx, of course, is well known for Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, but Karl Marx's first essay, first real substantive essay before he wrote his books, was an essay called On the Jewish Question. And you can find this essay online. It just looked at Karl Marx's Jewish Question, and you will find it. It's available for free. You can read it. And Marx, whose grandfather was Jewish, grandmother was Jewish and who was kind of, but had converted Christianity, Marx spends the entire essay railing against the Jews. Why does Karl Marx hate the Jews? He hates the Jews because he says this. This is his words. They're selfish. They pursue their own self-interest. He hates the Jews because they're capitalists, because they build, they create for themselves. He hates the Jews because they love money. So, for Marx, the Jews represented capitalism. The Jews, in a sense, you know, basically stand in for capitalism. When he's criticizing the Jews, he's criticizing capitalism. When he's criticizing capitalism, in his mind, he's criticizing the Jews. It's one and the same for Karl Marx. And again, in this essay, he's explicit about this. He doesn't, he says at some point, the problem with Christianity today, the problem with Christians today, is they're becoming Jewish because they're embracing the love of money, because they're embracing capitalism. So, for him, Jews represented the essence of sin, if you will, because they embraced money, they embraced self-interest, they embraced capitalism. And he despised and hated them for them. And of course, they were very successful doing so. And so, this attitude towards the Jews, the attitudes towards Jews on the left were shaped by this analysis by Marx, shaped by this idea that the Jews are really behind global capitalism. They are the drivers of capitalism. They are the bankers. They are the merchants. They are the people who make money off of money or make money as middlemen. They produce nothing. They create nothing. And the critique of the left of capitalism, of classes, of muddied interests, of Wall Street always went hand in hand, implicitly at least, in some cases implicitly, in some cases explicitly, with an attack on the Jews. Some Marxists and Socialists of all forms, in a sense, were already set up to be anti-Semites, to hate Jews for what Jews actually, the activities Jews actually engaged in, they hate Jews for the success. Jews are, as a minority, as individuals, incredibly successful as compared to the non-Jewish counterparts. They make money. They achieve. You know, we know how well they do in sciences, how many Nobel Prizes they've won in sciences. They are great achievers. And this obviously upsets people and they look at them and what's the common denominator about the Jews. And it's easy then because of their success, and in particular because of their success, their money's success, so it should be to them some kind of extraordinary power and control over the world. How else would they be successful? They must be cheating. They must be controlling. They must be manipulating. So the left in that sense is already preconditioned to hate Jews. Now enter kind of the modern left, the postmodern left. The postmodern left is fundamentally egalitarian. What really interests them is at least what they claim to interest them. I mean, what really interests them is nihilism, but what they claim to interest them is equality of outcome. Somehow equality of outcome, right? I mean the whole CRT and the whole attitude towards minorities is of course there's racism, of course there's discrimination. How do we know? Because that group is doing worse than this group. So that group is being exploited and this group is an exploiter. The world deserves some game. Those who do well exploit those who don't. And who does extraordinary well in our society? Extraordinary well financially, extraordinary well economically, extraordinary well educationally, extraordinary well in terms of Nobel prizes. They choose them. Well, if the Jews are doing so extraordinary well and all we have in the world they exploit as an exploitees, people who are being exploited and people who are doing the exploiting, then on which side did the Jews fall? I mean it seems kind of obvious, right? So if you remember from yesterday, and those of you who have not heard the show from yesterday, I encourage you to listen to show yesterday because I go into the details of the philosophy of the modern left, of the new left. Well yesterday this is, as I explained it's all about levels of oppression. Who's more oppressed? And the measure of levels of oppression is who's more poor? Who's more victimized? Who's more feeling bad? Who has less? And under those criteria we might argue about who's being exploited the most? Who has the least? But we certainly know who has the most. And certainly in terms of an ethnic group, in terms of an identity group, remember the modern left is all about identity linked to ethnicity, linked to skin color, linked to some collectivistic idea. Well who is the group that seems to be the most successful? The group that seems to control so many resources, it seems to be so rich and so successful and everything they do, well the Jews therefore they must be by definition the exploiter. And all the groups that are struggling, that are doing poorly, that are doing badly, they must be the exploited. Therefore virtue lies with them, evil lies with the exploiter. I mean this is the direct outcome of altruism, but it's kind of a modern spin on really taking altruism seriously. The more successful you are, the more self-interested you have been as Karl Marx identified, and therefore the more evil you must be. And since individuals don't matter, individuals in some sense don't exist, then it's your group affiliation that you get stuck with. And if you're Jewish, you're you granted this group identification as Jewish, whether you want it or not, whether you self-identify or not, this is interesting, right? You can self-identify as any sexual orientation or sexual gender, whatever you want, right, out of 98 different types. But you can't self-identify out of being Jewish. You're always identified by the so-called oppressed people for being Jewish. So the hatred of success because success means you've oppressed people. The hatred of