 No radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, no radical and fundamental principles of. This is the Iran Brookshow. Hey, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Saturday afternoon, the o'clock Eastern time. Everybody is having a great start to your weekend, middle of your weekend. I don't know, but the interview is doing well. We've got an AMA today. We've got our panel of contributors, and of course you can use the super chat to ask questions. The panel is smaller than usual, which is fine. I think the email went out late today, so that's always a challenge, but we will go through the panel, take questions, and then if you have super chat questions, you can ask them. You can ask on any topic you want. So free for all. And anything that comes up, I guess I can't promise to answer anything, everything, but I will try. Also, I just want to remind people tomorrow we will have a members only show. For those of you who are members, and if you're not a member, you can become a member now and attend that show. It's pretty easy. You just click on the joint button below. It's something like five bucks a month or something like that, and you can join. So I suggest doing the minimum on YouTube, and then doing your monthly subscription on some of the other platforms like Patreon, Subscribestar, Locals, or what is it, uronbrookshow.com slash support. Members show tomorrow will be, I decided on a topic since you guys sent me no suggestions. So thanks for all the help. You sent no suggestions. So the topic I've decided is how to live a moral life in an irrational world. So it should be fun. It should be interesting. It's a question I think on a lot of people's mind, a lot of our minds. It's going to be at 1pm East Coast time. So a good time for Europeans, not so good for West Coast, but hopefully okay for the for the East Coasters. All right. So I think Andrew is joining as well. Let's admit Andrew. And let's see anything else I need to announce. Monday there will be two shows morning and night. I don't have a topic yet for the evening show. I'm still working on that. But we will have two shows that day and then Tuesday I fly to Medellin, Colombia. So the what used to be the, I guess the drug cartel capital of the world. I don't know what the bigger I am told. I'll find out, I guess. If you hear bullets while I'm doing right. If you hear gunfire while I'm doing my show for Medellin, you'll know, whoops, I got it wrong. Oh, Adam, Adam, are you going to refer to some think I've never heard of. Yes, he is. I'm supposed to read this why other people are asking questions. All right. So let us start with. Yes, Skyler says I will see knockers in real life. Yes, that TV show knockers, which is set in Medellin. I will see a supposed to be a beautiful city. So again, you'll have firsthand information for me. Probably Wednesday, I will be doing two talks on Wednesday at the university. Hopefully I'll have a chance also to do a show during my time there. All right, let's see where we starting we're going to start with Fred Harper who got on here first and and go for it for it. So, real quick on the on like the members only part of the YouTube page. Yeah, there was a post asking for topics and had three comments. So you know, but somebody's supposed to check that and let me know so he screwed up. I got you. Oh, I didn't see them. And I don't even know if I had much of a question. So yeah, that sucks. Skip. Yeah, skip for now. Thanks. Sorry, did you say you. Yes, I did. So the first thing I wanted to ask about is if you've read a book called the world for sale. It's by have your blocks. It's about commodity traders. So people like Mark rich, Glen core. Cargill. Yeah, I have not, I've not read the book now. Okay, well then I'll just start off with the recommendation I just finished and it's really interesting goes over the history of these companies. They started what they do. How they get involved in political corruptions. Sometimes how they help governments of aid sanctions to to trade. Sure, how they made a ton of how they made a ton of money in 2020 by basically buying oil and putting it in tankers just to sit there until until the futures could close and made 300% on those contracts. These are guys who know how to take advantage of a crazy world than a world of mixed economy and a world of actually a world of corruption and they, they make money at it but they also make it work in a sense that is commodities flow they get around the different barriers that the government set up. Somebody is going to bribe these guys. So it might as well be the guys who are trying to make money and they're trying to get the commodities to, in a sense, price them based on market prices at least. So, yes, Mark Rich actually, you know, was prosecuted was prosecuted from guilty was evaded down by living in Switzerland if I remember right and then Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton who pardoned him. He was also a huge contributed to Clinton campaign, not accidentally, and then Bill Clinton pardoned him before he left office. I remember Mark Rich actually met a guy she just met somebody in Switzerland. I was, I was talking this fund family office, who the fund had actually started with Mark Rich's money and now that the more diversified but the original was which is money. Yeah, all these companies are headquartered in Switzerland. And the latter part of the book has got some interesting stuff about how the trade is diminishing one because information is just, you know, easier to get for everybody. And then to also the US government has gotten much more aggressive about policing the banking system. So if you're doing any kind of a trade that uses US dollars, they will come after you if you're dealing with sanctioned people or corruption. And that just limits what you can do and now there's a rise in Chinese commodity traders, because of course they don't have to play by those rules. No, I think that's absolutely right. I mean, and I think that this is going to be part of the US losing its edge globally is the fact that the US government, and in particular the US Federal Reserve are so intrusive and incapable of monitoring every transaction you do in your bank. Now, if you get $600 and Venmo Venmo is supposed to report it to the US government $600 that that's the level it used to be 10,000 was the threshold no more it's it's now with Venmo PayPal things like that $600. The US government is throttling the ability of businesses to do business it's a particularly finance. And yeah, I think that the Chinese are going to gain an advantage, advantage doing this. But, but, yes, some of these things were borderline were clearly illegal. Some of it was in mall, but most of it was none of the government's business. Is that's my first question just that recommendation. Okay, what was the name of the book again. The world for sale. And it's by one of the guys who wrote it as a reporter named the our gloss also posts a lot of interesting stuff on commodity trading stuff on Twitter places. Definitely look for it. Thanks. I'm going to defend Harper says he's got a question now so go for it. So I was listening to the six pillars of self esteem by Nathaniel Brandon. And I got to thinking that you do you suppose that there's probably a lot of people who are explicitly believe objectivism is correct but just aren't virtuous about it, kind of like a, like a Christian who just sends all the time. It's perfect. Because I like I feel like I need a lot on discord and Twitter and stuff and there's like seem to know the words but our haven't like integrated it yet or something. Yeah, so I don't want to call them like Christians Christianity is very simple. It gives you a set of rules and you have to follow those rules and it's kind of a dog man you learn the dog man you just do it. And since it's not really doable people people skim objectivism requires you to really think about it requires you to study it particularly in the culture we live in today with, which is a culture that is anti objectivist opposite of it so to really integrate these ideas you have to do a lot of thinking a lot of psychological work a lot of work on yourself and your behavior and your goals and your values and and everything and and that's a real achievement. So the fact that people are still working on it the fact that people are in the middle the fact that people are that that is not the same thing as as I know it all and I'm deciding not to abide by it they might be some people like that but I don't think it's not because you know partially because it's just not a lot of people who know it all, but also because once you devote that kind of effort to really figuring your life out and figuring out your values and figuring out what's important. And even that the philosophy is a philosophy of happiness. I just