 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Iran Book Show on this Sunday night. I'm a little confused because I was going to do this show yesterday. And it's like the heavens opened. And God said, no, you're not doing it today. No shows today. Maybe it was the Republicans. Maybe it was the Democrats. I don't know. No shows. Oh, you probably want to see this. There we go. That's better. So no show yesterday because the rain was just unbelievable. It looks like there's this storm brewing around Puerto Rico that's hanging ahead towards Florida. And it was brutal. And the internet was on, but it was spotty. And I don't know how sensitive you guys are. You're very sensitive to spotty internet. So I don't want to put you through it all and have you complaining about my internet connections. So I decided to cancel the show. But here we are. Today, it was gorgeous weather. The sun was shining at mid-80s. Just a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful day in wonderful Puerto Rico. So we are on for a show. We will do a show tomorrow, tomorrow night, about, I think, the same time. Then I'm off again. I'm speaking at the University of Indiana Bloomington, University of Indiana Bloomington on Wednesday. I'm speaking at Akron University in Ohio on Thursday. And I'm speaking in Denver, Colorado at the Leadership Program of the Rockies on Friday. So I will try to do a show on Thursday when I get to Denver, if it's not too late. And I might even try to do a show on Friday from a hotel in Dallas, if it's not too late. Because to get to Denver back home requires me to spend a night at the airport in Dallas. Not enough flights. Not enough flights to Puerto Rico. Not enough flights to Puerto Rico. So if you have any connections with American Airlines or any of the other airlines, please put in a good word for Puerto Rico, try to get us more flights. Particularly from Denver, that always seems to be bottleneck. That always seems to be very difficult for me to do. All right, Roger is here from Korea. It's been a month now since I left Korea, a little bit more than a month, month and a half. Since I visited Korea, I hung out with Roger. We had a good time. Korean barbecue was great. It was fun. All right, let's see, what else are we doing? What else do we do before we get to this election topic? Yes, today I wanna do a review of Fantastic Beasts and where to find them. We'll do Compliance by Muse. I can't even remember who asked me to review that, but we'll talk about Compliance by Muse and a glorious dawn sung by Carl Sagan. I can't believe anybody asked me to do that. My guess is that Shazbot asked me to do that. I don't think anybody else would ask me to do that. That and Fantastic Beasts are Shazbot. And then all I will owe, I think, is Shoshank Redemption for Dave. I owe Dave Goodman Shoshank Redemption, which we will do next weekend. Pretty much for sure, almost for sure. Almost, I think it's for sure, but we should get there. Shoshank should be an easier review, so that'll be, we'll get there. All right, let's see. So today we're talking about elections. We're talking about who to vote for on Tuesday, two days from today. This is one of those shows where I can't win. One of those shows we're going in, I know, I know, that we're gonna get some unsubscribes. We're gonna get some people pissed off. So be it. You'll still hear what I have to say. If you listen, if you listen, of course. Those of you who would like to ask questions, this is a topic for questions, although more likely it is right for snide commentary on the chat, but for those of you who actually wanna ask a question or make a comment and actually contribute to the ongoing show, you can do so by using the super chat. Those of you who are not live and would like to continue to support the show and like to see the show grow and continue. Ryan, thank you for the support, really appreciate it. You guys can do that on Patreon. Patreon seems to be the easiest place to do it. Doesn't have the problems with my website that seems to be collapsing every other day. You can also do it through PayPal. You can even, you know, you can do it through Subscribestar. You can do it through locals that use a stripe. So pretty much any way you want to, you can, you can even use Venmo. Just look me up on Venmo and you can send me some money. Just make sure to mention it's for the show if you send it by Venmo, because that goes to my private account after funnel it then into the business. So any way you want, you can support the show. I'm looking for some significant supporters. It would be great to get a few additional $100, $200, $250, $500 monthly supporters. Some of you have kind of cut back. It would be great if you could re-up. If there were any that would like to start supporting the show, that would be great. Particularly if anybody can do $100, $250 or $500, that would be fantastic on a monthly basis. Not that much money in the big picture of the things, but it goes a long way to supporting what we do here on The Iran Book Show. And anyway, we will see how it all goes. I'm already putting together my travel plans for next year. So there's gonna be periods of a lot of travel. And of course, the fact that you guys support me on a monthly basis helps that travel in a sense. It helps me do lectures and shows and interviews and all the rest while I'm traveling around the world. Getting the word out there to the masses, international masses, not just the local masses. All right, so next week, as I said, University of Indiana, Akron University, Colorado, LPR. And then the week after that, if you happen to live in Costa Rica, I'll be speaking Costa Rica on Wednesday the week after and then I'll be speaking in Mexico City. So if you live in Mexico City, if you're anywhere in New Mexico City, please come and join us. I'll be there with Gloria Alvarez. Both events, I'll be doing with Gloria Alvarez. I'll be with Gloria in Costa Rica and I know you'll come to see Gloria and not me. But you can see me and Gloria Alvarez in Costa Rica and then me, Gloria Alvarez, Ben Bear, Tolzfany in Mexico City. So a very packed schedule the week after that. So hopefully you guys can join us. That'll be great. All right, let's see. We want to talk about, yeah, I'm trying to avoid talking about the elections, between we go, we're gonna talk about the elections. So obviously these are big midterm elections. A lot is at stake. The Democrats obviously have the White House for another, at least another two years. At the same time, Palmetto asked, when will I visit South Carolina? The general principle about visiting anyway is this. I visit anywhere where I'm invited. So if you'd like to arrange a talk for me in South Carolina, if you can arrange a university, a club, a group of businessmen, a business, anything like that that would like to invite me, I would be happy, happy, happy, happy to come to South Carolina and speak. All right, so let me know, Palmetto, anybody want me to come and speak in Europe, in Asia, in South America, in any state in the union, then you can email me at youron at youronbookshow.com. Youron at youronbookshow.com. So, I haven't spoken to Clemson in a long time. We can talk to Brad about speaking to Clemson. I used to speak at Clemson pretty frequently, but it's been a while. I guess, after a while, you speak so many times at the same place, it's less attractive to have you back. All right, let's get back to the election. So, Democrats have the White House. The Senate is 50-50, it's split. The Democrats have a small majority in the House of Representatives. What the Democrats would love is to be able to control both houses and the White House. Now, they already control both houses because the 50-50 split in the Senate goes their way because the tie is broken by the vice president, but they've got minutian and they've got cinema who are slightly more centrist, slightly more centrist Democrats and don't let the Democrats just pass whatever the hell they want. So, they wanna be able to pass whatever the hell they want. And for that, they need another, probably two seats in the Senate, and they need to maintain the majority in the House. Now, I think the bottom line is the Democrats having all the levers of power, the House, the Senate, and the White House would be an unmitigated disaster. They have shown themselves to be incredibly, incredibly irresponsible from an economic perspective. The economy is doing poorly. We're probably heading into recession. We definitely have inflation. We might have stagflation, we'll see. But whatever happens next year is gonna be a very, very difficult year, I believe economically for all of us. The last thing we want is tax and spend Democrats running things, tanks spend, and most importantly, regulate Democrats who wanna control and limit and exacerbate all the problems. I mean, ultimately, the reason we got to the problems we have today is tax and spend and regulate. That gives you inflation and it gives you supply-side problems and it gives you ultimately the recession and stagnation that is likely to occur next year. More of that would be a disaster. And of course, it wouldn't just be a disaster from an economic perspective. If Democrats win on Tuesday, that is maintain the House and win a seat or two in the Senate, they will take from that as a conclusion that their agenda is popular in America. The agenda that I think most Americans are actually rebelling