ability because ability doesn't really exist, you just were lucky and you're exploiting that luck. The hatred of Wall Street, well Wall Street are the exploiters. All of that adds up because so many of the people are Jewish. All of that adds up adds up to hatred of the Jew. And you don't have any choice about this as somebody who's Jewish, right? You don't have any choice about this because your group identity determines who and what you are. That's why you can't escape it. That's why you can't walk away from it. It's funny how for some things, the left, you're stuck with the group identity. You have no choice. It's completely determined. With other things like gender, you could choose whatever you want. Now, there's an argument that's also predetermined. You just come to the realization of what it is, but you can be fluid. You can't be fluid about being Jewish, not according to them. So the left again has to be anti-Semitic. I mean, this is the new left because of the Jews' success. Now note, of course, that all of this relies on a deep-seated collectivism. All Jews are, but that's the left. We talked about this yesterday. The left rejects individualism. It rejects individual agency. It rejects individual achievements. It rejects individual sin even, and embraces group identity. This is an identitarian philosophy. Everything is about the group. Everything is about the collective. Everything is about, in this context, your genes, color of your skin, or whatever it happens to be that defines the particular group. And as such, well, the hatred of Jews is necessitated by their ideas. Ideas drive history. Troy, thank you. Troy has come in with 500 Australian dollars. That is amazing. Really, really appreciate that. Thank you, Stephen, as well for the sticker. We've got a few other people. Let me just run by this quickly. Ryan, thank you. Yeah, I mean, that's it. But thank you, Troy. Got us almost to the goal. We're still about 130 shy, but I have a feeling we're going to make it today. So thank you. Thanks to Troy. Antisemitism is the direct result of collectivism and of altruism. And it's why the new right shares it with the new left, because the new right, as we've seen over and over again, is also collectivistic. The new right also kind of believes in kind of racial or ethnic or genetic determinism. They also altruistic. They hate success. They hate the successful, and they want to rip them down. So like on many issues, you've got an alliance of the new left, the crazy left with a new right, the crazy right. They were aligned on the hatred of the Jew. So what we're seeing today on American campuses, among professors, it's not really surprising. It's an outcome of their philosophy. It's an outcome of their ideas. And it's kind of a a continuation of a long tradition. Goes back on the left to Marx, but in Western civilization, goes back really to the beginning of Christianity. It's interesting that Muslim antisemitism in the form it takes today is new. Yes, the Quran is anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. But for the most part, Jews were treated okay in the Muslim world. They were discriminated against, like Christians were discriminated against, as the Quran demands that they'd be discriminated against. But there were very few things like pogroms, conspiracy theories about them. They were just mainly left alone, and they had an additional tax that they and the Christians had to pay. What's interesting is modern antisemitism was brought into the Arab world, the Muslim world, by the West, by Christians, and by Marxists. It was embraced wholeheartedly by the Muslims and the Arabs, at least over time. But it was a foreign implant coming from Europe. I mean, the origins of antisemitism really go deep in Western civilization, in Western world, not civilization. It's not part of civilization. Deep into Christianity, deep into Marxism, deep into the hatred of the other. And you can see that expansion into the Muslim world, cause and depth, says Bernard Lewis said the Muslims were never as bad to Jews as Christians were, but also never as good. Maybe, I don't know where the never as good it comes from, but certainly never as bad. And it is Christians in the 19th century, I learned this, I think, from Bernard Lewis, who brought antisemitism, the kind of Christian variation of it, into the Muslim world. All the conspiracy theories they learned about Jews, they learned from the Christians. Today, though, antisemitism, as I said, is across the world. It's everywhere where altruism is held. It exists everywhere where people struggle with explanations for the complexity of the world. And they're looking for an explanation. They're looking for an explanation. And conspiracy theories appeal because they're simple and easy. And the easiest conspiracy theory is to take the people who seem overrepresented on the success side and say, why are they overrepresented? What makes them special? What makes them unique? Or they control the world. They control everything. And therefore, that's what allows them to be successful. That's what allows them to replicate the success. They bias everything in their favor. Everything works to their benefit. They're in control. They're the elders of Zion. Shane, thank you. Shane just made his first super chat contribution ever. Thank you, Shane. Even in China, where I don't think antisemitism was very popular until recently, certainly anti-Israel wasn't very popular until recently. Even in China, antisemitism is significantly on the rise. And I think, again, it has to do with they need an explanation for why they're still not catching up. They need an explanation for why they're still behind and for why the West keeps marching forward. And within the West, who are the most successful or what they label as the Jews. Antisemitism at the end of the day is hatred of the good for being the good. It is an envy driven ideology. It is collectivism and altruism. It is evil through and through. And it dominates every collectivistic altruistic ideology out there and all collectivist altruists. So any collectivistic ideology out there, right, left, center doesn't matter. Collectivists ultimately almost always land up being antisemitic unless, of course, the Jewish themselves and then they find some rationalization around it or their