don't think that there's much of an incentive to to renege on it and to cheat on it. I think the people who don't live it consistently other people who haven't done the work, who haven't really integrated who haven't done, who haven't thought it through who haven't invested in it. And that's most people. Most people read the books and they say, cool I really like that. But, but doesn't go any further than that. And to add real quick to this kind of a message to other advocates of objectivism out there trying to spread and get people into it and when you're when you're talking to people who it's all foreign or they have like a really like a different philosophy they're pretty committed to remember to have a little bit of patience because like there's a whole factor of neural pathways made in their brain and overcoming that's a lot of work. I learned that one from Leonard Leonard Peacoff art of thinking is that they have like this neural pathways in their brain, pretty much cemented in one way. And you won't probably get them on the first go. So be patient guys. It'll, it'll, it'll come through eventually. All right. Okay, so let's see Seymour. Can you pass my kids are screaming at in the background. Yes, I wanted to discuss with you. The accuracy 2.0 as you know from Leonard Peacoff's the dem hypothesis. It's the accuracy, not socialism. The accuracy being more superficially integrated that is misintegrated that presents an increasing political challenge in the world. And this has become particularly relevant because put in who started out as a KGB guy is used to using the communist international or common turn as the agency of Soviet foreign policy. And now that communism went down almost everywhere. He needs a substitute and the substitute is a new theocratic international where he is allied, both with theocratic governments like that of Iran. And with theocratic movements like the theocratic wing of the Republican Party in the US. Now, the first, but the theocracy that's emerging is not the old fashioned dark ages, the accuracy where the government is actually led by a religious figure. Instead, it's theocracy 2.0, which started with phalanges and the first phalanges regime was Franco in Spain, where the titular head of the government was secular, but the state was actually run by the Catholic Order of Opus Dei. And the original Opus Dei ideologist of phalanges and Bolesław Piasecki, who realized long before we objective is dead that Marxism is essentially Christianity in a very thin coat of secular paint. And therefore, in the political realm. The communists and the fascists are ideal collaborator collaborators in implementing this new version of theocracy. Yeah, yeah, so I think there's that you know there's a lot there but there's no question that dictators in order to rule need an ideology in order to they need a witch doctor right so they need an ideology on which to justify the rule and to justify for the people why the people should let them get away with the rule and whether the whether the the dictators actually believe in the ideology or not as irrelevant they use the ideology in order to control the people and so it's not relevant. To some extent, the extent to which Stalin believe you know had read Marx and believed in everything Marx I think he had and he did. But the point is he used it in order to suppress his people and he used it in order to keep the intellectuals in check, and he used it in terms to give him so called legitimacy. And I think you're absolutely right Putin, I don't know what Putin's deep down beliefs are, but Putin uses for example the Christian Catholic Christian Orthodox Church as a justification he uses that to rally the Hungarians and others around a certain banner and you know Putin himself doesn't seem to care that much about the particulars of the religion. He is quite eager to work with the Iranians, although you know the Iranians do care about religion so the particulars of the religions I think that's one difference. The Iranians are true that theocracy 1.0, not at theocracy 2.0, they have theocracy that really believes in Islam and implement Islam and as you said Putin is no Christian, and he doesn't really, you know, apply Christianity to the lives of day to day Russians it's not like, you know, the Orthodox Church runs Russia, Putin's runs Russia and he uses the Orthodox Christian Church to give him cover to do whatever he wants to do. And I think the same is true in Hungary, the same is potentially true in Poland. But look, the fascists, if you look at the fascist literature, if you look at the, the, it was a name Evoli, the Italian fascists that the people who came, who came about in the 1920s 30s and then post war in the 1950s, who the white today reads and the old white today loves and, and all of that, they all use Christianity or some form of mysticism to justify what is naked fascism or naked totalitarianism. And they are today the inspiration for I think the elements within the new right. And, and those, of course, elements love, love Putin and this is why I think it's so important for Putin to lose. Because I think a loss for Putin would be a setback for this ideology. And they're split on the one hand, he's helping Putin so they like him on the other hand they hate him, because he's very different and he's China, and there's generally a huge suspicion of China on the old right. So Putin loses become losing becomes a really, really important I think as a setback for this entire movement. What I wanted to add is that to the phalanges. It does not really matter what the religion what the ideology of self sacrifice is. And in Franco's regime, his main allies were the Islamists of the Spanish colonies in North Africa. So that there was an alliance of Catholics and Islamists. Interesting. And Putin has done the same thing in Chechnya. And this is only after he killed a huge percentage of the Chechen population crushed the Islamists, and then aligned with them so I mean he did it from a particular position of strength, where he made it clear to who rules over whom. But yes he's a you know a big chunk of the Russian population. I don't think people know this, but a significant proportion of the Russian population is Muslim. It's not just Chechnya it's the whole that whole area in the Caucasus, and then in Eastern in parts of Central Russia, north of Kazakhstan that those areas are Muslim. Russia generally is a very, I wonder what conservatives think of this is a very multi ethnic multi religion, you know and Islamic and Christian country, you know the ethnicity of the people in Central Asia is different than those in East Asia is different than those within Russia is different than those in the West who are mostly European is different than those in the South in the Caucasus in the Caucasus which are very different. So it seems to be a huge. You know, huge. You know, differences in ethnicities and different religion and they don't care so they're particular fascism different than American you write their particular fascism is not related to race and ethnicity whereas much of the altruists certainly in the United States is related to particular religion in particular color skin. But you know just just that's just another. Well, the key idea of phalangism is that the state is the representative of God on earth. chooses, who will be and who will run the state and therefore here on earth, unlike in heaven, the state is who should be primarily served by the adherent of phalangism. By the way, in China phalangism may also be useful because on the one hand secular ideologies like Marxism and Confusionism, as long as they preach self sacrifice to a collective are perfectly acceptable to the phalanges and can be part of the coalition. At the same time, it's a way to integrate the Buddhist and Muslim and other religious minorities in China into the rule of the state by placing the state above everything else. Exactly. Yeah, it's scary stuff but it's it's where unfortunately we're heading okay let's let's go back to Seymour hopefully the kids are more quiet. Hey, glad to finally have a conversation with you since the whole kind of last summer. A couple months ago you mentioned you started Peter's I am both just wondering if you got through it. I think some of the, I'm almost done not last few pages left. I think some of the things he gets right are obvious but if you did finish it curious. I didn't actually finish it I don't think I finished it all the way through I kind of got the thrust of what he's trying to do and then it becomes more particulars of this particular place or that particular place. And as I said at the time I don't think anything changed from my evaluation when I when I read in the middle, and I've watched some videos of his particular with regard to Russia. And it just strikes me that he says things