 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Wednesday. God, it's already November 15th a week before Thanksgiving. Time is just, every year seems to go faster. This year is the fastest ever, I think. I don't know, time is speeding up. There's something metaphysical going on. As you can see, video is back. Not a new camera, same old camera. But the converter, what is it? HDMI to USB, the digital converter, video to computer speak, whatever it's called. I replaced that. I got a new one, and everything started working again. So yeah, we got a new one. I'll have to have some backup. I thought I had backup, but the backup, both of them failed. My regular one and the backup both failed. So I'll have to have a new backup and make sure it works. So yeah, no jittery video, no black screen. Everything seems to be working. Yeah, if the screen is darker, let me know. I can, if you want more light, I can increase the light. We can change it. But yeah, my guess is video will be a little different, because this converter does impact the quality of video and the kind of video. I don't know if anybody has an opinion about this versus a week ago or versus a while ago. Let me know. I do need another converter that's better. If somebody knows what kind of thing I need, it doesn't say here. Anyway, if anybody knows how to find the HDMI USB 3.0 4K compatible device that actually works, let me know. I'm willing to spend some money on it. The better the quality, the better generally. All right, cool. Let's see. It's laggy as if low frame per second. Shouldn't be. Shouldn't be. Are you guys seeing lag? Kind of jittery. I don't know. Anyway, it's a 4K converter, so it shouldn't be. I'll check the frame per second after the show. True low frames. It shouldn't be. It should be at least 30 frames per second. So that's bizarre. All right, I'll see if I can make any changes. So yes, let me know if this is not as good as it used to be. What else do we need to do? Remind everybody of Existence Super Chat? We got a lot of stickers suddenly out of nowhere. Robert, Sivanos, Jonathan, Steven, Gail, Catherine. Thank you. And there's a first question from Michael, so we are back on questions. All right, so let's jump in to some of the content. No show tonight. Tomorrow we're back kind of on a regular schedule. About this time of day, I think. So 12 o'clock east coast time, there'll be a news roundup. And then 7 PM, there'll be an evening show tomorrow. It'll be an interview with Gene Moroni. So we will be doing an interview with Gene Moroni tomorrow for the regular show. That'll be an interview show. So those of you who, like Gene, those of you interested in what he has, please make sure to come. The rest of you should come as well. Those of you who have lots and lots of questions that relate to Gene, yeah, I do see kind of a lag. Yeah, please come as well. So we'll be on to answer your questions. So that'll be tomorrow. And then the rest of the schedule is kind of normal. All right, let's quickly go over the news. So late last night, Israel time at dark, Israel, Israeli forces entered the hospital complex. It is a complex, a tank, at least one tank entered the actual grounds of the hospital. Troops started taking control of the various buildings. There was some firing and fighting, not clear if the fighting was inside the hospital or just at its edge, but there was quite a bit of fighting, particularly just before the Israelis entered into the hospital complex itself. The Israelis brought with them into the complex. They brought medical supplies. They brought portable incubators for the babies. They brought fuel in order to facilitate the, I guess, the moving the patients out of this hospital and into other hospitals. Throughout the night, you got this hysterical, constant barrage of doctors or administrators inside the hospital claiming all kinds of how afraid they were and the hovers that Israel might inflict on them and their poor patients and all of that. All of this is for the good of their patients and the good of their, I mean, Israel has been unbelievably overly, overly in my view, indeed sacrificially, as we'll get to in a minute, a generous and gentle in how they've dealt with Al-Shifa Hospital. Israeli troops have gone into the basements. They scouted the whole building. We still don't know exactly what they found, supposedly, according to both Israeli and American intelligence. Al-Shifa sat right on top of basically the headquarters of Hamas, of a multi-story bunker complex that was Hamas. Supposedly, at some point at least, the hostages were held underneath Al-Shifa Hospital. My guess is they're no longer there. After all, it's taken Israel a long time to get to Al-Shifa and its intentions about going into Al-Shifa have been broadcast over and over and over again. Hamas is not going to sit around and wait for them. And given the extensive tunnel system they have, I'm sure they have moved all the hostages somewhere out of relative reach for the Israeli forces right now, probably to the south of the Gaza Strip and away from the north. Israel is very close to controlling the entire north of the Gaza. It'll take a few more days, maybe a week or two, to get full control of the north of Gaza. But that is where it is heading. It will be interesting to see what they find underneath Al-Shifa Hospital after everything that's been talked about. They've said this was the Al-Qaeda headquarters. They said this is the communications and command hub of