against. I think it will emboldened the most progressive, the most nutty wing within the Democratic Party will embolden the defund the police and the CRT and the rest of it. And look, there's no question that the Democrats deserve to lose. The Democrats are anti-American, anti-Americanism. They're anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, economic freedom, but they have now become, to a large extent, anti-free speech. They want to break up big tech, they wanna increase antitrust laws. In every single dimension one can think of, maybe with exception of abortion. The Democrats are anti-liberty and anti-freedom and deserve to lose. The record of the last two years is a record of devastation. It's a disastrous record of massive stimuli of massive infrastructure bills, the chip bill, which of course a lot of Republicans voted for as well, so can't really blame that. All in Democrats, which is central planning and involves industrial policy, American industrial policy. So the legislative agenda of the Democrats has been a disaster, as you would expect. Who would have expected anything different from a Democratic House Senate and White House, right? And of course, it's exactly what I predicted. What happened that if you gave the Democrats the Senate, the House and the White House, it would be an absolutely unmitigated disaster. And it's only an idiot or moron like Donald Trump who could actually give them that, right? Not only lose the White House, which I think you deserve to lose, so that's a good thing, but then also lose the House and in the most stunning occasion, actually lose the Senate. Georgia was lost because of Donald Trump and nobody else. This is the fact that we had two disastrous years is the consequence of the Trump presidency. It's a consequence of Trump's inability to get any Republicans elected, even in a state like Georgia, where you think it would be relatively easy. So Democrats deserve to lose. You know, Adam says the big exception is immigration and abortion, but I'm not even sure that immigration, it's true. I mean, what has changed with Biden in the White House in terms of immigration? Nothing, almost every single one of Donald Trump's policies with regard to immigration, stupid policies. You know, self-destructive policies with regard to immigration stand. Immigration is at a low, particularly legal immigration. So no, Democrats are no good at immigration. They never have been any good at immigration. The only thing they're good on today anymore is on abortion. So Democrats, no question, deserve to lose. The problem is that so do Republicans. What do we have for the Republicans running right now? We have a Republican party committed to the idea that the 2020 election was stolen. A Republican party, at least in certain places, committed to the idea that if it happened again, they wouldn't certify the votes. Think about the person running for Secretary of State in Arizona, who might actually win, who said if he was Secretary of State in 2020, he wouldn't have certified the votes. So Republicans are running right now on a campaign that says we don't believe in the voters. We will decide who gets elected in the future. True in Wisconsin, true in Michigan, true in Arizona, luckily not true in Georgia, one exception, across the board. I mean, don't even get me started on the governor, on the Republican governor candidate in Pennsylvania. Republicans are fielding a group of horrible, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-wool of law, this is the party of law and order, candidates. They're fielding a group of candidates on economic issues that don't really disagree with the Democrats. They would have supported the infrastructure bill, maybe even bigger than the one Biden had passed. They certainly would have supported the original stimulus and many of them supported. The chip bill, the industrial planning bill. So across the board, you've got Republicans who in economic policy are not that different than the Democrats, who claim to be for law and order when it comes to policing out there, but when it comes to voting, don't believe in the Constitution, don't believe in law and order anymore, throw it out. Republican party committed not to the Constitution, not to founding principles of this country, not to individual rights, not to freedom and liberty, but a Republican party committed to a personality, Donald Trump and anything he says goes. If he says the election was stolen, it was stolen. If he says we should spend more money, we should spend more money. If he says we should build a wall, then definitely we should build a wall. It doesn't matter what he says. If he said the exact opposite tomorrow, the Republican party would be for that. So we have a Republican party that does not deserve to win. A Republican party that is a, I mean, the Republican party is always pathetic, always pathetic. I mean, are you really gonna tell me that a party that has Marjorie Taylor Greene as a unruhable member might be part of a Trump cabinet in the future? Is a party you can vote for enthusiastically? That is a party that deserves to be in power? It is a party that deserves to win? Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Christian nationalist, the conspiracy theory wacko? These are the people who we should get excited about as an alternative to the Democrats who don't deserve to win. We should elect a bunch of Republicans who don't deserve to win. No, the Republican party does not deserve victory. It has done nothing to deserve victory. It is running on a campaign. It is running on Biden's negatives, on inflation, on slow economic growth, on the coming recession, but what is it proposed to do in, to deal with any of this? Nothing. What is the positive economic plan proposed by the Republicans? Zero. And then, I mean, the morons that they kind of really horrible people that they put up, the governor, the guy who running in Pennsylvania is just horrific. Dr. Oz, this is a senator? Yeah, pitching you the latest cream to make you feel 20 years younger. He can do that from the floor of the Senate now. A election denier like Carrie Lake, the horse slate in Arizona is not detached from reality. Rejecting, completely rejecting of the Constitution and the rule of law. Herschel Walker, a good Christian conservative, right? Who fathers children all over the place and then pays for abortions and then fights to have abortions illegal across the board, no exceptions. These are people who should be in the Senate. These are people you can get excited for voting for. So I've had a column. When was it, today? Yesterday? Yesterday, as I was preparing for the show, yesterday. Election deniers are complete wackos. There's zero evidence, zero evidence of any election, of election fraud on a scale that would have changed the election. Zero evidence. Every single claim that has been put out there has been refuted completely thoroughly. You can't have facts against something. You can't prove a negative. If you claim that something happened, it is upon you to show proof. And all the proof that people, supposed evidence that people have showed has been refuted thoroughly. You guys should prove there's not a gremlin under my table. There's a gremlin here kicking me right now under my desk. Can you prove? He's an invisible gremlin, by the way. He's an invisible gremlin only I can feel. He is, and he's part of a massive conspiracy to control the US government. And he tells me what's gonna happen by whispering to me. The 2,000 mules has been refuted dozens of places. It's so easy to refute it. It's been refuted over and over and over and over again. So go and read the refutations. It's beneath me, and it's beneath you. So I have to do it on the Iran Book Show because really, there's no there, there. No there, there, nothing. So I was reading yesterday an essay by somebody who I don't talk to anymore, and is not, who I've lost a lot of respect for over many, many years, but who is a good writer? And in politics, I found that I've agreed with him more than almost anybody else over the last, you know, since Trump got elected because he's been very anti-Trump, good for him. And that's Robert Trisinski. I don't know how many of you know Robert Trisinski. He's got a sub-stack, but he now works for the Atlas Society, so my respect for him only diminishes in spite of the fact that most issues regarding politics, I agree with him. Anyway, yesterday he wrote a piece about the coming election, and his recommendation, his recommendation was, his recommendation was that you should vote across the board democratic, that you should not vote for any Republicans, that the only hope the country has is that this group of Republicans is repudiated, that this version of the Republican Party is crushed. I mean, this was my argument about not voting for Trump. And hoping, and it didn't work, and I didn't see Trump's trick, Trump had a trick up his sleeve, of course, but I was hoping the Trump in the 2020 election would get crushed. I still think, unfortunately, that that was the only hope the Republican Party had, and since the Republican Party is, in some senses, the only hope this country has, when Donald Trump didn't get crushed, it was a very, very, very bad sign for the future of America. He needed to have gotten crushed in 2020, I argued for that, throughout the election campaign. He won by a small enough margin that he could then claim fraud. So