with this unbelievable confidence as if it's absolutely unquestionably true. And when you actually dig a little bit. It's not at all right and and so I think he gets the Russian war wrong I think is motivated puts his motivation he gets wrong to a large extent because he rejects the world of ideas and history which is the the core. I think there are a lot of countries he can't explain. I don't think you can really explain Israel based on his, his geography certainly Israel does not have a geography that that helps that would help Israel be successful. I don't think he explains Argentina he views Argentina as this potentially amazing place right because it has natural resources. It has this this access to the to the Atlantic and not really access to Pacific but certainly access to Atlantic, and yet Argentina is a basket case indeed, because again I think he, he ignores the world of ideas so there and and and I think he ignores. In the case of Russia ignores religion. He ignores the wall of personality worship he ignores the significance of Putin, the kind of person Putin is and his, and his kind of impact on the world out there. And therefore he doesn't quite understand why this war started. It's not about just about it might be partially about geography get getting to the mountain ranges and stuff like that I don't think that has any much to do with it at all. It has nothing to do with the vision of of an empire and it's much more to do with Putin's dying regime and trying to save that regime and trying to give. You know they really is this notion among authoritarians but not only among authoritarians the Neoconservatives in America had had this that war is a good tonic. And it gets the blood rolling it, it, it, it, it's it emboldens the spirit there's a nobility in war you really test people in war you know you put them in those trenches and you really see who's a man in a war. I mean it's stupid and barbaric when you, but people believe this stuff. So what's your impression of the book since you've, you got further along than I did. Israel was one thing that stuck out as I'm reading the final pages, like everyone else around Israel is screwed but he doesn't explain some of the ideas. Yeah, he seems to either he shows evidence that he knows ideas make America great but he doesn't seem to apply that to audio like a country like Israel. Yeah, and I'd say the Middle East is not screwed. You know if they had the right ideas right. So and that's the point the geography doesn't matter you know how do you explain Singapore. How do you say in Singapore. Yeah, has a coast but it has no natural resources how do you explain Hong Kong. If Saudi Arabia had this wouldn't be the thing that is that kills it is the is the fact that it just has oil just as natural resources and nothing else. So, um, yeah I mixed on him, but he's so confident he has a great presentation style I see why millions of people following. I mean, if you go out into the world this is the if you is that is my tip today for today. Do you guys want to have a massive following on YouTube and in the world out there. Figure out a reason why the world might end or the world as we know it might end in the next 10 years have super confidence in it. You have some reasonable explanations for why it doesn't have to be good explanations just reasonable explanation for why it is, and just pound at it just pound at it and pound it, but you have to have a negative twist. If it's a positive that the world is going to do great and things are going to be fantastic. You won't make a dime but if you if you're about some catastrophe. Peter I think is an example of that of course the US survives and does well, which is a little bit of optimism but but the rest of the world is just toast and the and the whole world order shifts I learned some stuff. I learned some stuff from Peter so I do. I do like some of his approach and I do appreciate his appreciation of free trade, which is a real plus. Thanks. All right, let's see who haven't we had Andrew. Hi, you're on a couple of follow ups from your exchange with Adam. Can you expand on the connection between Marxism and Christianity. Yeah. I think of Marxism as a system that requires you to sacrifice. Oh, think of Christianity so with Christianity Christianity has basically two fundamental premises one is truth is a noble to the individual it comes from some kind of mystical revelation. And to your life is not yours your life is to be sacrificed to a something God in this case but but your life is not yours. Christianity says fill in the blank with God and fill in the black you know fill in the blank with God and fill in with blank with mystical revelation, you know what you know through mystical revelation, and, and, and you're supposed to sacrifice to God. Marxism basically takes that same basic idea replaces God with the Poletarian. And, and you have the same deal. You don't have, you don't have access to knowledge you don't know anything you're completely determined as an individual. Your fate is basically determined by forces outside of your control. All knowledge is attained by the proletarian. By the way, because all knowledge is attained by the proletarian know by individuals, you need a mediator you need somebody to take that knowledge and mediate between the Poletarian and the world of the Platonic world of forms where this knowledge emanates from. And you can call that the dictator that that is a Mao that is a Lenin that is a Marx, they are the mediators, or in Christianity that's the Pope. The Pope is a mediator that your priest is a mediator he gets the truth and he reveals it to you and then of course sacrifice you as an individual don't matter. But you're not supposed to sacrifice to God God God is not God doesn't exist. He's supposed to sacrifice the world does exist which is the Poletarian the the the the the map the masses of man humankind. Who, who matter everybody else doesn't matter. Can I assume that the proletariat comes to know things mystically or is, does Marxism have some view on how the proletarian gains the knowledge that no. No view of how the politician gets that basically they need a leader and and ultimately Marx says there's in his utopia. He never explains how you get to the utopian it doesn't really explain how the utopia works, then everybody does what they want there is no dictator it's it's like it's like a not anarchist. It's like it's like what do you call it. No I'm Chomsky's kind of anarchy. It just exists and he never explains it exactly how it exists how it functions, and he never explains how you get there, but there is a period of dictatorship that has to happen, because you know maybe in this utopia everybody gets the knowledge directly I don't know. In the intermediate period you definitely need a dictator to intermediate between the place where truth lies and the the Poletarian. Remember, all of these philosophies are fundamentally platonic. They're all Plato's cave where you know it's all there's a world of forms up there where the truth resides and then it's just a question can access it. And that's Christianity is very platonic in that sense. Neoplatonic they call it but it's it's platonic. All right. Thanks, Andrew. Let's go to a super chat. Let me just remind everybody we have a goal for the super chat is 650 were about were about 175 dollars in. Let me ask those of you want to ask questions hopefully we can we can have you do it the $20 or more level, just because they're already a lot of five to $10 questions. I can't go on forever with this. So if you keep adding five to $10 questions, I won't be able to get to all of them. So fewer questions with more dollars associated with them and then I'll be able to get to answer all of them today while we're going. All right, let's start with Clark with $50. Thank you, Clark. Very generous do conservatives see altruism as much of an ideal is the left. The only difference is conservatives we could judge you'd really accept the fact that human beings will never live up to altruism. While the left still believes societies can achieve it. Yeah, there's a, I think that's right. There's a certain absolutely. The white, the conservatives are altruists, the fundamental differences. The white does not try to perfect man in this or perfection of man happens in the afterlife. They accept that you're a sinner, they accept that you'll never live up to the standard of altruism. It accepts that you are always going to be flawed and and and therefore, you know, it's much easier to inflict guilt on a conservative than it is, I think on the leftist, because of that. But it's because built guilt is built into the system. It's built into the entire way in which they approach the world they have original sin. They're flawed to begin with the guilty to begin with. You just have to find out the exact way