Al-Qaeda. That should be obvious from if it is, then they should be able to show evidence of that. So it'll be really interesting in the next hour, a few hours, in the next few days to see what Israel tells us about what's underneath there, what's indeed underneath there. It tells us about what they've discovered in terms of Al-Shifa. It'll be truly interesting. Hamas, if I said Al-Qaeda, of course I meant Hamas, not that there's a big difference, all the same. Let's see, beyond that, then of course, the big strategic question, the big strategic question becomes, what does Israel do then? That is, once Israel controls the north of the Gaza Strip and the entire north, what happens to the south? Does Israel then encourage the Palestinians to evacuate the south and move to the north, which is basically being flattened? Much of it has been flattened. Or can they enter the south with the Palestinians there? That is going to be crazy. They have to evacuate them somewhere. The Egyptians won't take them. They can have to somehow drive them north. That's going to be, according to the world and Biden and everybody else, a major humanitarian crisis, because there's no way to house them in the north. So what is Israel actually going to do? Is it going to create its own refugee camp intense or something inside Israel? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I know what I would do, but I don't think anybody's asking me. And clearly, Israel is playing a cautious game with world opinion. So how does it take south of Gaza? How does it do what it's just done in the north to the south? One of the videos I saw earlier this morning was the Israelis blowing up the building of the Palestinian parliamentary building that Hamas has used for its pretend parliament. Yesterday, the day before yesterday, they were taking photos inside with Israeli flags. Today, they leveled the building. They turned it into dust. I think that's very appropriate and good for them. Radicate every single and destroy every single symbol of Hamas leadership in Gaza. Hamas should be perceived as dead. Israel still has to kill it, still hasn't done that yet. And it cannot do without going south. How does it go south? That is the big question. I don't have an answer for that. I mean, I know, again, what I would do, but I don't know how Israel is going to do it given the restrictions being placed on it by its own politics and by the international community. And Biden is every day that passes, Biden becomes less supportive of Israel. Every day that passes the European Union, at least the French seem to backtrack, European Union seems to be pretty strong in the support of Israel, which is shocking and surprising. I never expected it. Germany seems particularly strong in its support of Israel. UK, not so much, but certainly Germany and the European Union itself. I don't have an explanation for the European Union. Germany, it's guilt. I know it drives the Germans, but it's hard to tell this. So anyway, it's going to be interesting to see what the next steps are for Gaza, for Israel, after they have completed destroying Hamas' infrastructure in the North, how do they transition to the South and how do they make sure they destroy every single tunnel linking the North and the South, which should have been number one priority when they started this campaign. If they're going to move everybody to the South, the number one thing you want to do is destroy every single tunnel that allows for the transport of people between the North and the South. Easier said than done. And maybe there were other considerations where they didn't want to do it, but it does seem pretty obvious that Hamas has evacuated hostages and much of their leadership to the South through the tunnel system. But we will see. Maybe they're still underneath there in the North, underneath, and Israel just has to go in to find them. And if that's what's necessary, I assume it's going to do it in the next few days. All right, the BBC. I mean, the BBC is always. And what I mean always, since I was a teenager, which is, let's say, the 1970s, I remember the BBC as being dramatically anti-Israel. The BBC has always been pro-Palestinian, always been anti-Israel. I mean, in the days when the PLO used to kidnap children and shoot them and kill them, the BBC would talk about them as gorillas and freedom fighters and never called them terrorists. I'm not even sure that the Munich, the kidnap again, the Israeli athletes in Munich was considered by the BBC a terrorist attack. I don't know, but I know the terrorism inside Israel was always whitewashed by the BBC. And this has been going on since then. Every decade, it's the same thing. It's dramatically pro-Palestinian, dramatically anti-Israel. And this is the BBC, the British broadcasting, British broadcasting. And this is a BBC funded by taxpayers. It's paid by taxpayers. And no conservative government has ever stopped that, stopped it from happening. And it is a real horrific institution. Anyway, since October 4th, October 7th, they've been on form in terms of their coverage that is significantly anti-Israel, constantly making mobile equivalency, whitewashing, if you will, what happened on October 7th or not, not at least portraying it in its full horror. And portraying what Israel is doing in Gaza is much more horrific, much more horrible for the population that it is, always de-emphasizing Israel's attempts not to hurt civilians, evacuating people, caused evacuated