losing was not, you know, so of course, in his, in Republicans' minds, he never lost, so therefore, he stole a viable candidate for the future. And of course, his ideas, if you can call them ideas, his method of governing, his method of politicize, politics has been legitimized because he didn't lose. The election was stolen from him. Even people here on my chat think the election was stolen. Anything is possible in the world in which we live. So, Jacenzi's argument is, Republicans have to lose big time. And only if Republicans lose big time will they learn the lesson, and maybe, maybe, maybe, and this is the only hope the country has, they will shift away from nationalism, conservatism, religiosity, the nuttiness of the last six years on the right. The new right, and ultimately, Trump. Now, unfortunately, so, that's Jacenzi's reasoning, and a lot of his reasoning has to do with the fact of this election deniers. You know, he's another one who's looked carefully at the facts around this, and it came to a conclusion, you know, quite obviously, that there was no, the election was not stolen, Donald Trump lost. And the thing that scares him, and I think that scares a lot of people, is the idea that these election deniers will win on Tuesday. And if the election deniers win on Tuesday, then all future elections are gonna be suspect because the facts won't matter anymore. Conspiracy theories will rule what is the, who wins elections? Power, in other words, will determine who wins elections. The people in power will get to decide, not the voters. Now, I know, none of us is a huge fan of pure democracy. We still don't have pure democracy in the United States. Electing our leaders is a crucial aspect of liberty. Electing our leaders is a crucial part of what it means to be free. Kicking the bastards out is important, and having a system, a method to do that, a method that is dependent on us, the voters, the citizens of the United States. The alternative to that is authoritarianism of one sort or another. The alternative to that is that our elected officials do not get determined by us, the people. They stop being our representatives as corrupt and as bad as they are right now, but they stop doing that. And instead, they get chosen by the powers to be. They get chosen by influential people. They get chosen by secretaries of state. They get chosen by the political party that happens to be in power in a particular state. And if we start down that road, not only are we starting down a road of constitutional crisis, we're starting down a road of political violence, we're starting down a road of dissent into chaos in America and ultimately into authoritarianism. That's Trzaczynski's argument. By the way, the fact that I agree with Robert Trzaczynski on some of these political issues does not change my general view of well, which is not positive. I'll just mention one funny note as I was reading the article, I thought of this. I thought it was really funny because in 2004, in 2004, the election, 2004, the election, in the presidential election between between George Bush and John Kerry, Leonard Peekoff came out with a statement saying that all objectives should vote for John Kerry. They should vote Democratic. They should punish the Republicans. They should punish George Bush. And what's funny is that Robert Trzaczynski flipped out when Leonard did that. I mean, he went, and for years later, he was accusatory towards Leonard. How could he do that? How could he embrace Kerry over Trump? So now it seems like it's flipped somewhat. Now it's Trzaczynski calling for electing Democrats. By the way, if Kerry had won in 2004, the world would be very different today. In that sense, Leonard Peekoff was absolutely right. If Kerry had won, he would have been blamed for the disaster in Iraq. If Kerry had won, Democrats would have been blamed for the financial crisis. If Kerry had won, we would have never got Obama. If we'd never got Obama, we'd have never got Trump. I think the world would be a lot better today if people had followed Leonard Peekoff's advice in 2004. Okay, so Trzaczynski says, democracy is at stake, rule of law is at stake. You cannot vote Republican. Same day, I get a sub-stack from Jonah Goldberg. Again, somebody who I have a lot of misgivings about because of his attitude towards Iron Man. And he writes, no, no, no, this election's not about democracy. It's not about the rule of law. Forget about all that. Democracy is well instituted in the United States. Yes, Trump is full of it when it comes to claiming the election was stolen, but nobody's gonna get away with those claims. Democracy is secure in America. It's not going away. These issues are completely exaggerated. And yes, Donald Trump is a disaster. Yes, the Republican Party has a lot of problems, but this was an optimistic piece, right? We're not moving away from democracy. We're not moving away from the rule of law. We're not moving away from fair elections. Now I have to say, I thought the piece was super weak. Was not very convincing at all. But I sympathize because I do think a vast majority of Americans, a vast majority of Americans, even Americans who, to some post they're gonna say, yeah, we think maybe the election wasn't fair. At the end of the day, the bottom line, if the Supreme Court ruled that person X1, and I think the Supreme Court is still fairly healthy, I think the Supreme Court would have ruled against Trump if it had gone there. And I think there's a reason it never went to the Supreme Court because there was no there, there. I think even the Trump nominees would have ruled for the rule of law, for the voters. So I don't actually think that, I mean, you could create a constitutional crisis. You could create a lot of noise. You could create a lot of problems. You could even create some political violence. But at the end of the day, our legal system is strong enough still, just barely, that I think we could survive all that. So I'm somewhere between Trisinski and Jonah Goldberg. I think there's gonna be a real crisis when it comes to the elections in the future. I think that the Republicans should lose. I think the Republicans are horrible right now. But I also think the Democrats should lose. In other words, while I think the Republicans should lose, I don't think we deserve the consequence of that. I think what people underappreciate is the damage the Democrats can do, even with just two years in power, if they controlled all three branches of government. So I don't want the Democrats to win. And I don't want the Republicans to win. And look, my position here is exactly the same as it was in 2020. I don't want either party to win. And the only way to avoid the damage, the damage that these two parties can do to us is by selectively. Now, of course it's not in my control and it's not in your control, we're too small. But if I had the power, I would want divided government. But I wouldn't want the divided government to be selective. I'd like Republicans to win the House. I'd like, in particular, Katie Porter in California to lose. I'd like Republicans to take the House. I'd like the Republicans to take the House not by a massive majority. I don't want this to be a massive wave. I'd like them to take our House by enough votes. So Democrats can't get anything done. On the Senate side, I would like every single Republican who is an election denier, who has groveled before Donald Trump, who is a conservative nationalist. I'd like every single one of those to lose. Oh, Hoco in North, in New Hampshire is a complete and utter nutcase. He needs to lose. The Secretary of State in Arizona needs, the Republican needs to lose. Hushawaka needs to lose. Dr. Oz needs to lose. I mean, I hope Republicans gain the seat in Nevada. The person there doesn't seem that bad. I mean, be cool. If Republicans became governor of Oregon, again, not a governor that seems that bad. I mean, if I were voting, and I'm not voting because I live in Puerto Rico, so I can't vote, but if I were voting, I would basically look at my Republican candidates. If they were election deniers, they would never get my vote. Who the hell needs a senator who can communicate? Why the hell do we care if a senator can communicate? All they do is say yes or no. I mean, if the senators didn't communicate, wouldn't that be better? I don't want communicating senators. So I would love what I would want is for people to go out and say, Republicans were election deniers, Republicans who are explicitly anti the rule of law, explicitly anti the principles of this country who lean authoritarian and who on economic policy lean towards central planning, I can't vote for. At the same time, Democrats who are total progressives, who are part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, I can't vote for. So when you have an election between a progressive Democrat and a nutty Republican, you don't vote, you don't vote. But if the Democrats are middle of the world Democrat and the Republicans are not vote Democratic, and if the Republicans reasonable, vote for the Republican. I'd like the message of this election to be at best ambiguous. I'd like Trump-like candidates all to lose. I think the big benefit of Trump-like candidates losing is that Trump might not run. And then some of you will get what you want, which is DeSantis will run. And DeSantis will crush Biden in two years. Trump could lose to Biden in two years. I don't want low