in which the guilty but altruism, absolutely through religion on the right and through secular philosophy in the left dominates everybody, everybody. I need to debate a simple Catholic priest I have I've debated. I've debated a member of the, of what he call it's, I forget the name of the nonprofit that tries to fence capitalism on the basis of Catholicism. We had a debate at the Mont Pelerin society where I said Catholicism and Christianity generally incompatible with Liberty. It was not a popular point of view. It was that debate was in Dallas and no it wasn't in Dallas is Miami, and it was not a popular point of view among American libertarians who are very religious. Okay, Michael asks, people often say everyone is racist as though it's hardwired into us and most sophisticated among us know how to contain it better. Do you ever make snap judgments and assumptions based on a person's appearance. Sure, I do, I make you, I do and then I have to decide. You know, do I put them aside. Is there reason for me to act on them. But absolutely. You do that partially in the context. But appearance is pretty broad how they dressed, you know how sheveled they are. I don't think I do that with forgot a color of skin, but maybe I do but then the question is, do you use those snap judgments in your actions do you actually act on them do you actually use them as cognition or do you just attribute them to snap judgment that you know I lots of my emotions I put aside and say, I, there's a I need to act rationally. So the fundamental is do you act and judge when you have the time rationally. And I don't think everyone is a racist. You know I don't think everybody has to be racist I don't think everybody is a racist so no. Great show on Israel it got me thinking if you run that's anything you can Israel. I can see a lot of the world blaming Israel is this moral justification for crushing the enemy now. If everyone is against you existing I say yes. Yeah I mean I think, I think anytime there was an enemy that that threatens you substantially. You have a moral reason to crush them as soon as you can. There's no, there's no virtue in waiting. And Israel should have crushed Iran a while back it should crush you run now America should crush you on. There's no reason to wait until actually develop nuclear weapons to do it, indeed it becomes harder and harder. If they develop those nuclear weapons or if they get closer developing those nuclear weapons so the sooner you do it, the better off you are. Harper says how can people not become nihilist if they're unfamiliar with objectivism without objectives firewall protection, protect the software uploaded into your consciousness. One can't help but to become resentful cynic and nihilist. I'm not. I don't think that's true. I mean there's there's a lot to life there's a lot of reason to embrace life. There's a lot of reason to to want to live even if you're not an objectivist and just look around you and you can see lots and lots and lots of people who are not nihilists some people, for example, embrace religion as because they need something they need some values they want something some way out to the embrace religion in order to compensate but they don't become nihilists others just focus on their career focus on something where they have control and where they can, they have a sense of, of being able to be rational so I don't think the alternative is objectivism and nihilism although yes, if you take the other philosophies to the logical conclusions, then almost everybody would be an nihilist but they don't, they, they, they, what do you call it smooth off the edges and they, they don't take it too seriously and they, they, most people are pragmatists, where they don't take any ideology seriously and they do things on a day to day basis based on what they think works. Liam, will this, Liam says will the Social Security and Medicaid eligibility age be raised to 70. I'm thinking of taking Social Security out when I turn 62. Since if I die before I start collecting I can't leave it to my family. It is such an evil racket. Yes, I think the optimal age to take it out at 67. I think there's a math associated with that. So you should look at that I'll be 62 very soon. So, but I think I'm waiting with my Social Security until I think it's optimal 67 or 69 something like that is optimal. I'll, I'll make the evaluation when it gets closer to being relevant. But I doubt 62 makes sense unless you think you're going to live less than what you know what your expected life expectancy is. If you do your life expectancy expected life expectancy is probably into the 80s. There's no reason unless you're sick or something. There's no reason to think you're going to you're going to live less than that. Thanks. Thanks for the support. All right, we're like it at 200 bucks. So we still got $450 to go to get our goal. So we do have relatively few people listening, watching live today. I'm not sure exactly what happened. I guess maybe I didn't advertise enough or maybe we didn't do enough marketing for it but less than usual. Maybe somebody can go on YouTube and quit and remind people on live right now and they can come and ask questions that would be that actually would be would be cool. All right, what do I do here. We're going back to our panel I see Adam has his hand up so we'll start with Adam go for that. Yes, in America a few years ago, Leonard Pico was still of the opinion that the left is an immediate threat, greater than the theocratic right. My own assessment in the current situation is that the theocratic right, because it is based on a superficially integrated set of ideas is much more politically stable and dangerous than the left. And really should be enemy number one for those of us who want capitalism. I mean, I think that is an open question I suddenly agree with that I do think that the right is more of an enemy than the left certainly long term and maybe even short term. But a lot of people don't I don't think for example and to pick off agrees with that I think he definitely views the left as a bigger threat in the short term in the right. And I think there's a there's a healthy debate to be had about that. It is true in the long run I think Leonard pick up point is, and I think this is absolutely true in the long run the crazier the left becomes the more wacky the left becomes the more the American people rejected. And the more the American people look for an integrated philosophy and the more they'll embrace authoritarianism or kind of some kind of theocratic point of view which is kind of Leonard, the way it plays out right you go, you first hit D to a completely perspective, which is where the left is today, only then is there backlash to bring some organization to the world, we're in that that backlash historically has been an M2 and that's that's at least my understanding of Leonard pick ups dim hypothesis in his in his view. You know the left right now, if you took the left seriously and thought they could govern and thought they could sustain themselves, then the left will kill us all very quickly. There's no question about that. The right might want to control us the left would would kill us. But I don't think I think the thing that makes the left weaker than the right. The thing that makes the left likes dangerous than the right is the fact that the left is unstable and sustainable and unappealing to the American people I don't think the American people will vote for communist I don't think they'll vote for socialist, but I do think they'll vote for an authoritarian theocrats so that's where the danger comes from. Well, what I see here is that the pro Putin theocratic faction of the Republican Party is today's equivalent to members of the Communist Party. Now it's true that Putin only kills people in the thousands, not in the millions like Stalin. So, in a sense, they are less dangerous here. But what you have in Putin is an agenda of saving godly civilization from the Satanism of the Enlightenment ideas. That is why he characterizes his word war in Ukraine as anti Satanist. Yes, I think that's right. He's trying to hook in to all these ideas. But the difference is that I think that the pro Putin wing of the Republican Party, as bad as that is. I don't, I don't think that that is the only idea they hold and some of the ideas that they hold are, you know, they hold these contradictions they hold pro Putin they hold profanning fathers not all of them. There's certainly a wing of the of the Republican Party that is pro Putin that is also completely dictatorial and and theocratic. And I don't think that the lines and I don't think that wing of the Republican Party that is consistently anti American dominates a Republican Party yet. I think there's still going to be a few phases before it becomes the dominant voice and the dominant