 Let's jump in. So I thought we talk a little bit just to begin with about Intifada. There's a lot of talk about Intifada. There's of course the chance out there of Intifada. There are a lot of claims being made about what Intifada actually means and what it refers to. And of course we've seen what happened with the heads of the presidents of the universities the other day in front of Congress. Just an update on that quickly. Just before I started the show, I did see that the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania, Japan, has actually asked the president of the university to resign. She was one of the three presidents of the universities in front of Congress. They just completely blew their answer to the question regarding what is calling for Jewish genocide, harassment. They completely blew it. And all three should resign just because of how pathetic their response was. But more than that, they really should resign because of how pathetic the way they're managing the campuses is, the pathetic state of our universities. Of course, having them resign will not change much. The real rot at our universities is not primarily in the president's office. The real rot at the university is in the faculty, in the DEI departments, in the through and through the administration. I do not believe, I don't think there's any chance that placing the president at any one of these universities will change anything significantly. I also think, this is before we get to the issue of Interfata. We'll get to that in a minute. I also think that the universities really have to think clearly about free speech and the kind of speech they want in their campuses. They are not as private universities, the three were private universities. They're not obliged on university property to have the First Amendment as the standard for speech. They don't have to allow the Nazis or the KKK or those calling for Jewish genocide to march on their campuses. They have every right and I would argue responsibility not to allow certain voices on campus. I do not believe in the bizarre notion that they have of academic freedom which suggests that a university should just sit back and allow anybody to say anything whenever they want. Now that's true that the government cannot silence you even if you are arguing for something horrific. But a university is an institution of learning. The university is an institution of education. A university should have standards. Now I know it's hard to apply the standards and the default is let everybody say whatever they want to say and as long as they're not breaking the law they can do whatever they want. That's a default. But that's defaulting on your responsibility as an educational institution. And what is actually happening which I think makes everything worse is that the standards that they apply because they are applying standards even though they have this position of you can say anything except insult blacks or accept insult transgenders or accept creed except add on the the intersectionality woke exceptions that they would like and they do include right. So you can call for genocide of Jews but not for genocide of other peoples. So the standards they have chosen without admitting it are the chance of the standards of the of the far left. That's what allowed speech and what's not allowed. What they should do is the same as I think what Twitter should do and Facebook should do and all these places and they all have the same problem. They're all private institutions. They all can have their own standards. I don't think if it's legal. Okay. I don't think that's that that is ideal for university. And I don't think that's an ideal for social media. I think they have to consider the purpose of the institution the purpose of the platform and consider and think about objective standards for what is acceptable and what's not acceptable in terms of behavior in terms of speech in terms of protest what protests accept or what are not and actually have standards and actually stand by those standards and that should apply to professors and students and everybody else. But that's hard. It's hard to think through what kind of speech are Nazis acceptable. No communists. Well that's going to be hard for them. If Nazis are not why would you allow communists and if communists are not who else is not and what's the standard. Right now the standard is discriminate against anything that the woke left wants you to discriminate against. But that that is wrong and that is not objective. So so yeah the university president should resign. But I think Don said yesterday when I interviewed him he said look the university system as it is is unsolvable. And I think there's that's probably true at least in our lifetime. It's unsolvable. And what that means is that the money the donors they need to start thinking about alternatives. They need to start thinking about new institutions. This is what's exciting about the University of Austin. Exciting about other projects that are going on around the country. We need more bigger more ambitious and we need it quickly. But without changing the fundamental culture on campuses and that's going to require firing or eliminating the DEI office. That's going to require changing some of the faculty composition. Ultimately I don't think you could do it without eliminating tenure because everybody's already entrenched and they only approve the people who they like and therefore it's endless. You cannot change American universities. It's too late. Too late. All right. Danielle thank you. Wow a hundred dollars. Really appreciate that. That's great. Thank you. And then Robert thank you. Mary Aline thank you. Yeah I know that's good. Really appreciate it. Okay back to Interfata. So in our universities people are marching for global Interfata and they're marching for Interfata and what does it actually mean? Well Interfata is a word in Arabic. I had the meaning a minute ago. What was the actual meaning of Interfata? It's like shake things up. It's like shiver, shudder, tremor, shake off to shake. Right? Shake. Get rid of maybe even shrug. Right? But that's not what they mean when they march advocating for Interfata. They mean something very specific. They're referring to an uprising and it's come to mean uprising, revolution. They talk about globalized the Interfata or Interfata revolution. So what does Interfata refer to? Well the Interfata refers to two events in the history of Israel-Palestinian. Let me call it a war, right? The war, the conflict, whatever you want to call it. One started in December 