hospitals, shut them down before they go in. All of that is never mentioned, is never talked about. They are rabidly anti-Israel. Well, they all did themselves. Yesterday, I think it was, or last night. In a broadcast last night, the BBC said that Israel, let me see if I can find the exact words. I had it here a minute ago. Yeah, I don't have it because I've got a video of it. But they say in the broadcast that the IDF is targeting medical teams, as they go into Al-Shifa Hospital, that they're targeting medical teams and Arabic speakers. That Israel was targeting, i.e., out to kill, medical teams and Arabic speakers. And that the IDF announced this. The BBC said the IDF announced that they were targeting medical teams and Arabic speakers. I mean, how stupid can the editors at the BBC actually be? Now, they have, of course, apologized now. Oh, I had it here. There we go. I had it here. Yes, they apologize now for reporting that medical teams and Arabic speakers were being targeted. They apologized. They said it was a translation error. What the IDF had actually said was that IDF forces that were participating in the raid included medical teams and Arabic speakers. Indeed, they included medical teams and Arabic speakers to help the hospital personnel with the medical supplies to help treat patients at the hospital, to the extent that the medical teams, the Israeli medical teams, could help out the Arab, the Palestinian doctors. They were going to do it. And they were bringing in medical supplies. And they needed Arabic speakers to do the translating to make sure that the doctors felt comfortable with the help that they were getting from Israeli medical supplies. Exact opposite. Israel was helping here. And they presented as, no, Israel was targeting. They apologized a few hours later. But it's the kind of error that tells you something about the bias. Like, if any other network would have heard the IDF spokesman has just said that Israel is targeting medical teams and Arabic speakers, you'd think they'd say, that doesn't sound right, guys. I mean, maybe they are, but they wouldn't admit it. They wouldn't say it. Can we check with a translator? Was that really what was said? You'd think just basic newsroom etiquette 101 check, verify when something sounds really kind of crazy? But no, not the BBC. They would not do that. Now, if you're interested in a humorous treatment of how biased and insane the coverages of the BBC is, then there is a fantastic clip of a skit, of an Israeli humor skit. But it is in English. Circulating on Twitter and on Facebook and in other places, please find us. It is a fantastic, really fantastic clip where basically a BBC interviewer in this satirical clip is interviewing a Hamas leader in his basement. And he's talking about they need a ceasefire to rearm, so they could kill more Jews. And the BBC commentator is saying, yes, you really need a ceasefire. It's really not fair that they're not giving you a ceasefire. And then there's a baby crying in the background. And yeah, it's one of the hostages. And she's really upset. Why is this baby disturbing the broadcast? Anyway, it's really funny. It's called a Hamas leader, Y-A-H, Y-A, Sinwa, S-I-N-W-A-R's exclusive interview with BBC. I'm sure if you search Hamas-lead exclusive interview with BBC, you will find it. It was super funny. I mean, it is amazing how Israelis, in spite of all the horror that happened October 7th, in spite of the fact that Israeli soldiers are dying every day in the Gaza Strip, in spite of the fact that they have to run to every shelters constantly during the day, whether it's from the north in Hezbollah, still some rockets from Gaza, or even from Yemen rockets being launched to southern Israel. In spite of all of that, it's not the horrors that they're facing on a day-to-day basis. Israel has some of the funniest people on planet Earth. And the skits that they produce, there's a show that is the equivalent of Saturday Night Live called Eritz Nehederit, which is a translated wonderful country. The skits that they produce are unbelievably funny. You might have seen another one. There was another one that they put out, which is making fun of Columbia University students, a couple of woke Columbia University students demonstrating for Hamas and making fun of them. So their ability to make fun of evil, their ability to put down is sad that we have to do this. But it is quite effective, I think, in showing the absurdity of the world in which we live and the absurdity of people taking seriously this evil. And you don't need to kill it, which you have to kill it, and make fun of it while you're doing it. But the number of people to take it seriously is quite stunning. All right. Yeah, so I encourage you to watch Eritz Nehederit, the things in English. And some of the stuff is in Hebrew. But they put English translation on it, and it's really, really good. All right. I don't know if you guys have seen these clips going around of Nikki Haley being interviewed the other day, maybe it was yesterday. I mean, God, Nikki, what are you doing? Like, it seems like Republican candidates are committed to saying things that make them unelectable, at least to me. So Nikki Haley, yesterday, announced that in her administration, she will prohibit social media from allowing people to post anonymously. They should not be an honest debate. Indeed, everybody should prove their identity. The government should verify this identity. I mean, this is truly