application that theocratic application. But, you know, maybe it's this next election, maybe it's three elections on the road but suddenly they have the momentum on their side and they are the most consistent of all the others all the others have to live with contradictions. All the others have to live with with with inherent contradiction between their ideas that are ultimately disintegrating theirs is a cohesive coherent view of the world as evil as it might be. Adam, let's see Seymour. Hey, I have a lighter question so sorry to all the serious listeners but on your recent trip to Europe some of your your live stream and your recordings sounded really good and I know you were talking about some of the equipment upgrades. You had and you travel light. So I was curious and anticipation of your next travels. Sure. What was what was your hardware. So, so the hardware is the same hardware I've been using for a long time except for one aspect which is the mic. The user Apple MacBook Air and a Sony, I think it's 100 100 cameras so it's a, it's a all in one without a exchangeable lens Sony camera but it's a good camera and I think it costs 1000 bucks whenever I bought a way back or 600 or 800 something in that range. So it's a good camera. It's a it's a downgrade from the camera use here here I use a camera with a real lens and this one's a Sony alpha something. And then the difference was that I that I got this these mics that are super cool. They're just cool tech it's it's it's DJI so DJI are known for their drones, but they have these if you look wireless mics DJI Amazon sells on a bunch of people sell them. And the super compact they clip on mics the wireless clip on mics, the super compact that can connect to your iPhone that connect to your computer. They're two mics so I could do a debate and have the other guy might I so this means I can go into talk with my little backpack of a few a few a few of these items just a computer. And now you need a lot of goggles because partially because of the Mac partially because to get from the Sony to take the Sony picture and digitalize it into a Mac, you have to have one of these. What is it's basically analog to digital computers I've got one here that I use for my setup. But on the road to have a little one. So you have to have all the little cables and all the way dollars. The thing I love about the DJI is it comes with everything, all the cables you need everything. And it's this little box like this it's like one of those charging cables for your wireless headphones that you put in and use the case to charge it does the same thing. So my stuff is always charged it's like a 17 hour life I can do long interviews with it. So I really enjoyed using it and it's made me more open to just taking my equipment and taking everything with my equipment rather than relying on people locally to tape and and stream and I'll be doing that I assume in in Latin America that there's a little bit of a challenge in Latin America and that is, and I apologize if I offend any anybody who lives in Latin America. But the challenge of Latin America is, I have to be careful it doesn't get stolen, whereas I don't you don't really think about that in Europe. Not much in Latin America you that has to be top of mind you don't carry your backpack on your back you put it up front and you have to be very careful so that's one and the other is, we'll see what the quality of Wi Fi is I might not be able to live stream it, but if I can't live stream it at least I'll be able to record it and then upload it later. That's that's my setup. I have this bag that it just contains all my cables and all my doggles and all my things that just it's just a little bag with that I have a tripod. It's very foldable and very very thin, so it couldn't carry like a big camera but for my camera it's perfect that I can either put on a desk or I can put I can actually it expands all the way that you can put it on the ground. So, my little carry on my computer bag has my camera the Mike my computer my iPad, all my doggles and cables and all of that the tripod. And then I even have a little thing for the show and I do the show that raises my laptop up so that when I'm looking at the screen, it's almost at the same eye level as the camera. All of that fits into my computer bag which weighs a ton, but it's still legal into what might not be legal by weight but it's legal by size to take on to a plane and I travel. I never check bags I travel to bags. To me bag for my closest stuff that's just a little bigger than regulation in the US, but is regulation in Europe Europe has allows for big slightly bigger bags in the US. And I travel with my computer bag and I can, I can do those two bags for three weeks and survive on the road. So, I'm good at this this I'm good. Yeah, I mean I traveled a lot of work and I can't pack as light as you can. And I just want I noticed the quality and all the effort you do so. You got to find this to me bag it is it is a brilliant brilliant bag and only two wheels because once you go to four wheels, the wheels take up space. Two wheels takes up less space than four wheels and every little bit of space is more socks and wonder where you can cram into the little nooks and crannies of the back. So, anyway, that's that crazy, what they what I call it won't worry you speak right. All right let's see who's next on my screen Andrew. I was interested to hear in AI released iron rands fiction workshops, which are really interesting to listen to. And she said that her Reardon's speech on sex was heavily influenced by the hunchback of Notre Dame and the attitude of the deacon towards the gypsy. So we can, you know, easily tell how the religious motivation for the deacons attitude towards the gypsy and sex and his his attention there and struggle. How did Reardon get to that point being non religious. So, I think that general attitude is in culture and remember Iron Man is. I mean how many people could give a reader and speech, even that speech of sex is as articulately as he does it is thoughtful wrong but all thought out as bad as he did. Most people don't hold it consciously like that and so this is fiction so you know you're not you know but what she's taking is the elements that exist in the culture and those elements. You know I think she observed this in the United States, and I saw when I came to the United States that the United States is super impacted by religion, much more than you guys think it is. And the attitude to sex is one of the primary ways in which it is impacted. And, you know this is a emotionally sexually repressed society that because it represses goes, it goes to other extreme, when it is freed up when the sexual revolution happens. But from the same perspective, sex is animalistic it's horrible it's disgusting yeah let's become animals. This is cool, right, which is Woodstock right which is the Woodstock whole attitude and the whole. They look at them they look like just animals out there. So, the American culture is very very repressed sexually repressed and that has its origins in Christianity. And what Rand is basically taking she's taking things that she sees in American culture that she observes in America culture that she clearly identifies in American culture. I'm going to put a bit in an essay on Marilyn Monroe. If if if if you've ever picked that up on what an abituator Marilyn Monroe, and it's in and she puts it into Reardon's mouth because he represents that he represents the best of America, but who's obviously internalized the world of America and and so she she she gives him the full impact of that altruism and that Christianity as applied to his, his attitudes with sex. Interesting. All right, let's see Ian. So, I was thinking some, you know, this post COVID about the FDA and the CDC and how they mess things up in the US and I was thinking some about how things just generally might look better and a freer or different in a freer society and you know I think you've talked about the FDA something similar might exist and thinking about the FDA led me to into an idea that I think in a freer society, you know you wouldn't have these kind of agencies but you would have a more active enforcement of fraud. And in the FDA area. That could lead to some interesting ideas like let's say for example a company wants to advertise my drug cures cancer. So, would it be a legitimate function of the government to see that add and say, you know, if you don't have evidence for that, and we set an objective standard for what evidence is that is fraud and we will prosecute you. And then that could be an equivalent to, you know, fix a lot of problems that people worry about okay if there's no FDA then you get snake oil everywhere. So you have an objective process to your objective setup that okay this is what counts for studies this is the