collectivism is the Jewish nation and then they're pro-Semitic, not antisemitic. All right. So the modern left, antisemitic, not surprising. It's everywhere. I mean, just look at the universities. Look at the professors. Look at the students. Look at people online. Look at the support. Look at how, yeah, Israel is killing a lot of civilians. It's killing a lot of children in the Gaza Strip. But it's killing a lot less than the Syrians did in Syria in their civil war. It's killing a lot less civilians than the Houdis did in Yemen just over the last 10 years. There are atrocities all over the world and, you know, and what's going on in Gaza. It's not an atrocity. It's an act of self-defense. There are real atrocities all over the world. Nobody cares. It's not like people care about children. It's not like people care about innocence. It's not like people care about civilians. What people care about is the Jews are killing civilians. The Jews are bombing cities. What people care about is the successful people, Western people, Jews or not, are doing this. Right? I mean, people have made a big deal about civilians dying during the war in Afghanistan or during the war in Iraq. When America did it, when they kill each other, nobody cares. When, for eight years, a war raged between Iran and Iraq, including the use of chemical weapons and a million people died, a million people died, including hundreds of thousands of civilians, including children who were recruited into the Iranian military and sent to the front as cannon fodder and just mowed down. Nobody cared. Barely anybody knows there was this war even happened. When Muslims kill Muslims, Arabs kill Arabs, Africans kill Africans, Asians kill Asians, nobody cares. What they care about is when the West does it. What they resent, what they hate is people who are successful, people who are civilized. They hate Israel because of its virtues, because it is civilized, because it is a success, because it is wealthy. And of course, we in the West are the biggest, you know, guilty the most of this. We do it to ourselves. Again, we don't care when Muslims are killing Muslims. We care when we are killing Muslims. Even if our killing of Muslims is an act of self-defense, we care and we get upset at ourselves and we feel like we have to apologize and we have to recompense somehow and you know, you know, feel really, really, really bad about ourselves. And that is a consequence of this deep-rooted altruism that we have, this deep-rooted, you know, lack of self-esteem, uncertainty about our own value and a deep root that both the left and the right have of suspicion of anybody successful. It comes both from Christianity and from Marx. Of course, Marx gets it, to some extent, from Christianity. And as civilized as we become, we have not been able to get rid of these Christian principles, these Marxist principles that are embedded in every part of our culture. So anti-Semitism is here. It's bigger in the United States than I ever thought it would be in my lifetime. It truly is scary. People are being chased on campuses. People are being beaten up. Fights are being broken, you know, breaking out. You know, we're not near, you know, we're not in the process of Nazi Germany. I don't think that's where we're heading. But it is a truly scary phenomena, particularly because it's happening here in the U.S., in a place where you wouldn't expect it, where anti-Semitism is relatively low. Although, remember, in the early 20th century, Harvard and Yale and those universities had quotas against Jews, not too many Jews in the university, just like they have today against Asians. So in for difficult times, collectivism seems to be increasing, not decreasing. And as collectivism increases, anti-Semitism will increase. So again, I think all of us, all of us value individuals, individualism, freedom, capitalism, we're in for some difficult times. It's not going to get easier. It's not going to get better anytime soon. And again, there's nobody on the political map who represents an alternative to this. Really nobody. All right. Let's move to your questions. So I moved to quite a Q&A. Let me just say this. I should say something positive. The remedy for this, the remedy for this is at hand. The remedy for this is well-known. The remedy for this are the founding principles of this country. The remedy for this are enlightenment ideas. The remedy for this is iron-rand. The remedy is individualism. The remedy for this is reason. The remedy for this is capitalism. When we fight for capitalism, when we fight for individualism, when we fight for reason, we're fighting against anti-Semitism. We're fighting against any form of collectivism. So the fight is on. And the fight is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing. We haven't lost yet. And, you know, we're not succeeding right now, but we haven't lost yet. And there's still enough of us out there fighting for individualism, fighting for capitalism, that there's still chance of success. So don't give up. And again, the solution is known. It's the enlightenment on steroids, which is iron-rand. All right, Michael, $50. Do you think a lot of objectivists are afraid to share content? Because objectivism is so small and fringe and no one knows what it is. And they're afraid people will think they're widows for constantly sharing this fringe material. I think that's part of it. Yeah, I do. I think it is small. It is misunderstood. Or it is understood. Either way, it's hated. And it seems crazy. It's radical. It is radical. It's consistent. But people are afraid. And people denounce it. And people get mad at you for being an objectivist. And a lot of objectivists don't want to rattle the world. They don't want to shake things up. They want to just live their lives. And if they post stuff, they'll be condemned and they'll be attacked constantly, right? Constantly. So yeah, some of the lack of sharing is a result of that. I will say that I'm heartened by the fact that a couple of videos from AI have done very, very well recently. Nikos has talked on Israel, has many hundreds of thousands of views. And the show that Ilan Juno and Nikos did together has now one point, or close to 1.7 million views, 1.7 million views. That's pretty stunning and pretty amazing and pretty important. So somebody's