despicable and horrible, a massive power grab by government, a massive violation of our privacy. It's as if the way she wants to differentiate herself from the rest of the Republican field is by being super tough on the foreign policy issue. And that is spilling over into super tough on social media all for security reasons. But that is super dangerous. That's how every fascist comes to power. Not that I think Nikki Haley's a fascist, but she's buying into nonsense that is going to alienate those people who believe in individual liberty from ever voting for her. I think she should retract it. I think she should correct. She should say she misspoke. She should say she didn't realize what she was saying. She came to realize how rights violating, how privacy violating what she suggested was that no, she would never do that. And of course, she knows that the founding fathers in the federalist societies debated one another using pseudo names. She needs to backtrack from this, and she needs to backtrack from this as quickly as possible. She's being lambasted online. This has been an opportunity for, particularly for DeSantis supporters to go after her. I did see a good comment, though, that said, DeSantis really wants our vote. He should spend half the time that he spends attacking Nikki Haley on attacking Donald Trump. And I will second that. I mean, somebody needs to start attacking Donald Trump, one of the serious candidates, not just Chris Christie, who's not a particularly serious country. Somebody needs to start attacking Donald Trump. And only once they start attacking Donald Trump am I going to view any of them as serious, right? As long as they are trying to cruise along without taking on one opponent, one real opponent, as long as they're trying to cruise along without, quote, offending the Trump base, they're just not serious candidates. And I've said this from the beginning of the primaries. I've encouraged people and said that this was indeed not sustainable. So anyway, Nikki Haley, awful, awful statement. I hope you back off of it. I hope you move away from it. And we'll see what happens then. It's still, basically, Nikki Haley versus DeSantis, I think, for number two. DeSantis seems to be disappearing more and more. Seems to be fading into the background more and more. I don't know if he's put himself on pause or what it is. But you barely hear from him. Let's see what happens as this, again, becomes a two-person race. Vivek is still going to be there. Obviously, I mean, this is too much fun for him not to engage. Christie will be there for a little while. At least there'll be one voice on stage in the debate criticizing Trump. But that's pretty much it. The other two are there for entertainment. The only two who matter are DeSantis and Haley. Let's see how this goes. All right, let's see. Yeah, quickly, the House passed the funding bill. It passed it with mostly Democratic votes. Only two Democrats voted against this bill. 90-plus Republicans voted against this bill. So it's basically a Democratic bill, which is pretty shocking from a conservative like Johnson. It's pretty shocking that he still speaks of the House the day after. This is not the treatment that Kevin McCarthy got when he did exactly the same thing a month ago. It's really interesting to see where this goes. And it shows, again, as I've said, the complete dysfunction of Republicans. Republicans could have shut down government. If they had an agenda they were fighting for, and they could agree on. That is, if they were going to, they did this to Obama in, I think it was 2010, 2009. Well, no, he won in 2008. So they did it in 2011 after they won the House in 2010. They basically shut down the government, and they negotiated a pretty good deal. They negotiated a cap on spending, and they basically crippled the rest of the Obama agenda. The problem with these Republicans is they can't agree on a cap of spending. They can't agree on anything. They can't agree on aid to Israel or Ukraine or Taiwan. They can't agree on capping spending without sticking something in there about abortion or sticking something in there about getting woke out of the military or something or other. So they are completely shooting themselves constantly in the kneecaps, I think, rather than the foot. They're completely dysfunctional. They've got an opportunity to put leverage on the Biden administration to cut spending. They're not using it. Instead, they passed another one of these extension bills that basically keeps the government the size that it is. They still have a problem in a month or two where they're going to have to solve it again. They're going to have to come up with another extension, another way to fund the government. And it's just pathetic, just pathetic. And I told you, what Trump did is he destroyed the opposition party in America. There is no opposition today. There's the Democrats and big spending. And then there's a bunch of incoherent little children running around the House of Representatives pretending that they are congressmen and pretending they have some kind of agenda. But these are all mega congressmen who have no clue and who can't even achieve a few things that they might be able to achieve because they've got some leverage over Biden. It's pathetic, pathetic. So here we are basically giving the Democrats everything they want and not achieving anything of substance. What use of Republicans in opposition if they don't control spending? Well, they're