kind of thing you have to do and if you do that, you can advertise my drug treats acts. Yeah. And I think you could also extended into other areas like securities or whatever that again, you know if you said, you know, my crypto coin will pay 12%. And if you have some standards to say, Well, how, how are you going to pay 12%. You know, can you back that claim up and if you can't then the government could come after those people for fraud. So I'm worried that we would replace the burden on the opposite that is that the company has to prove that they can do it rather than the other way around. I think you have to have some evidence that they can't before you can demand proof from them. In a way, you know, the company has an incentive to be able to say this claim is backed up by this independent lab. And, and the, you know, and, and then, if the lab is bogus or if it if it clear that the independent lab is wrong or something like that then they be sued and then maybe the government can go after them for fraud. And then they can go over through that process that they knew what they were doing right for this attention, right, you can make mistakes, but that would be far but it has to be intentional. So, so I don't think you can once you say the government can go to any drug company and say prove it, then you're giving way too much power to the government, and it's not its role. You know, so you don't go. I'm selling you a diamond, prove it to diamond. I mean, the government doesn't do that the consumer does that show to me show and and and partially what you'd have as a very different culture, a culture of people who didn't just believe stuff because it was, it was, it was advertised and half would have to be more alert just like sometimes they were alert about, you know, the people out there who can tell you what a Gucci bag is real and what which is fake consumers and and if if if something is identified as fake then you sue them for fraud, but you can't do it before it's identified as fake. I was thinking that that is the that is kind of the trick is how aggressive you let the government be about preemptively doing these things and you know one maybe middle ground solution is that the government publishes, you know what it considered standards of evidence so it says in a court this is how we will decide, you know, whether a drug works or not. And then they could publish that beforehand to let people know, if you get sued, this is what you're going to need to defend it. And that would motivate that would motivate people to say okay, this drug just came out. I don't think they have the proof I'm going to sue them because, you know, I think it's a problem and then and then the government has a reason to get involved. And even that I think it's problematic, because you know what constitutes proof changes over time and changes with technology changes with innovation. And so I think part of what you know look at look at. I think the white story I've told I think I'm sure before about these columns that that nobody believe would stand right and and. And so so Frank Lloyd right just started loading them up with sandbags and more sandbags and most and it will not collapse. And at some point, the authority said okay fine, you know, but if they'd set up the standard. I don't know what the pounds X number what it would have been arbitrary this. So he, they questioned whether this was going to stand. He said okay I'll prove it to you. And so they won't stand it in advance. They were the standard was developed suit the suit. Where is it fit for purpose to serve the purpose that was needed. But I think, I think, you know, I have a strong belief in markets and I, I really do believe that markets come up with mechanisms to make sure that the simple deception doesn't happen. And that, that, that, you know, that the government can step in very quickly to discover fraud and to to prosecute for it but I agree with you on this point that the government would be because this is all the government would do. It would be so much more focused so much more energized, and so much better than this I mean I, I, you know, reminds me of the story of buddy made off who, you know, was running a pyramid scheme and everybody knew he was running a pyramid scheme in the industry a lot of people knew there was running a pyramid scheme. They couldn't convince the SEC was running a pyramid scheme, and the SEC never really caught him until his sons, basically gave him in handed him over in a, you know, why couldn't you figure it out because the SEC is too busy reading my 13 G's and 13 D's and whatever, all the filings that I have to file that have nothing to do with anything. If the SEC was just catch fraud in the financial industry, that's your mission you're the policeman of the financial industry, you're there to catch fraud, they would have got buddy made off like that. And make sure focus if you if you focus our policing powers, just on catching the bad guys, the bad guys will be caught if you have them do a million other things. If the military is they just to win a war they can win a war but if they're also they to build democracy to be nice to the enemy, and to be nice and to do this and then they're not going to be able to win the war. So, what is what the government should be primarily responsible for it's the main function when it comes to property rights it's a main function when it comes to economics. If they just did that, it would be, you know, I don't think it would be an issue I think I think we'd have a lot less fun. There's a lot of things to explore in that area in in the rule of law and and how do you have the government think about fraud and it's a really interesting area that I agree, hopefully we'll get it developed at some point. Yes, we need a really need philosophers of law to really walk through some of these issues because there were a lot of, there were a lot of issues where we still need to really do thinking about how to apply it specifically. Let's see. So, I was thinking about a second question and I think I decided that I want to try to explain to you a brief synopsis of an anime and hopes that you'll watch it but I was going to ask you if you think it would be considered romantic realism. The, the anime is called Dr. Stone. It's about a main character who's basically a super genius and physics knows dollar chemistry and stuff. And all of a sudden, like away the energy hits the earth, and it turns everybody into stone. And the main character wakes up out of the stone like 300, 3,700 years in the future. So it's clearly not romantic realism, because it's science fiction. It's a different genre. Okay, well, let me just. So he wakes up, and he decides he wants to restart modern civilization from scratch using what he knows about science. So like to get to antibiotics he ends up making a gas mask to collect sulfur. He made bellows to make glass so he can mix chemicals. And so I was just wondering if it would be realism in the sense that it's tied to reality and it reflects things that the setup is weird. Yeah, I think it's still science fiction setup. It could be romantic but it's not. Okay, gotcha. It could be romantic science fiction, which is which is fine. I highly recommend that one though because the main characters like implicitly objectivist in that he needs like people to help him with science. So he makes ramen noodles for trade. They never had ramen noodles before. And he ends up like showing him the value of music and it moves a bunch of people to his cause and the main bad guy is like a, he wants to keep the world primitive so he can control because he's the strongest guy. And he ends up losing because of science. Like he makes a wireless communication for moving on him. All right, well that's that. And then I wanted to show off a book that I got. That's an art book I got because I started to take art more seriously due to your rules of life about art. And then it's perfect. This art style is perfect for the method of like, you stare at it and you mentally know all the details. So packed with details all the time. Let's see if I can turn this around. Yep. Okay. It's not going on, but after staring at it long enough I kind of come to the conclusion that this picture is supposed to show kind of like human potential is greater than or can't be caged. When you use all of our modern civilizations tools at your disposal and you can see greater heights. Yep. I mean, I would consider that more illustration than the fine art primarily because of technique. But okay, that is still, you know, you can get still get a lot out of it. And it can certainly be a bridge to towards fine art. Oh, sorry, one last one last one. This was an idea for how to get money for a show is that if you, I think if you promote sending questions offline through Patreon and other channels, until