sharing it, at least in this narrow field of discussions of Israel and discussions of what's going on in Gaza, somebody's sharing it. They're not sharing my stuff. I don't know why, but they are sharing the Institute stuff. And that's fantastic, right? That's fantastic. So yes, Michael, I think absolutely, people don't want to stand out, don't want to be labeled as crazy, don't want to be associated with something people view as crazy. Dave said, I spoke with Professor Norman Finkestein today about debating you on Israel. He said he would happily do it for free. Perhaps someone from AI could moderate it. I sent you an email about it. Yeah, I saw the email. I'll look into it. I'm traveling all this week, but I'll talk to people at the Institute, see if there's an appetite there to do it. Maybe there's some debating societies out there that would be interested in doing it. I don't know. But yeah, I'll look into it, right? I'll look into it. Thanks, Dave. Thanks for contacting him and talking to him. We'll see if it comes together. All right, James, why are so many libertarians as anti-Semitic and nihilistic as the left? One would think if you're an advocate of free markets, you would have a more benevolent sense of life. Yeah, but they're not for free markets. That's the point, right? Anarchists are not for free markets. They're for total subjectivism. They're for total emotionalism. Free markets require government because freedom requires government. You're not free in a state of nature. You're not free when you're fighting with other tribes. You're free when there is a monopoly over the use of force that has been extracted and when government is protecting your rights, protecting you from force. Protection agencies don't solve anything. They actually create problems. They create civil wars. Protection agencies are just gangs. They're just mafias. And we know how mafias function. We know how gangs function. So Anarchy is a state of warfare. It is the rejection of individualism and the rejection of individual rights. And it is complete subjectivism. And what it leads to is the subjectivist emotionalistic view of the world. And it rejects the idea there's such a thing as countries. There's such a thing as governments that are there to protect their citizens. Governments should not protect their citizens. Only citizens can protect themselves. So they have no, they can't discuss foreign policy because there is no foreign policy. All foreign policy is illegitimate. And if anybody acts as a state is illegitimate actor. And every time these anarchists see a flourishing country, a flourishing state, America, Israel, what people are doing really well, they hate it. It's a slap in the face. It's a rejection of the whole theory that you need anarchy to prosper. People prosper with government. Nobody prospers under authoritarianism, under totalitarianism. But under America, Israel, Western Europe, people prosper. People do well. People are happy. Can achieve happiness. Not as much as they could under freedom, but pretty good. And this is something that the anarchists are committed to denying, committed to rejecting. And therefore they have to be anti-Israel and anti-America because they have to be anti the best governments because it's a rejection of everything they believe. So yeah, it's anarchy is malevolent ultimately. It's an embrace of physical violence. It's an embrace of physical force as a way to deal with challenges, with issues, with problems. It's a rejection of peace and embrace of violence. And it's a rejection of the principle by which human beings can live in a society peacefully and happily. And that is the principle of individual rights. Anarchy rejects the principle of individual rights. It makes it meaningless because it's all to be negotiated. There is no principle. Negotiate. All right. So yeah, it doesn't surprise me that libertarians are ultimately tribalists. Many libertarians, not all libertarians, some libertarians are fantastic, but many libertarians, the anarchists in particular, some anarchists, not all anarchists, tend to be tribalist and tend to be identitarian and tend to have a lot in common with the modern left. And ultimately, some of them share the anti-Semitism with them. Again, it's hatreds of people who have been successful under the existing system. If they've been successful under the existing system, which is an evil, evil, evil system, according to them, then they must be part of the system and they must be evil, evil, evil themselves. John, the Romans went war with the Jews. So perhaps it is not surprising. They wrote hatred of Jews into their new religion, Christianity. Yeah, but they defeated the Jews pretty early on and they pretty much, you know, pacified the Jews. They didn't need to perpetuate this, right? I mean, 70 AD was a 70, I think they destroyed the temple. There's not much Jewish resistance after that. They dispersed the Jewish tribes all over the world, all over the Roman Empire. There's no Jewish threat after that. And, you know, the big intellectual threat becomes Christianity much more than Judaism. And they embrace Christianity. They don't reject it. They actually embrace it. The Romans had very brief periods in which they persecuted the Christians. It's not true that the Romans were constantly persecuting the Christians. It's just a it's a nice mythology the Christians like to like to tell. But there was a there was some brief periods in which, yes, the Christians were fed to the lions. But that is not the dominant theme of Rome's relationship with Christianity. And ultimately, Roman bases Christianity becomes a Christian Empire. Shane, who did his first super chat today. I love watching your show. It always gives me a new perspective on things. Keep up the great work. Thank you, Shane. I really appreciate it. Thanks for watching and thanks for participating in the super chat. Really, really, that's great. All right, well, almost, almost at our target. Hopefully we'll exceed it today, given that we got we got that big chunk from Troy. All right, Adam, and I won't be doing many shows. And then we've got 143 people watching live, which is great. Adam says, what is the role of social media and of the global information industry in the spread of anti-Semitism to China, where the actual presence of