turnout. I want bad candidates, bad Republican candidates. I mean, not just bad, awful Republican candidates to lose. But if they win, if everybody wins, if Oz wins and Walker wins and Masters wins and the guy in Ohio wins and all these people win, then Trump is going to announce he's running for president. And if Trump announces he's running for president, DeSantis won't run. That is my prediction of the day. Trump wants a president DeSantis will run. There's no advantage for DeSantis running against Trump. He'll sit it out. You'll probably get the VP nod. Or not, he'll be ready for four years later. And by then Trump will be too old. Why would he run against Trump and suffer the beating, the verbal abuse that Trump will inflict on him? The gazillions of dollars Trump will spend to diminish him. Why do it? Why do it yourself? And there's no way Trump will pick him as a VP if he runs against him. So if you guys like DeSantis, then you should hope, pray, do whatever you can to avoid Trump from running. So my hope for this coming election is the Republicans win the House. The Senate doesn't change, 50-50. And that the Senate candidates who lose, or the Senate candidates, the Republican Senate candidates who lose, are those Senate candidates who are the horrible Trumpists. Trumpists. That's my recommendation. In a sense, it was my recommendation in 2020. I was, in 2020, I was hopeful that Republicans would hold the Senate. The Democrats looked like they would hold the House but barely, and that Biden would win. I wanted Biden to win, I did, but I also wanted Republicans to win the Senate. I want divided government. The best government, the best governments the United States of America has had since World War II have basically been Democratic presidents with Republican House and Senate. They've been governments of gridlock. When it's not gridlock, bad stuff happens. Primarily, bad economic stuff but also bad social stuff, so. That is my view. And as I've said, I think that anything to stop Trump from running for office because him running for office is a disaster. It will destroy the Republican Party completely. And they might lose again and they might lose the Senate and the House again. I don't want gridlock for Ukrainian funding but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. What you want is gridlock. Yeah, Biden's fine. That's why I'm, I think Biden's terrible but I don't think Biden is anywhere near as offensive as president. I think that as long as he has restraint in the House and Senate and I think that if Republicans don't win big this time then I don't think Republicans will be anti-Ukraine. I think the only way that Republicans will be anti-Ukraine is if they win big. If Republicans win big, then they will take that as endorsement of the national conservative platform. They'll take that as endorsement of the Trump platform and they take that as endorsement of this new anti-Ukraine platform. I think Republicans winning small is will allow them to support Ukraine. Most Republicans want to support Ukraine. Most Republican politicians will allow them to continue to support Ukraine. Oh, there's a huge difference with gridlock and anarchy. Gridlock still maintains the rule of law. Still got the rule of law, still got a government. The government just can't do anything new, which is fine because almost everything knew that the government, what is the last bill that Congress passed that you would give a thumbs up to? That was a good thing. So they gave a little bit of money to Ukraine. That's the defining thing. They haven't done anything worthwhile. Haven't done anything worthwhile. Let's see, gridlock lasts as long as it lasts. How long does anything last? And the more unanimity there is among Democrats, among Republicans, and the more power and control that they have, the longer they have, the more damage they do. So what you want ideally is gridlock so they can do minimal damage. That's the reality. The longer we can get gridlock, the better. More money with pictures of people nobody knows. I have no idea what that means, Lenz. Lenz says 50 Canadian dollars for the flaming narrative. Thank you, Lenz. And then he adds something about the pictures. More funny money with pictures of people nobody knows. I don't know, there's pictures somewhere in there. All right, thank you, Lenz. That's really, really appreciated. Thank you for the support. I will post an update on where we are in terms of the super chat. Got a way to go still. He's making funny of Canadian money. Funny of money. That's rhymes, that's pretty good. Canada still has money, that's good. All right, Schausbach says, let's see. Should there be none of the above option in each election? If none of the above wins, then you candidates are nominated. No, because there's no end to it, right? There's no end to who nominates the new candidates. Why do we assume that gets better? And there is a none of them. But you can fill in a blank, you can put my name in. You can, when you go into the ballot on Tuesday, you can put my name in and elect me. It just, you know, it could be counted, but no, I think we get the people who are nominated, we vote for the people who are nominated, or we don't vote, which is fine. But I don't think we want to complicate the process even further. I think the way it is, it's fine. I just think we need to stick to it. And then elect the right kind of people. Adam says, election winners believe that winning by a large margin increases their mandate to implement the evil plans. Is this a good reason to vote against whatever evil is more likely to win just to cut down the mandate? Yeah, I mean, again, I mean, the whole, look, all this voting and strategic voting, you have to take into account that you're one person, it doesn't really matter that much. Even if everybody listened to my show, voted exactly the way I asked them to vote, it wouldn't matter that much to what's going on in the world. I think you should vote in a way that is consistent with, you know, you vote for somebody that you think is not evil, if you can, or don't vote. I'm fine with not voting. I don't think there's any kind of commandment thou shalt vote. I don't think there's any kind of requirement. I don't think there's any kind of mandate. I think you should vote based on, you know, the people running and who you think is less evil, less gonna do damage. Now, and you have to think about it, it's just a long run. Look, and Adam, you're in California, it doesn't matter by what margin Republicans lose in California. Now, for example, in California, if you're in Orange County, and the Democratic nominee was Katie Porter, who is one of the worst, most evil, you know, just horrible, horrible, horrible human being who is very effective in what she does in terms of communicating the nastiness that is the Democratic economic agenda, the nastiness that is the kind of egalitarian position, then you've gotta vote against her. Even if that increases the number of people generally voting Republican. I don't think anybody cares about how many people generally voted Republican and Democrat. It's how many people actually get elected. And particularly in California where Republicans are saner, I would vote Republican. Len, with anti-Semitism on the rise, with tribalism and its deep roots in the Western populism, populism, why does Yoram Chazoni feed intellectual poison into the present populism, national conservatism? Is there pathology involved? I mean, I think he believes that he has formulated and is allied himself with people who are not and will never be anti-Semitic. I think he believes that his version of, conservative nationalism, national conservatism, his version of it will not turn against Jews. It's a benign version, it's a peaceful version. It's a pacifist version of nationalism. Now I think he's completely wrong. And I agree with you that I think he's feeding the poison that will ultimately kill his people. But think of it from his perspective too. He's also trying to justify the existence of Israel. He's also trying to justify Israel as a nationalist conservative country, as a nationalist conservative religious country. And he's trying to be consistent by saying, look, if Israel is such a country and they have to defend Israel in the spaces, well then every country should be able to do this. And if Israel gets to choose to be Jewish and have its religion be Judaism in a sense of integration with the state, then a country like the United States should have the ability to choose to be Christian. And European countries should choose to be Christian. In particular, again, the popularity of his ideas and the motivation behind his ideas is to counter the Islamic migration into Europe. So it's easier to counter the Islamists if you define yourself as Christian. For example, Orban has done in Hungary, which was a model for a lot of these people. Now, Orban's party has anti-Semitic elements, but Yom Khazani and people like that ignore those things. Ignore them because it's inconvenient to the story they want to tell. But yes, ultimately nationalism, the Jews don't belong in a nationalist America. The Jews don't belong in a truly nationalist European countries even in the formulation that Yom Khazani has because he associates nationalism with tribalism and the Jews are a separate tribe based on that. So he can, I mean, where do the Jews belong in such a scheme? If America is ultimately a Christian