you get $650 worth of questions, and then make a show out of it. And then the live audience would answer questions on top of that but it'd be like a self funded super chat show. Yeah, I just have to figure out the logistics of it but yes, that's right. Thanks. Yep. All right, let's see. Michael says, who didn't just move tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus. Well he's announced he plans to I don't think he's actually moved them. Is this an act of desperation since he's running out of soldiers will the West allow for battlefield nukes to be used, but but not real nuclear warheads. I don't know what the West will allow or what the West will tolerate but I mean I certainly think this is an act of desperation it's also an act of intimidation. He's trying to intimidate the West he keeps trying to figure out how to intimidate the West he's he's done it by, what do you call it by by talking about nukes by hinting at nukes by suggesting you might use nukes. It hasn't really worked the West still supports Ukraine. This might be his next step. He's he's losing the war in Ukraine. He is. He's not making the progress he thought the Ukrainians are holding him back. There's a good chance that in the spring the Ukrainians will launch an offensive, which will push the Russians back significantly. And he's looking for any kind of leverage points that he has. He still hasn't used the tactical nuke. And I don't know that he will I you know it will he is he willing to take that risk. I just I don't know what we will see hopefully not. And then again what will the West's response be. How does the West respond it's certainly not going to nuke Moscow is a response. So what does the West do is a response that they send planes and they. I don't think the West uses a nuke in response to the tactical nuke. So then the question is what do they do. It'll be interesting. Yeah. If the West had real self esteem. How long do you think it would take to to get Russia out of Ukraine. I mean, I don't mean like a literal days but like would it be a short timeframe very short, very short. I mean, just by air the West could basically devastate Russian forces from the air. And with with ballistic with ballistic missiles, Russia does not have the capacity to control the airspace and once the once the West captures the airspace. It's just like shooting fish in the barrel and I think I think that's exactly what the West would do. So the West has a superiority, getting troops on the ground would take longer, but the superiority would be would be massive and would allow the West to clear out the troops out of Ukraine, pretty quickly it might be. Okay. All right, let's see we got a bunch of these five, five and $10 questions. Let's run through them and we'll probably call it a day. Have you ever analyzed what cases causes outliers like I ran. Is it just extraordinary high IQ combined with intellectual honesty. Yeah, I mean, I think it is I think it's extraordinary high IQ combined with intellectual honesty combined with living in a particular period so having available particular, the particular data that I ran needed in order to develop a kind of the empirical data that the to be able to induce the truth that she came to, but you and I don't like high IQ I don't like IQ as a measure but high intelligence, extraordinary intelligence you have to have a you have to be a genius. And then you have to be yes. That the question of honesty is, is, is really, really crucial. And you have to somehow have a proper epistemology epistemology growing up. That is, you have to have an education that at least does not screwed you up, because you can take a genius with intellectual honesty and give him the wrong kind of epistemology, and that'll mess him up, that'll mess him up so you have to have something where you either not susceptible or the epistemology being delivered to you and through the educational system is not that bad. It's not monstrous, as it is today. You're on can I interrupt us one last time. I think there's also another factor which is introspective ability. Yes, I think that's right. And I think that comes with on it with the honesty but yes, she had this amazing ability to introspect. She also had an amazing ability to observe people and to understand their psychology. So one of the things that strikes me always is, is her psychological insight in her philosophical essays and of course she had to have that in order to be able to write novels. So that combination I think is, is, is super powerful I think that also comes from the ability to introspect. All right, I like numbers says with the upcoming open close debate you'll have an excuse to vilify your enemy Craig for some supposed sanction violation, but many have shown interest in it do you think the curious or evil. Ah, there's so much in that question to unpack. One, I don't know what debate you're talking about but I assume from the context of the question that Craig is the debate somebody about closed objectivism, I'm not going to comment on it so the idea that I that I would have an excuse to vilify him. I would rather just ignore him. I think that's that's a much better tactic than to try to vilify him. He's not worthy of the effort. It is a massive sanction violation. It is horrible. It is, it is pretty a pretty disgusting from somebody who just a few years ago would have said that this could never happen, that he would never, never ever sanction somebody from the I know why he's doing it. He's sold his soul and that you know so be it. He sold his soul to for something. And, and he's doing this. Fine. I mean that's that's his choice but this is somebody who just a few years ago would have said he would never ever debate somebody from the Atlas society, but the times change. You know when you know when your soul is up for is up for sale. Do you think the curious evil no I mean the fact that people are interested in it. I have no problem with that I mean be interested in it let's let's hope that at the very least he wins a debate. If he's going to do it at least you should win it, but I'm not interested in it. I find the issue. It's like a five minute debate. The issue is pretty simple, pretty straightforward. If you have to debate it for an hour then you don't get what the issue is. So, yeah. But I know exactly why he's doing it. I know exactly what motivates it. I know exactly who is encouraging him to do it. And it's the, you know, unless somebody asks me about it I'll never commented on it. I'll never comment on it again. And please don't ask me about it. Whoops, I didn't mean to do that. Let's see. Start Liam says do you ever get massages to help manage back pain. Have you ever had a world class massage. I do get massages periodic and not so much to manage my back pain. My back pain is too massage will not do it. It's too physiological or whatever. Although my back is a lot better since I started doing pilates about five years ago. My back is much, much better than it used to be when it does flare up. Usually the main thing to do is find ways to reduce inflammation that is let let the information, let it calm down so that inflammation goes down, because most of pain is caused by inflammation. Have I had ever had a world class massage. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how to measure. I've had really good massages. I've had okay massages. Have I had a world class massage. I don't know. Why is guilt so effective on rich people. You think smart enough to earn millions would see through it. It's it's effective on rich people because to be rich you have to behave in a self interested kind of way and self interest is is viewed as a as a vice not a virtue and the altruism that I think everybody basically inherits from the culture kicks in at that point. And so it's it has nothing to do with how smart you are. It's if you have internalized any element of altruism, yet you've acted against that altruism by getting rich. It's it's so classic guilt, right. It's such a classic guilt you know you're not supposed to do it you do it. I tell you but you're not supposed to do it what happens is you feel that guilt and you know to appease that guilt. You do other things that you don't want to stop doing the self interested stuff. So you do other stuff in order to try to appease the guilt somehow. Right. James says asked why has American gotten so much more religious over the last 50 years, while Western Europe is not Israelis a lot more religious today than the world when you were growing up. I don't think America has gotten more religious over the last 50 years I think what you're seeing is a complex phenomena by the numbers in surveys Americans are a lot less religious today than they used to be. The difference is I think is that today, the people who are religious, take their religion much more seriously than people