Jews except in Hong Kong is so rare that it is nearly infinitesimal. It is today that there was a Jewish community in Shanghai, many of them people who had escaped Russia and found refuge in China in the early part of the 20th century. Look, the anti-Semitism that's pending through China is something that is spreading by the, you know, whether by the initiative, but certainly by the sanction of the ruling party. Remember, the Chinese, too, need, as an authoritarian regime, need an other to blame for the problems. They need somebody to, and part of it, it's the West, but it's pretty convenient to identify within the West a subgroup that everybody seems to hate anyway that they can easily label. The problem with blaming it on media is that the media doesn't really have much entry into China. It's not like the Chinese are constantly on Facebook and Twitter. Some Chinese are, but you need, you need to go around the firewalls to get there. This is spread in China by Chinese social media, and it has to be initiated somehow by, within China. It might come from the outside by various channels, but somebody in China is promoting this, and I think the authorities are promoting this, just like they promote anti-Japanese, and they promote, but there's a real cause, and they promote anti-West, they also are now promoting anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, which is tragic and sad, because when I went to, when I was going to China often, when the heroes is really, their eyes lit up, and they would get all excited, and oh, the Jews are so successful, and isn't that wonderful, and Israel is such a tiny country, and so successful, and such great technology, and so many weapons, and so much this, and so much, they were inspired by Israel and Jews, and now they've completely turned around on it. The anti-Israel, the government is, and I think, and they're turning the people, and part of the means for that is to turn the people against the Jews. It's also the case that China is trying to better its relations with the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East, because they need oil, and Israel is affiliated, and the Jews are affiliated with the West, what they perceive as their enemy. China is in a very Muslim neighborhood. They've got a large Muslim population themselves, the Uighurs, but the border, the Western border is all Muslims, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan, and Afghanistan is right there, and Uzbekistan, and all the stands, those are Muslim countries, and they have to be particularly careful. Ultimately, they would like to have a lot of influence in that part of the world. That part of the world is primarily influenced by Russia from the old Soviet Union, but China is trying to take over from Russia as the main influence of that Central Asia area, which is mostly Muslim. So all of that gives the regime a motivation to turn the people against both Israel and the Jews. Andrew is a person's ethics more important than the Jewishness when it comes to being targeted with anti-Semitism. I'm thinking of why Narm Chomsky or Ruth Bader Ginsburg are allowed to be regarded as heroes. Well, I wonder if they're still regarded as heroes. Right. I mean, it's true that in the old left, they were heroic because they weren't capitalists and they weren't participating in this greedy side of capitalism from the perspective of the left. But this new left, I'm not sure if they get away. Do they really like Ruth Bader Ginsburg that much? And do they really like Narm Chomsky that much? Now, Narm Chomsky is very Israel-hating, Jew-hating himself. So it's easy to like him. But I wonder how much this new left likes Chomsky. I have a strong feeling that they resent and they reject Chomsky. Chomsky is too God. He's not nihilistic enough. But yeah, I mean, look, your views are definitely going to be, you could be excluded. It's just like in white fragility. If you're white, you can be forgiven for your inherent racism. If you constantly say you're sorry, if you recognize that you're racist inherently, if you constantly whip yourself, if you do that three times a day, then you can be forgiven for the fact that you're white. And I think that the truth, the same truth is if you're Jewish, but you hate Israel, if you're Jewish, but you constantly reaffirm your privilege and you apologize for it and you subjugate yourself to this superiority of the oppressed, you can be forgiven. So I'm sure the Jews, I'm sure are part of the new left movement. It wouldn't even shock me if Jews are part of the new right movement. John says, thank you, Iran, for another great show. Thanks, John. I really appreciate the support. Mark says, what do you think of the job the ADL has been doing in regards to the current war on Hamas? You know, I haven't really followed it. I need to, and I want to, because the ADL was exactly the kind of organization that was sucking up to the new left that had bought into woke culture, that had bought into intersectionality and bought into that. And it shifted their allegiance towards that versus, you know, their real commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. Maybe this has shocked them into the realization that anti-Semitism is still alive and well, and they better get back to their original job. I think it certainly has shocked many of their donors. So I expect the ADL is better, but not good. Because at the end of the day, you know, they are woke. They are part of this woke culture. They completely embraced it, completely. And it's hard to believe they just completely turned against it, right? On the other hand, you know, I'm looking at their tweets right now. You know, they're tweeting about professors that are being hired, that hate Israel professors that are being hired, that anti-Semitic. So it seems like they've rediscovered, right, their original mission, if you will. It seems that way a little bit. Oh, Mark says he donated to them for the first time. Yeah, so I'd be careful donating to them, because when this is over, they'll be radical left again. They'll be crazy left again. If you want to donate, donate to Ironman Institute, right? They're the ones really doing the hard work on this. But yeah, they're really, okay, it looks like I'm just scanning their Twitter site. They really picked it up, which