state, if Europe should divide itself into tribal countries based on history and nationality and tribalism and Christianity, I mean, and Yom Khazani, I think would say, well, maybe they don't belong, maybe they should all come to Israel because his solution is hunker down with your tribe. But that's so pure collectivism. That's so anti-individualism, so anti-liberty. It really is quite horrific. Zach says, keep up the good work from one of your supporters who would love a show dedicated to opera. All right, maybe I can do a show. I don't know, Zach, if you're a member, maybe you should become a member. Maybe I can do the members-only show, which I still haven't done, but I will do one in December. Maybe I can do the members-only show on opera. I can do it on opera and painting. There's some people who would like it to be on painting. I can do a show on both opera and painting. Relationship between opera and painting. No, I won't do that, but I'll think about that. But yes, I'm gonna do a members-only show, so take that into account. Thanks, Zach, thanks for the support. Really, really appreciate it. It's incredibly helpful. Let's see, Daniel, last $20 question. Not a lot of questions. The pipeline is thin, and you know, the questions from last time kind of disappeared on me. I know some of you did not have your questions answered and I apologize for that, but the questions from last time have disappeared. Daniel says, do you ever dance? I've always found it awkward and uninteresting. Is there a sign of emotional, is that a sign of emotional oppression? It could be a sign of emotional oppression. I'm not saying it is, but it could be. I don't dance. I mean, I do on occasion, you know, like a thing where my wife is there, I'll dance, but I don't particularly enjoy dancing. My body doesn't exactly move to the music. I'm not particularly coordinated when it comes to dancing, particularly next to my wife who's super coordinated, who loves dancing, who's an amazing dancer, and I'm pretty pathetic at it. I don't think my lack of ability to dance has to do with emotional repression. I just don't like it. Partially, my hips start hurting. It's my old, my bad back. And anyway, dancing is not for me. So that's for my wife, not for me. But it can be a sign of emotional repression, but it doesn't have to be. All right, let's do a couple of reviews and then we'll get back to the super chat. Also give you guys time to ask some more questions. We're about halfway to our goal, so we've still got a bunch of money to raise. Catherine is right here. Super Chat is a way for you to support the show, to show your support and to also ask questions. So it's a great way to show support value for value. You're getting something out of this. That's why you're listening. That's why you're watching. Well, express that by providing the show, me with a value in exchange. Okay. So Charles Barth asked me to watch this movie, Fantastic Beasts and Way to Find Them, which is a J.K. Wallins story, a J.K. Wallins-based movie. Not Harry Potter, but a, what do you call it? A spin-off, if you will, from the Harry Potter universe. It is set in New York in, I think, the 1920s or 1930s. And it is a, it's, you know, it's got the muggles, the world of regular people that all of us inhabit. And then it's got the world of magic, which kind of is a parallel world all around us, but that the people who don't have magic don't realize and are not aware of. So it has that whole layer of Harry Potter placed on it. I mean, let me just say right off the bat, I always have problems with any show, movie, or TV show that has magic in it. Because particularly, you know, in a book it's a little different because a book can try at least. And J.K. Wallins tries, I don't think always successfully, but tries, to rowlings, sorry, rowlings, rowlings, rowlings. Not rowlings, rowlings. J.K. Wallings tries to do it by defining the scope of magic. So like, after time you're going, well, why doesn't he just go like this and solve the problem? Why don't they just cast a spell and solve the problem? What's the big deal? So I always have problems with that in a movie where they can't really explain to you the boundaries of magic. They can't really explain what rules they are following if there are any rules because it's all fast. So it's always a little ridiculous. So every movie with magic is ridiculous in my view. And this one is particularly ridiculous. It's a silly story, but it's fun. I know fun is not deep in particular, but it's fun. It's enjoyable. It's silly. It doesn't really make sense. You can poke all kinds of holes into it, but it's benevolent. The good guys win. The character of the good guys is solid. It's the good guys. They're not dark heroes. They're not anti-heroes. They're not secretly villains trying to take over the world. They're just good guys trying to do the right thing, trying to do their work, trying to follow their passions. The heroes, like a geeky scientist, is a good guy. The beast's imaginative. There's a lot going on. It's colorful. It's so, I'd say, particularly for kids, this is a enjoyable, fun, don't take it too seriously movie. The evil is evil, but there's not a lot of focus on evil. It's not as dark. Nowhere near as dark as Harry Potter can become. Harry Potter can get really dark, right? And Harry Potter can get really deep. Harry Potter has philosophical elements and has kind of a hero that's torn. This is very shallow in comparison, but enjoyable. Enjoyable. And, you know, if you're in the mood for something very silly and fun, go for it. So, yeah, I would have never seen this movie if not for Shaz-Bot. I kind of enjoyed it. Thanks, Shaz-Bot. It was fun. And again, very benevolent and nice and predictable. Very predictable, right? Final scenes are predictable. Still at the margin, slight enjoyment. All right, let's see. I had a request to review the song Compliance by Muse. I have to talk about the lyrics and the music. Remember, you can ask me to review a movie, it's $500. You can ask me to review a song, it's $250. You can also ask me, you can also determine a topic for a whole show. You can dictate a show topic for $1,000. So, if you're interested in doing a show, just email me at youronbookshow.com. And, you know, happy to think about a, or put together a show that reflects the topic you're interested in. So, yeah. Music, $250. Movies, $500. Taking over the whole show. Land, if you want, land, if you want one on opera, $1,000 and I'll do the whole opera, right? I'll do a whole thing on opera. All right, let's see. Oh, no, that was Zach. Zach was the opera. So, Zach, if you want to do an opera, I know that's expensive, but that takes over the show. All right, so Compliance My Muse. You know, it's fine. I'm not a big fan of the music. It's quite repetitive. It does have a certain intensity that fits with the words. The words are very dark, right? It's Compliance. You just need to comply. You will feel no pain anymore. It's typical dystopian type song which is written from an anti-dystopian kind of perspective, an anti-authoritarian perspective. You just need compliance. We just need your compliance. You will feel no pain anymore. No more defiance. You just give us compliance. A little repetitive. Compliance, compliance, compliance, compliance. So I'm not, and then there's ooh, ooh, ooh. There are too many oo's. I don't like songs with oo's. That's not true. I think it's lazy. Lazy songwriters. Oh, fear is controlling you. It's time to give it up and give it to us. We can save you, save you, give us compliance. So I get the song, the rhythm, it's dark. The tone of the song is dark. It's consistent with this idea. It reminds me a little bit, although I think Pink Floyd does it better, of the wall, you know, and there were a lot of progressive rock, I think, from, and of course, there's a lot of progressive rock from the 1970s. It's kind of anti-authoritarian, anti, what do you call it? Conformity. Anti-statist. And I think there are a lot of songs like this. This fits into that genre well, and again, it gets across what it wants to get across. I just didn't find the music particularly interesting. It was a little monotonic, and even the words, the lyrics, I think are a little predictable. You know, cover your tracks. We know what's best for you. Philosopher Kings, right? You've bitten off much more than you can chew. You're running scared. You run into our arms. Come join our clique. We'll keep you safe from harm. The idea that the collectivists, the authoritarians, always tell you, we're gonna keep you safe. Don't worry, we'll take care of you. You know, you're in above your heads. We're the Philosopher Kings. We know how to do this. Come, join us. It's this warm, tribalistic, collectivistic stuff. So yeah, I mean, it's good lyrics. It's just, there's nothing really here that is striking and I think significantly different. And some of it is just not, I don't think not that original or not that interesting. Again, for example, just too much compliance, compliance, compliance. I know they're trying to create a beat. They're trying to create a certain rhythm with it. So fine, nothing against it, but it's just, I don't think it's a great song. From my perspective, my taste, right? I'm not, I don't have the knowledge to be an objective evaluator of music. I don't. All right, then I think it's Shahzabah who asked me to review a Glorious Don't Sign by Carl Sagan. Now this is