1987 which started in Gaza and then spread to the West Bank which was basically people, Palestinians going out to the streets and throwing rocks at Israelis, throwing rocks at the military. They were at the time regularly going to work in Israel, refusing to go to war. It was like, you know, we want to resolution to this. And you know, it all arose out of a car accident which a number of Palestinians died. But the core of it was frustration at what they thought was what they viewed as an occupation and poverty and the lack of opportunity and you know, and hatred for Israel. But it wasn't anywhere near the way it is today. And that Interfata, initially Israel used, you know, tried to crush these protests and riots and that only made things worse. Ultimately Israel shifted to using rubber bullets so they wouldn't kill anybody. That didn't help. You know, ultimately it was put down but it was months and months of violence. But the violence was mainly localized in the West Bank and in Gaza and was demonstrations and riots. That was Interfata number one. But nobody really remembers Interfata number one because Interfata number one didn't really leave a real mark. Where people when they're talking about the Interfata are really talking about the second Interfata. The second Interfata was launched in 2000 after Yassar al-Fad in Camp David was basically offered pretty much, you know, everything he wanted by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak, who was the Prime Minister to sign of Israel. I think by American estimates he was given over 90% of what he'd asked for. And he basically said no. This is after the Oslo agreement Yassar al-Fad was in the West Bank. And he went back to the West Bank and basically launched the Interfata, the second Interfata. But this Interfata was very different. This Interfata was not demonstrations and riots and throwing rocks. This is an Interfata was a massive surge of terrorist attacks targeted at civilians in Israel. This is a time where there were very little restrictions on the ability of Palestinians to move around Israel, to enter Israel, to exit Israel. And this is a period of about three years in which almost on a weekly basis buses were blown up, restaurants were blown up, wedding celebrations, suicide bombers would enter wedding celebrations and blow themselves up. A period in which Israelis never knew when their attack would happen where hundreds and ultimately thousands of people killed, maimed, injured and it could happen anyway at any time. Which increased kind of the randomness, the scariness of it, the terror of the situation. And this is what Interfata has come to mean. Interfata means the terrorizing of innocent men, women and children. It means the killing, the blowing up of women, children, civilians. Now, of course, they don't consider them innocents. It means the arbitrary random destruction. It means a reign of terror. When they call for a globalized thing, Interfata, they're calling for a global reign of terror. They're calling for not just blowing up buses in Israel, but blowing up buses everywhere. They're talking about the kind of terror attacks that ISIS committed in Europe during the mid-2000s. They're talking about 9-11s and shootings and cars, driving through crowds. They're talking about mayhem and death and destruction on a global scale. When they talk about Interfata revolution, they're talking about the rising up of, I don't know whom, but everywhere, the killing, the slaughter, the maiming, the destruction of civilians everywhere. That's what Interfata means. Now, I don't know how many of the people chanting it know what it means. Probably very few. Just like when you ask people, when they say up from the river to the sea, what river? They have no idea. They can't name the river. They can't name the sea. By the way, it's from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. That's the reference. This is what Interfata means. This is why it's evil. This is why it is called for violence. It's a call for terror. It's a call for revolution. Should universities just allow anybody to call for any kind of revolution whenever they want? Certainly, if somebody wants to write an up ad in New York Times calling for Interfata, if they are serious, if they are actually putting together the mechanisms by which an Interfata would be launched, wouldn't that be inciting for violence? Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment? Wouldn't that be not free speech, but actual violence? Granted, if you're just a kid and you're just shouting, Interfata, Interfata, you don't know what you're doing. You're not putting it, this is the context that those presidents were talking about. You're not putting the mechanisms in place to actually have a revolution. All right, maybe you have the legal free speech to do that, right, to do that. But should you be allowed to do it on a campus? Any more than should you be allowed to call for the re-enslavement of blacks on campus? I don't think so. I mean, there are just certain things that are uncivilized that an educational institution in the name of educating should not tolerate. We should not be tolerant of all views. In educational institutions, there are certain views that should be beyond the pale. And you know what? Institutions can compete. Not all institutions can have the same exact standards, just like not all social media should have exactly the same standards. And let's see what happens. Let's see what facilitates good education. Let's see what encourages students to come. Let's see what encourages parents to send their kids to. Yeah, one of Freeman says enlightened institutions. That's what enlightened institutions are. Enlightened doesn't mean, yeah, you want to call for the killing of Jews? Fine. You want to call the killing of homosexuals? Fine. No problem. Go ahead. You want to burn crosses in the school thing? Oh, that's fine. Speed speech after all? No. No. They have to be standards. They should be objective. They should be clear. Professors, students should know what's acceptable and what's not. They shouldn't be, and they should be, or put it this way, they should be based on an objective standard of what is and what is not within the scope of reasonable. But yeah, I mean, the challenge there, of course, is what people consider reasonable today is complete nuttiness. And, but this is why in private institutions, it's okay. They get it wrong. They can fix it. They can change it. No doubt that Facebook and Twitter all get it wrong. But the world does not end because they got it wrong.