is surprising, because again, the retweeting Ben Shapiro, I think, I think that's right. Anyway, we will see. Huh, Netanyahu today said that, I hope this is true, we'll see. Netanyahu said that tonight in an interview that the IDF will assume the overall security responsibility for the Gaza Strip following the end of the war. Wow. I mean, that means Israel is committed to completely taking over the Gaza Strip, completely reoccupying it. We will see. We will see if he lives up to that. It could go down as one more, a promise he's made and not fulfilled. We will see what's going on here. Yeah, I just saw something on Twitter, because I'm on Twitter looking at the IDL. Sorry, I got distracted. And this woman, Rana Mala, who writes in Arabic, I don't know what her ethnic or religious background is. But anyway, she was doing some stuff online today on Twitter, and I followed her, because it was good. She was pointing out some of this really evil stuff going on. And so she wrote me. She wrote me on Twitter. She says, glad you spotted my account. Not sure if you remember me. We spent an evening at a pub after your talk at LSE, Hayek Society, in 2019. Unfortunately, I don't remember her. But by the way, big fan of your work, and thanks for introducing me to Atlas Shrugged. All right, Rana just made my day. Another person that I don't remember, barely remember, don't really remember who I ended up introducing Tyne Rand, introducing Atlas Shrugged, had an impact on her. And here she is fighting the good fight, really fighting the good fight for the right cause on Twitter. So one mind at a time. We will change the world one mind at a time. All right, let's see. That was Mark. Mark, thank you for reminding me of the ADL. I need to look more carefully at what they're doing and how they've changed. Savano says, I have a relative I struggle to talk politics with. They support Russia, yet are capable of being pro-Israel. I haven't been about to highlight the contradiction because they refuse to think logically any ideas. Yeah, I mean, generally, you know, relatives who have bad philosophy, it's unclear to me that it's that it's worth engaging with and trying to show them that they're wrong. What's the point? You're not going to, you're not probably not going to be successful. And it's just going to, you know, spoil family dinners, I guess, I don't know. But I don't talk politics with family. Just don't, period. I don't anyway, because there's no point in it. A lot of people on the right, a lot of people like, you know, a lot of Trumpists, a lot of conservatives, the speaker of the House of Representatives support Russia and support Israel. You know, much of the Republican party supports Israel, hates Russia, supports Russia, hates Ukraine. That's the state of the world in which we're in. They don't get, and this will be a show I do sometime next week, they don't get kind of the global realignment that's going on and why the United States better be aware of the global realignment because we're entering a new phase where those who are anti-West, anti-civilization, anti-individualism, anti-America are, you know, they are ganging up. They sense America's weakness. They sense our politicians, our leaders weakness. They sense American people's lack of resolve. They sense a lack of understanding what the West actually is and what it represents, and they are ready to take advantage of it. Call it the axis of evil, call it something else. Basically Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, primarily Russia, China, Iran, they're ready to take on the West, and I'm not sure the West is ready to take them on. At least it doesn't look like that. The West is fragmented. The West doesn't know why it supports who it supports. The West doesn't know what it's doing. And the West is fragmented, completely fragmented. JJGB says, forgive the flippant question, but I'm curious, do you prefer to sleep in a cold or hot room? I mean, it seems kind of obvious, sleep is much, much better in a cold room than it is in a hot room. I'll have a question next time Colt Savage tells us. All right, cool. Thanks for the support Colt. Harper, did you see even Bernie Sanders says he doesn't think there should be a ceasefire until Hamas is eliminated? Maybe they still hope for humanity. Yeah, Bernie Sanders is an old style leftist who, you know, still believes in socialism and still believes in Israel as it still rejects kind of Islamism and rejects, you know, he's still rational enough to get it. He's not into the intersectionality. Indeed, he was attacked by the far left for not being enough of an intersectionalist, enough of a critical race theorist, enough of the new left nonsense. He's more of an old left, kind of an old new left, not the old old left, but an old new left, kind of a socialist left, which was far better on issues like Israel. Far better. Liam says, why did the Nazis form coalition with Arab nations? Isn't it disingenuous to call Hamas Nazis? Not every organization is genocidal on Nazi ideologies. Yeah, I mean, they're not Nazis. They just have very similar means and ends. They want to occupy the world and they're willing to kill slaughter butcher people in order to do it. So there's a sense in which they're similar to the Nazis in that sense. I don't call anybody who's not a Nazi a Nazi. Nazis are Nazis. Islamists are Islamists. They're not the same thing. But their behavior, their attitude, and their end result, world domination, is very similar. Nazis are not Nazis. Why did the Nazis form coalition with Arab nations? Because the Arabs occupied natural resources oil in the Middle East. They occupied strategic locations anywhere from Azerbaijan, which is Muslim, all the way to Saudi Arabia and Northern Africa, which the Nazis wanted and they wanted to control both the trading routes through the Suez Canal and oil that the Arabs had. So that's what aligned them with the Arabs. Plus, they hated the Jews and there were Jews in Palestine. It was great. Both parties hated Jews and let's go after the Jews. They aligned around that. Tom says, what do you think of the objection from the leftist? We're not anti-Semites. We're anti-Zionists. Seems like if you support Hamas, you are by definition anti-Semitic. Yeah, I think if you support Hamas, you have a definition. Hamas doesn't