who claim to be religious 50 years ago so 50 years ago when you did surveys and people said they were religious. The religion was held pretty loosely in their mind they were Sunday they went to church and it was a social thing and today. Most people, a lot of people who say they were religious really are religious they really the rise of evangelical churches and then the rise of serious Catholics. But in terms of the number of people who claim not to be religious. There are more people today in America than ever before. Why is America more religious than than Europe. I don't really know I mean it's historical it's just it has a lot to do with history. It has to do with the fact that religion in European minds is much more associated with violence than it is in European culture much more associated with violence and it is in America. Europe suffered through religious wars America never really did. It has to do with the fact that America associates the founding of the country with religion so it associates the virtue of America with religion and again doesn't have the count example of the immense violence. So often caused by religion in Europe because it just wasn't experienced in the US. I think those that has a lot to do with it Europe was also very influenced by German philosophy and French philosophers who are very secular who were not religious at all and who in Europe is generally among intellectual than America is and therefore is much more impacted by the intellectual arguments against religion and against the existence of God was Americans are not very intellectual that don't engage in intellectual debates much and therefore not really impacted by those arguments. It's not part of the, again, the culture. Oh, Israel, Israel is, let's see is this room is definitely more religious. It's very secular when I was going up. It's more religious I think primarily because the some of the some of the immigrants who came to Israel were religious. And then I think the other aspect of it the religion has had more kids, a lot more kids. And then the other aspect is that secular society offers people very few values. Quite a few secular people became religious in seeking values. So I think Israeli culture kind of became hedonistic and nihilistic and people were looking for values and therefore certain elements within their society. Certain people individuals within society in their search for values latched onto religion. And then Liam says, Have you ever met a psychopath or sociopath in your career life in general. I don't know. This is a point Greg Salami I made when I was in Austin which I think is absolutely right. How would I know if I met a psychopath or sociopath. I'm not a psychologist. These are technical terms that apply in psychology. I have no idea how to, how to diagnose a psychopath. I don't think it's simple. I think people throw around these terms way too often. I think generally people throw around psychological terms and I probably am guilty of this sometimes to way too often psychology is an area of expertise is something that you really need to understand and know. And these are technical terms within psychology. I don't, I don't know is my answer. I've met a lot of jokes in my life. I don't know if they were technically psychopaths or sociopaths. Why does TOS con have higher attendance and Ocon, are they letting a lot of students go for free. So one I don't know that they have a higher attendance than Ocon, they never used to so. So, maybe they are now maybe because they're not very objectivist in their content they're inviting a lot of non objectivist so they have a much much wider appeal. I don't know if the speakers at Ocon are objectivists. It's certainly not the case that all the speakers or even I'm not sure a majority of the speakers now at TOS con objectivist I don't know. I'm not sure, but a significant percentage of them are not. And then, yes, they as far as I know, again, I don't know anything about these things you guys know a lot more about them than I do. They have a lot of money that I know they have a lot of money they have a lot more money than the Institute does. And it's a lot more focused on getting it so it's combination of they have a lot of money. And second is they spend the money differently than the Institute does. And one of the main things they do with the money is they, they offer huge numbers of scholarships to students to come for free from all over the world and they fly them in. And we have, we also do it, but we might have 100 scholarships they might have 1000 I don't know how many they have. I'm just throwing out numbers, but but but it's they they have a lot more money for that, a lot more money for that. So, but why are you asking me this. These are not. I mean, for me, these are not interesting questions. I don't really care what TOS and the athlete society and whether they debate or not or whether what they do at the conferences or I don't care about any of that stuff. It's irrelevant to my life and irrelevant to the show. And irrelevant I think, ultimately, with doesn't have a huge relevance to the future of objectivism. Michael, does Trump actually think he has a chance at winning or is he all purely attention and spotlight. I think he thinks he has a chance of winning I think he has a chance of winning. Certainly think he has a chance of winning the Republican nomination I don't know who can beat him. Given the pathetic, the pathetic response so far that I'm getting that I'm getting for people so that I'm getting from the candidates I'm not seeing who is acting is going to beat him. I'm not sure the Santas can and I'm not sure anybody else can. So we'll see it's going to be really really interesting. So I think he thinks he can and I think with reasonable reason. I'm not sure you can win the national election but once you win the Republican nomination you're the candidate anything can happen in the national election. He won in 2016 he could win again. I don't think he will, but he could. Papa Campbell any advice for parents in strange from their adult children. It's too complicated of a question. It depends on why you're strange it depends on whose fault it is it depends on. I mean, it is what it is kids children when they grow up have free will they live their own lives. They choose their own values they choose. It's sad but but there's nothing that is deterministic about the fact that you have to have a great relationship with your kids once they become adults. If they turn out to be people you don't want to have a relationship with. Or they don't have a relationship with you again they have free will it's not it's not necessarily a failure of your being a parent thing is to get rid of the guilt. It's not it's not your fault at least not necessarily your fault. Justin would the industrials of the 19th century be as successful as they were if they were black it seemed like race is a real social fact in history. Yeah it was it certainly was in America in the 19th century. So, so no, many of them would not have been able to be as successful as they were. Many black entrepreneurs faced racism face discrimination. Really, until the modern times and today there's a lot lot lot lot lot less of that it still happens at the margin, but there's a lot less of it but certainly, if you go back 50 years if you go back 100 years if you go back 200 years, there was a lot of racial discrimination in the decades. And, yeah, and it they held them back there's no question about it. It's a massive injustice in human history, but it is what it is. We have to make sure that it's not a part of our present and not part of our future. Nothing we can do about the past. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, to our panelists. Thank you to all the super chat is really appreciate it. And, you know, appreciate, appreciate all the support. I will as I said, there will be a show tomorrow for members only the topic the tentative topic right now I might change my mind but right now the tentative topic is how to live a moral life in an irrational society. And hopefully, more of you will become members just to hear that topic it's you can do so at $5 a month by clicking the membership button on YouTube, and come on over and listen to listen to the show it'll be at 1pm East Coast time on the members on the members channel on on YouTube. Thank you everybody. I, and you do have to have a YouTube member thing so I know some of you give me a lot more money on other platforms, but I can't transfer that just because of the mechanism of it. But again you can become a member for like five bucks so it's not super expensive. All right, guys, I will see some of you tomorrow. I will see some others of you on Monday. There'll be a morning show and they'll be an evening show. Have a great rest of your weekend. Bye everybody. Bye guys.