a ridiculous song. Carl Sagan can't sing. The music's terrible. The singing's pretty bad. The lyrics, you know, this is more about, I think, and what makes it interesting and what makes it kind of fun is that Carl Sagan is this guy who is just fascinated and amazed by science. And everything he does, he projects this benevolent amazement at the physical world and at science's ability to understand it and explain it. I mean, he just projects that. I loved his cosmos in the 1980s. And even though I disagree with a lot of stuff Carl Sagan believed in and held during his life, I loved his love of science. I loved his life of reason, love of reason. I loved his love of humanity. And I think that comes across a little bit in the song but I don't think it's Carl Sagan's finest hour or so. I, you know, it's a bit of a waste of time. But I would watch Carl Sagan's cosmos from the 1980s. I think it's amazing. And again, in spite of his politics, he's proposed something so few people today are. Pro-science, real science. Pro-man's ability to understand the world and to change his environment. And you know, that show was amazing in how it portrayed that and created that. And for the most part he cared about the truth against some of his views, maybe about a climate change, a few other things were wrong, but generally he projected this very, very positive view. All right, back to the super chat. All right, so we're at like, I don't know what, almost $400, so about $250 short of a goal. So it'd be great if a few people stepped up and we got to the goal. Catherine will be happy if we do. She'll be a little sad and depressed if we don't. But here is Jay Lord. Can you do a review of the anime Code, Gaze and the anime One Piece? Also, are you considered about Nippon Clang in Japan? I don't know any of that. I don't know what any of that means. But you know, to review those things, you know, people have paid big bucks for me to review shows like that. So if anybody wants me to review that because I wouldn't watch it normally, then you're gonna have to, sorry, you're just gonna have to pay me more than $12. 20 Australian. Australian dollars a week. So yeah, so I am open to doing those reviews, but I just don't have the time to just do it without adequate compensation. Okay, the based capitalist, 50 bucks, thank you. Do you have faith? Faith, I don't have faith generally. Faith is not a good word to use around me. Do you have faith in a third party alternative to compete with the other two, libertarian forward party? I mean, it would be good if there was a viable third party. It would be good if one could create a viable third party, but you would have to do the work. The libertarians is a wacky party. It's a crazy party. It's a waste of everybody's time. The libertarians right now are as bad as Republicans if they're not worse. So I wouldn't spend any time on the libertarian party. The forward party, if it does the groundwork, the groundwork means registering of every state, getting good candidates who can actually run. I think the fact that the forward state is trying to position itself as a central state, a centralist party, it's trying to eliminate the kind of crazy ideas from the left and the crazy ideas from the right and focus on the better ideas. Of course, there's still gonna be compromise. There's still gonna be mixed economy, but I think something like that would buy us more time, buy America more time. I think heading towards the right or heading towards the left is a dead end right now. So there was a chance that the forward party could buy time, but you'd have to have real money, big money, hundreds of millions of dollars behind you, and you would have to have good candidates and you would have to build out the system. And I just don't see anybody actually doing that. I think it's possible. I think the majority of the American people are not where the Democratic party are and they're not where the Republican party is and I think you could form a majority party that was different than both Democrats and Republicans. But for that, some Democrats and Republican politicians would have to defect and real money would have to get behind the effort, real money, hundreds of millions of billions of dollars. And I just don't see it happening. Just don't see it happening. It's certainly not in the libertarian movement. Troy, thank you. Really, really appreciate it. Thanks for getting us over the top. Troy coming in with $500 Australian dollars as he does every few shows. So really, really appreciate it. Thank you. Let's see. So yes, we're past the 650 mark so thank you guys for getting us here. Len asks, who's been very active today. I think you should review the peripheral after the season, this season on prime. Or the book is an alternative. Author of cyberpunk trilogy, burning chrome, neuromasa, Mona Lisa overdrive where orbital yacht AI infuses. I don't know, again, what all that means. But the bottom line is, bottom line is that, happy to review it, it's gonna cost you. So send me a commitment to a certain contribution level and I will review. As I said, TV shows, I think it's $500 movie, oh no, TV shows I think it's 250 movies, $500 and determining the theme of a show, a thousand bucks. All right, Justin says, does the system on bankruptcy create perverse incentives much like government bailouts? I don't think so. I think because everybody understands and they clear laws about the rules for bankruptcy and what it means and how it happens. The government stays out of that and there's just these clear laws around bankruptcy. Then the bad incentives don't happen. The bad incentives happen when the rules are ambiguous or when the rules are not practiced consistently. But if the rules are clear and are practiced consistently, then markets adapt and adjust to any kind of bad perverse incentives and price them out, in a sense. I mean, what's the incentive of bankruptcy? You know, it's still pretty brutal, your credit gets written down, some loans are forgiven but not all loans are forgiven. I think it would be better if we had a system that was more consistent. I think like everything else, bankruptcy laws would benefit significantly from an objectivist approach to them, somebody being objective about the laws and writing them out properly. So I think they need real scrutiny but I don't think per se bankruptcy laws create perverse incentives. Bad bankruptcy laws certainly create perverse incentives. So we need good bankruptcy laws. The laws that exist in the US are okay, they're not great. I think there need to be more consequence for bankruptcy but of course the fact that the less consequence of bankruptcy is priced into the cost of debt. So the markets are there adjust to the rules. I'd like to see stricter rules but and I'd like to see clearer rules but for that you would have to have, I don't think you're gonna have real clarity in bankruptcy law until you have a more objectivist government. Len asks, what if I like Barbara Brandon's biography? I actually fell in love with Ayn Rand, more reading it, interesting list of those influenced by her at the end like Rush. Yeah, I mean, you can like the biography. I think it's terribly written. I think it's the way it's written projects subjectivism. It's very emotionalistic but if you could extract from it, the positives, extract from it, the character of Ayn Rand which is the positive, then that's wonderful. Good for you. But I think there's a certain tone to it and it's a subjectivism implicit in the writing that, I mean, turns me off and makes me suspicious of anything she writes. Cook says, what, are you on the left? On the left of whom? On the left of what? Which left? Who's left? Cook! You have to be clearer than that. John asks, rooting for divided government but also the old, young conservative in me has me going for red on Tuesday even though it doesn't make much difference. The problem is that the old, young conservative in you, the people running now are not those kind of conservatives, not even close. The answer, I read you the piece that rejects old-style conservatism the other day from the federalist that is all about power, is all about control. That's the new Republican party, that's who you're voting for, that's the red wave. Daniel, have you ever golfed? How did it go? Miniature golf is as far as I've golfed. And miniature golf, I'm mediocre, mediocre. I've never golfed. Not interested in golfing, never will golf, bad for my back, not in my future. All right, we got four questions, super chat questions. If you have any super chat questions you'd like to ask now is the time, particularly if they're $20 or above. You once said that anarcho-capitalists have an odd habit of wearing bow ties or did it in Rothbard's time, they still do it. And you gave several examples other than Rothbard, please remind me of the list if you recall. Well, Tucker Carlson, when he was an objectivist who wore bow tie, when he was an objectivist, God, did he just say that? Ah, Tucker Carlson, when he was a libertarian wore a bow tie. Who else wears bow ties? I mean, a lot of them do. I don't remember them, I find, didn't the guy I debated in Poland, the anarcho-capitalist, wear a bow tie? Who else wears bow ties? I don't know, there's just a lot of them. When you go to libertarian conferences, you'll find them. So I don't have any names and I don't recall, but if you go to a libertarian conference, you will find them. You