differentiate. Hamas clearly says, we want to kill Jews. They're not, they're not about Israelis. They're about Jews. And look, what is it to hate about Zionism? What is it that the left hates about Zionism? Why do they hate the Zionists? Well, because they built a successful, prosperous country and because Jews lived there. But what is the, you know, why don't they hate other nationalist movements? Why do they only hate Zionism? And what is it about Islamism that they like so much? Well, Jews are successful. Israel's successful. Islam, the Palestinians are failures. They like the victim or the party that is perceived to be the victim. James says, Objectivism argue Kant is responsible for communism and Nazism. But what about anarcho-capitalism? Is that type of rationalistic nihilism a consequence of Kant as well? Yeah, probably. I mean Kant is basically responsible for all the bad thinking that has occurred in the 20th and 21st century. So, you know, because it's devotees ultimately of a Kantian attitude, a Kantian view of the world that ultimately have shaped the thinking of almost everybody in the 20th and 21st centuries. In that sense, yeah, Kant is responsible for all of them. But you have to, you know, to draw the exact line. I mean, the moral subjectivism of the Rothbard and of the many of the anarcho-capitalist is a product of a Kantian moral subjectivism. Clock, if you're the right kind of minority, you have permission to do whatever it takes to jab up in order to gain equality. That is a justification for the worst kind of barbarism. Absolutely. That's what I talked about yesterday. Hamas is justified to do anything. If they can achieve equality somehow. You know, that's why the Kamehruz were okay. Popat was okay. As long as they were doing it for good cause, which is equality. As long as they were killing the oppressors, killing the successful, killing those who had more. That's okay. Liam says, from my experience, it seems the rightist pro-Israel but anti-Semitic, while the left is anti-Israel, but stands up against explicit anti-Semitism. No, now you're not seeing that right now. It depends which left, right? The new left is explicitly anti-Semitic. It's not standing up against it. It used to be that the left, and Bernie Sanders might be part of this left, was pro-free speech. But that left is dying. The left that is on the ascent is an anti-free speech, anti-Semitic left, which is also anti-Israel. The right is pro-Israel for all the wrong reasons. You know, mainly for religious reasons. The evangelicals are very pro-Israel because they see it as part of God's scheme for Jesus to come back. But not because for any legitimate reason. And because if they see, I don't know, Islamism, some people in the right see Islam as the real enemy. Israel stands in their way and they support that. But again, they don't support Israel, qua Israel. It's for something else. A room, to what extent do the ideas or history of the Ottoman Empire animate the modern Islamist movement? Very little actually. The Ottomans ultimately failed. I mean, what the modern Islamist movement wants to recreate is a khalifat. But they believe that the Ottomans were not religious enough, were not committed enough to Islam. And indeed, modern Islamism rose out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. The Muslim Brotherhood was created in 1920s in Egypt after the Turkish Empire was gone already for a decade, almost a decade. The Wahhabis are earlier and the Wahhabis are basically saying to the Muslim world, the reason you're failing, and this is also to the Ottoman Empire, the reason you're failing is you're not Muslim enough. You're not committed enough. So I think the Islamism rejects the Ottomans as not being dedicated enough to Islam. Liam says, the right likes the nationalism of Israel, but doesn't like that they perceive as Jewish degeneracy, a promoting open immigration, a Hollywood pornography industry. Well, they also don't like Wall Street. The right doesn't like Wall Street. They're suspicious of the Jews because they win so many Nobel Prizes because they supposedly have higher IQs. They buy into the whole idea that the Jews control the world. Just think of Marjorie Taylor Greene with their Jews with their lasers. The right is very susceptible to conspiracy theories. And at the end of every conspiracy theory, almost every conspiracy theory, there is a Jew pulling the strings. And that is the right. That is what the right holds. And they like Israel because it's religious. They view it as religious, even though it's not. But primarily because the evangelicals like Israel because it's part of the religious scheme. It's part of the coming end of the world, the coming of judgment day. A room says, if anti-Semitism is a recent import to Islam, then why do people always quote the Quran versus about violence against Jews? Because there is violence against Jews in the Quran. But at the end of the day, the Quran also says, you should treat the Jews and Christians as equals. They are ultimately, we are all the religions of religions of Abraham. They should pay a special tax because they're not Muslims and they're not accepting the true faith. But otherwise, treat them with respect. Now, Muhammad, when he kills them, is engaged in a war with the Jews and he defeats them and he chops their heads and he says horrible things about them. But later, in telling the Muslims how to govern themselves, basically there is this idea that you need to treat Jews with respect. The people who you put under the sword of Islam are the pagans. The pagans are the ones that Muslims will not tolerate. They're the ones apostates and pagans. Jews and Christians can be tolerated. Stephen says, thanks for a great show. Thank you, Stephen, for the support. Hoppe Campbell says, what makes me skeptical about Objectivism success is I don't see altruism being curtailed whatsoever. It's curtailed in you. It's curtailed in me. It's curtailed in people reading Atlas Shrugged all over the place. So it hasn't been curtailed as a cultural phenomena. We don't have cultural influence. But the fact that it was curtailed in you and curtailed in me and curtailed in all these other people on the chat and listening suggests that it can't be curtailed. And it's just a numbers game. It's a matter of curtailing