will see a lot of bow ties in libertarian conferences. So Jason, Jason Adams, are you at Sivorov in Prague? I'll be in Prague in February, March, coming to Prague to give a talk, so hopefully we can get some interest going and Sivorov can get behind it and help promote it. So, hope that you in Prague. Saul says, no, that's, I just answered that. All right, Jack, any thoughts on the Senate election in North Carolina, bud? I haven't been following it. You know, I didn't think it was close, I didn't bother. It's one of those races which Republicans should win. It would be pretty bizarre if Republicans didn't. So it's, no, I don't know, but again, my criteria is very simple. If the Republican candidate ran a campaign who's, which a big part, Jeffy Tucker was another one who used to wear a bow tie, he still thinks, still does, and he's an anarchist. What did I want? So if the candidate ran a campaign way, election denial was a big part of it, I couldn't vote for him. I couldn't vote for him. If he ran a campaign endorsing national conservatism and the theocrats vision, and no abortion for anybody under any circumstances, couldn't vote for him. So I don't know enough about the candidate in North Carolina to say whether he qualifies one way or the other. Let's see, Saul says, please have David Deutsch on your show. He said he would come on knowing that you're Iranian and would potentially put bash against some ideas. Here's a thought. Rather than having David Deutsch on my show, which is never quite comfortable because somebody comes on my show and I argue with him, it's just not, what about organizing a debate at Oxford between me and David Deutsch or a panel discussion or some event, maybe it could be one of the Oxford societies. Organizing some event where David Deutsch and I talk, maybe there's a moderator asked us questions, it could be a debate, it could be a panel, it could be a discussion, but I'd much rather do it live. I'd much rather do it on neutral territory. You know, I'd love to do it. I think it would be an interesting exchange of ideas and I think you all would benefit from it, although I am worried about him going into cyberspace and physics, places where I cannot reach, but I think there's enough interesting content that would be really vital, but let's do it with a neutral moderator. So if you can find somebody who's willing to do that, who's willing to be the moderator and if we can do it at Oxford Live, next time I'm in England or some period when I'm in England, I think that would be a big event. I think a lot of people would come and see it. I think it would be interesting. I think it would be fun. I think David would enjoy it. I would enjoy it. We'd meet in person rather than online. I just would rather do it that way. So if you have any influence on him, on the people in Oxford, on anybody who can put this on, who can organize it, go for it. Maybe we can even do it in London if we don't want to do it in Oxford, but let's do it live. Adam says, how are you on thoughts on navigating helping a child start with a college selection process? Majors aside, are there any same campuses left to guide young people towards rational thought? Thanks for the great work. Well, first Adam, I know he sent me an email about sponsoring a show. I think it's a great idea. I haven't got a chance to email you back, but I will email you back in the next few days. But I think your idea of a show is terrific. So I think we'll move ahead with it. I think it really does matter what the child wants to study, right? So for example, if it's a STEM, if it's STEM, then I think you go to the best school you think they can get accepted into. I think the STEM rankings are pretty objective. They're pretty good. If they can get into MIT or Caltech, that's where you want them to go. Or Stanford or a bunch of other STEM, great STEM universities, Carnegie Mellon, I mean, there's a bunch of them. That's where you want them to go. So STEM is, I think, relatively easy. The best university, given his scores on tests and given his grades in school and all of that, the best university possible is what I would go. If it's not STEM, then it's a lot more difficult. Then now you have to think about what you want him to get out of his education. What's the value of that education? I would definitely, definitely look at the Lyceum at Clemson University, Brad Thompson's program, which is kind of a great, it's a great books and mentoring program which really, really is old style, in a positive sense, what do you call it, liberal arts education. I think that'll be terrific. I think that'll delve into ancient philosophy, moral character, questions of political philosophy. It's a fantastic program and it's got fantastic teachers. And I would definitely, no matter, if they're not STEM, I would definitely have your kid go to Clemson and check it out. That's number one. I think that's number one on the list. I'd also look at other great books programs. I would look at universities. It depends. Like if he wants to study economics, George Mason is probably the best place to study economics. Don't, if it's in the humanities, don't go by the big rankings. Don't go by the rankings of the universities because the fact is that the higher the ranking, the more corrupt the humanities is there. So go for schools that fit. You might consider one of these new universities that are coming out like University of Austin or something like that. I hope that was helpful, Adam, but happy to also help offline if you like and certainly make an introduction to Brad if that would be helpful. But it really is, where can you get a liberal arts education, a rounded liberal arts education that's not too biased and look for programs that stress that and they are programs like that. Again, probably not at the top universities, but at the second tier of universities. Justin says, Trump will save this country. He won't. The only thing Trump can do to save this country is disappear. James says, what do you think of Thailand and Malaysia? God, that's a big question for two bucks. What do I think of Thailand and Malaysia? I love Thailand, Thailand's an amazing country, amazing people, unbelievably friendly. Just a land of smiles, just beautiful people, beautiful country. I mean, it's intense, it's hot, it's crowded, it's loud, it's dynamic, it's dirty, it's crazy place Thailand, but it's also beautiful and the people are beautiful and the people are friendly. I loved my two trips to Thailand. I had, you know, you're not gonna get better service at a hotel than a Thailand. The best hotels in the world, in my view, in Thailand. So in that sense, I love the place. Now, in addition to that, Thailand is becoming a center of technology. It's got chip manufacturers. It's got a number of high-tech businesses that move to Thailand as an alternative to China. Thailand protects their property rights, it doesn't steal the property rights like the Chinese do. It still has a well-educated, relatively cheap labor force and it's a nice place to live. So yeah, thumbs up on Thailand. Malaysia is problematic primarily because it's a Muslim country. It's, you know, again, Thailand is, just to give a few negatives, it is corrupt and it is, what was I gonna say? God, it's quite corrupt, the government is, oh yeah, I mean, it's not exactly a free place. That is, the military in Thailand kind of controls the place. It goes in and out of officially controlling and then goes to the background and then it comes back and controls and it's a bit of an authoritarian state although for the most part, from what I understand, people are pretty much left alone. So just, you know, you probably, I don't know how much you want to criticize government but generally if you leave people alone, they leave you alone in Thailand. Malaysia is Muslim and that's the challenge with Malaysia is it's too Muslim and but it's, you know, it's been growing. The most dynamic part of Malaysia are the ethnic Chinese, they've always been the richest, the most entrepreneurial but they're also prosecuted in Malaysia. So I guess I'm a little less positive about Malaysia because of the world of Islam in the country. It's one of the few countries in the world that you cannot enter with an Israeli passport. Len says, forget David Deutsch, have a discussion with Anil Seth and his new compilation being you, the new science of consciousness, very interesting and listening to it, 3X, much more challenging to integrate than David. I don't know anything about Anil Seth but again, I am open to anybody arranging for a debate, a discussion, a panel discussion, a conversation, Anil Seth, I don't know if he knows me, I certainly don't know him. I'm not sure if his book is about the new science of consciousness, I'm not sure I have anything to add or to debate. I don't think I'm enough of an expert in the field to have a too deep of a discussion with somebody like that but I don't know enough about him. Okay, Jason writes, I am here in Washington state now. I may get back to Prague in March. My business partner at the bar knows and works with Joseph Sema, bowtie from several. I heard Joseph Sema though though, that's right, Joseph Sema is another one of those anarchists who wear a bowtie. I heard Joseph Sema is no longer a several though. I heard he was, he left or kicked out or something. So if you have the scoop on that, that would be really interesting because I, whoops, I'm trying to ban, somebody's hide use on this channel. Okay, we got some spam. Yeah, but once I know the dates that I'll be in Prague, I'll let you know just in case, but you can let people know. Let's see, James writes, the future is Asian by Parang Khan, shows Asia as whole is a superpower waiting to be born. Does Europe or Asia have a more pro-capitalism future? I mean, hard to tell. And it depends on so many different factors. Five, six, seven years ago, I would have said this, I would have said definitely Asia, no question about it. But I've seen the U-turn that China has done, the reversal of its policies and its move away from economic freedom. And I don't know. I think that bodes ill for the rest of Asia. Also Asia, it depends on the part of Asia, but Eastern Asia is getting old, right? It has very low both rates. It's an aging population, Japan, South Korea and China up countries that are getting very old and very fast declining, very fast declining, what do you call it, birth rate. So I'm not particularly positive about those parts of the world with those kind of declining birth rates and a movement away from capitalism, particularly on the part of China. I don't know what's gonna happen with Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, you know, Indonesia and Malaysia have Islam. India is turning nationalist. So, you know, I don't know. I don't know. Frank says, do you like gold used for trade in Roland's world? Yeah, I like the fact that gold is kind of money in the Harry Potter universe and that it's all kept in a vault and their bankers and so on. Yeah, I mean, I think she does it more for historical reasons than for economic reasons. I mean, she's quite a leftist when it comes to economics, but yeah, it's pretty cool that gold is used. Justin says, please talk about House of Dragon. House of Dragon is a big show and I can't give, I'll just give you two minutes on it. You know, it's entertaining, it's well written, it creates some drama, it's a little slow paced and of course, the whole points of the House of Dragon and true of the original is that it's all about political power and it's only about political power and it's about the ends to which people will go towards political power and there's no positive, there's no good guys. They know, I mean, what does it mean to be a good guy in the universe of the House of Dragons? Protect the individual rights of the citizens, provide them with little liberty, get involved in fewer wars, I don't know, but there is no concept of a good guy other than more murderous, less murderous, more scheming, less scheming, more intent on revenge, less intent on revenge. So it's interesting, it's fun, but at that end, intellectually, it goes no way, it teaches us nothing except on this, it prevents us with scheming politicized lives of people and a very, very negative projection of, if you will, the world in which we live to the extent that we take the world in which we live to be like House of Dragons, that would be very negative. Hopefully none of us live in a world like that, but our politics is becoming more and more like that. It's all about power and nothing else. It's all about who sits on the iron throne. But very, you know, very well done. All right, Finn Harper says, "'Listening to failing to confront "'Islamic to Teleteranism by Ilan Jordan and Ancargati "'over the last few days, I get the impression "'from social media that pre-2001 Middle East "'conflict is not well known.'" I don't think the Middle East conflict has ever been well known, or is well known today, or is well known post-2001. I think 99.9% of people out there, including almost all the intellectuals, are ignorant about conflicts in the Middle East. I think there's almost very little knowledge about it. It's why I think a lot of people like my history of the Middle East and my history of the rise of Islamic to Teleteranism, of Islamism, why they like those courses, because people just don't know, and these courses suddenly present them with information that was not, you know, was not that good. Present them with information that they didn't know, so for the first time, God. Finn Harper says, "'Thanks, you and the amazing members of AOI "'for talking about pre-2001 stuff. "'As often as you do, "'I would have never known about 200-plus Marines "'who lost their lives without all of you.'" Yeah, thank you. I mean, and it's, yes. It's sad that people don't know the history, you know, and it's hard to understand the present. It's hard to understand what one should do in the present without knowing the history. So please listen to my history of the Middle East, short history of the Middle East, and my history of the Islamist movement, which are available for free on YouTube. I think they're incredibly valuable. Jack says, "'Do you think Peacock agrees with you about 2022? "'Harry Binswanger.'" Oh, I think Harry agrees with me about 2022. I don't know specifically, because I haven't talked to him, but just from the little life scene of him writing about it, I think, and just our discussions about politics over the last few years, I think he would agree with me about 2022. I think Leonard probably does not. Leonard doesn't. Obviously, he doesn't agree with me about Trump. I'm not gonna comment on that, and I'm not gonna discuss my disagreement with Leonard about Trump publicly. I mean, we've had those discussions privately, but I have no intention of discussing them publicly. But yeah, I mean, it's well known that Peacock, at least to some extent, supported Trump. And that I don't, and that we disagree about this, and we know it about each other, and we've talked about it. So it is what it is. Kimberley, isn't DeSantis a horrible Trumpite? Why endorse? First of all, I haven't endorsed it. I said, if you want DeSantis, then if you, not me necessarily, I don't particularly want DeSantis. But I think DeSantis would be an improvement over Trump, because I don't think he's really a Trumpist. I think he's really, really bad. But he's bad in a different way than Trump. He's not as disruptive. He's not as, how would you answer that, what I'm looking for? He's not as, it doesn't look quite as down onto the Constitution as Trump does. I think he has a better understanding of what America is, and what America stands for. He might betray that. He might betray that. But he at least has some knowledge of it, some appreciation of it. I think he's better than Trump in economics from what people tell me. But I'm not endorsing him. I mean, I would say, I wanna wait and see when he wants the president, what does he actually say? What does he stand for? To what extent, and then I'd like to see, to what extent is his positioning himself as a Trumpist on social issues? To what extent is that real? And to what extent is that political maneuvering? I mean, my candidate has been for a long time as Nikki Haley, but I don't think he has a chance. That's the reality. I think DeSantis can be dealt with because he comes, he has a certain approach. He is somewhat intellectual. Trump is just a mindless thug. He's a mindless, pragmatic thug. And people like that can only destroy. They can only tear down. They can only rip apart. DeSantis you can never debate with. You can't ever debate with Trump. There's nothing to discuss. Again, and that might be wrong. DeSantis might be a lot worse than I think and that's quite possible. I wouldn't rule it out. I think he could be much worse. But let's see. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know exactly what Trump is. I know exactly why it's a disaster for the country if they have Trump get reelected and to have Trump have influence generally. And that's why I'm suggesting that the real Trumpist should be voted out this session. I don't think there will be. I think the Republicans are gonna win big on Tuesday, unfortunately. I think it's gonna be in that sense a depressing night. It'll be fun to watch the Democrats squirm. It's always fun to watch the left squirm. But I do think it's gonna be depressing night. I think if you're into politics then find the few classical liberals within the Republican Party and support them as much as you can and to hell with the rest. All right, thank you everybody. We did well in the super chat. We had a lot of good questions. I appreciate that. Thank you for the support. Thank you for the questions. Thank you again, Troy, for coming in from Canada and helping out and thank you, Adam, really appreciate it. And I will see you guys tomorrow, probably at eight, well, 7 p.m. Eastern time. And it's not gonna be 7 p.m. Eastern time. Because you guys moved your clock in Puerto Rico didn't. So I'm an hour ahead. Catherine says, we did it. We smashed the goal. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you for everything you do. And let's see, what else did I wanna say? Yes, tomorrow's a show. Those of you who wanna support the show monthly, please do so. You're on bookshow.com slash support. But Patreon is a great place. Subscribestar works really well. And so does Locals. Any one of those places, particularly if they're people listening to the show who can afford and get enough value to justify, get enough value from the show to justify, $100 or $250 or $500 monthly contributions. That is super appreciated and, yeah, super appreciated. And is what keeps the show going in a life. But those of you who can do $2, $25, $10, $50, all welcome. Thanks, everybody. See you all soon. Bye.