it with enough people. Keep doing the work we do. Daniel says, could you discuss the period of history when Muslims went to study Western philosophers, bringing back ideas from Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche and how it connects to today's topic? Yeah, I mean, this is part of the period in which they bring back anti-Semitism. In the late 19th century, early 20th century, as the Ottoman Empire is in dissent, and the wealthy in the Arab world see the rise of the West, they're intrigued and they're curious by what causes it. So they send their children to study in Europe. But by this point, the Enlightenment, which caused the rise of the West, is dying. And what is dominating Western universities is Marx and Hegel, Kant and Nietzsche. And what they come back with, to a large extent, is national socialism. What they come back with is fascism. What they come back with is anti-Semitism. So when they get an opportunity to establish independent countries, like Syria, Iraq and Egypt ultimately, what are they embraced? They don't embrace the Enlightenment. They don't embrace America. They embrace fascism explicitly. The Baath Party, which ruled both Syria and still rules Syria, and Iraq, Saddam Hussein was part of the Baath Party, the Baath Party was basically laid out its manifesto. It was just a copy of Mussolini's. And so they came back with all the bad Western ideas. And then when those bad Western ideas didn't work, they rejected the West completely. And that's where we are today. That's a short version. You'll get a much more extensive version in my history of the Middle East, which is available free on YouTube. You can listen to it anytime. Vandy says, the increasing antipathy towards an expulsion from intersectionality of Asians, as they become more and more wealthy and successful, is evidence for what you're honest saying about the left, we the Jews. Yes. I mean, Asians used to be supported by the left, part of the left, and they're being rejected from the left and discriminated against all over because they're successful, because they're successful. Michael, I find it easier to see altruism not as living for other people, but as denying oneself, self-abasement, self-denial. You can add self-sacrifice. Same issue, of course, self-just more fundamental. I agree with you. The much more fundamental of, and I say this in my talks, the fundamental of altruism is not the other. They don't really care about the other. The fundamental of altruism is self-denial. It's self-sacrifice. It's suffering, suffering. I mean, my whole Mother Teresa Bill Gates example in my capitalism talk is an illustration of exactly that. If you cared about others, you'd be for Bill Gates. If you care about suffering, you'd be for Mother Teresa, the for Mother Teresa, and they hate Bill Gates. J.J. Googie says the infamous Nazi propaganda film, Jusus, helped me to learn so much about anti-Semitism. It's scary how effective it is as a film. I recommend it for people wanting to understand Jew hatred. Yeah, the whole point is to dehumanize, to make you view the Jew as an animal. And therefore, once he's an animal, easy to kill. Wesley, this is the last question. Wesley says, what do you think of David Hume saying? It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to scratching on my finger. It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the, I mean, that's weird, right? Because you would suffer greatly if the whole world was destroyed. So basically, what he's saying is, there's no such thing as self-interest, which is consistent with Hume. There's no such thing as true self-interest. All there is is whim satisfaction. All there is is scratching of itches, because otherwise you can't equate those two. If the whole world is destroyed, your life will be miserable. And so scratching on a finger is insignificant and should be viewed as insignificant. Whereas the destruction of the world is hugely significant for your own real, rational, long-term self-interest. And he doesn't get that. He doesn't get that, because he rejects the whole idea of self-interest. Okay, finally, Andrew, what are the reasons for why a person might accept the notion of Kant's other world without any evidence of its existence? Because Kant presents a sophisticated claim. He doesn't claim another world. He claims there is only one world. It's just that because we have senses, because we have a mind, we don't observe that one world. We're seeing what our mind wants us to see. We're seeing what the senses shape the world for us into. But we're not seeing the world. So it's not that he creates a mystical world that's out there. I mean, in a sense it's mystical, because we're not seeing the world who knows what's there. But it's not in a different dimension. And there's a plausibility to it, right? And you can make a kind of a scientific argument. You're only seeing certain wavelengths and not all wavelengths. But what you're seeing is reality. Of course, you're not seeing, quote, all of reality. But that's why we have reason. We can use what we see to understand the rest. Yeah, so there's a phenomenal world versus a nominal world. But it's not that there are two worlds, really, there's a real world that we can't see. And then there's the world we create. And the world we create, we all create the same because our brains all structure the same. But it's not related to the real world. All right, guys. Thank you. Really, really appreciate it. We made our target. We blew through it. We exceeded it beautifully. Really, really appreciate all of the support from all of you. I will see you all probably on Wednesday. And I'll be doing the show for my hotel room in Chicago. And yeah, we'll talk then. And I'll do a news round up then and maybe do a long show. We'll see. And I will tell you about the beginning of my tour. So some of you, I will see you hopefully in Champaign, Illinois tomorrow for a talk. I'm speaking on Wednesday at the University of Chicago Business School for MBA, the Adam Smith Society, which is an MBA society at the business school in at the University of Chicago, which is in Chicago, not where the most of the University of Chicago is, which is in the south side. This is in downtown Chicago at the Booth School of Business. Yes. All right, guys. See you soon. Bye, everybody.