not going to control spending. They used to not control spending when they were in power, but they used to control spending when they were in position. Now they don't do either one of those things. All right, quickly, China-USA, as we know, Biden and Xi are meeting today for a four-hour meeting. Nobody knows exactly what will come of this. Not much is the expectation. Maybe renewed communication between military leaders and the two, but that is not the issue. The main issue is to try to... I mean, the only thing that the West can do right now, the only thing that the United States can do right now is project strength. That is, it is the only thing it can do, I think, to convince whatever temptation the Chinese have to invade Taiwan and take advantage of the weakness of the West right now, the fact that the West is distracted, the fact that the West is all over the place. The United States needs to do something to project strength. It needs to do something to suggest to the world, hey, slow down, people, Chinese, we're not going to let you get away with stuff. And we have the power and we have the strength to prevent you from doing it. And I think the two things they should be doing, they should have done it weeks ago, they could still do it and it would play a lot. The United States has placed a lot of resources in the Persian Gulf, not far from Iran. The United States should take the bombing of its facilities in Iraq and Syria as basically another form of declaration of war by Iran in the United States. They should launch B-21s, the big strategic bombers. Don't need to use nuclear weapons here, but they're bombers. And they should basically turn every single nuclear facility the Iranians has into dust. They should basically destroy as many of Iran's National Guard's facility that is possible, including every military base they can. They should bomb into oblivion. They can do that mostly from the air. I don't think they need to use exclusively the B-21s because I don't think the air defense systems that the Iranians have are that good. So they could also use F-35s and they can even use F-16s and F-15s. Go in there, destroy the entire air force that the Iranians have, do it on the ground. How about a pre-emptive surprise attack? Destroy every nuclear facility they have, destroy the entire military, everything they can destroy from the air, destroy it. Then leave enough ships in the Persian Gulf to defend the shipping lanes. That is basically tell Iran, if you're going to stop shipping in the Persian Gulf, then we will destroy your capacity to export oil. We will destroy every single oil facility you have on the ground, and you will not be able to export one ounce of oil. So you better let the shipping go. Leave enough ships to protect the shipping lanes and sail the rest of the fleet, including the fleet off the coast of Israel. Because if the US does that, it doesn't have to worry about Israel and sail it into the Pacific, sail it into the South China Sea, sail it into the vicinity of Taiwan, and just say, look, China, we don't want war, but we will not tolerate an invasion of Taiwan right now. We just won't tolerate it. So back off, go away. That will stop the Chinese in their place. And by the way, solve a big problem in the Middle East with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and all of that, that whole problem to a large extent will disappear. And that will create massive instability in the Middle East. That's true. OK, I'm all for instability. Instability where our enemies are fighting each other is not a bad thing, not a bad thing at all. All right, I'm going to make it to Russia to pay Pataga. Absolutely to pay Pataga, but China's not. At least we don't know if it is. We don't want to test that. So stay out of China's hair, but make it clear to them that they still don't have the military superiority that they seek. They still don't have the numbers or the quality to take on the United States. All right, I am going to postpone the discussion of US demographics to another day. It's already 1.35. I'd like to finish by 2. So I'll postpone the US demographic discussion for another day. And because of that, it's an interesting discussion. There's an article today out by Scott Linsicum, which I highly recommend about the issues regarding US demographic issues, but we will talk about those another time, given that we've already taken up over half an hour. And we will turn to our Super Chat questions. We're about $120 short for the goal for the Super Chats that consider that. We've got a lot of people watching live right now, 138 people. So please consider supporting the show, whether through a sticker, a Super Chat, a question, $20, $50, $10, $5, $2. Or you can do it on a monthly basis. You run bookshow.com slash support, or Patreon, or Subscribe Star. I also want to remind everybody to go to Inran.org, Inran.org slash start here to see the latest stuff that is going on at the Inran Institute. There is a big celebration of the Fountainhead that is coming up here soon that would like to get all of you engaged in and involved in. You can register and get information about it. On Inran.org slash start here, you can find information about the Fountainhead event and about other promotions that Inran Institute is engaged in right now. So please do all of that. All right, let's see. Michael, we'll start with Michael, $50. Thank you, Michael. That is very generous. We need a couple more $50 to get to where we need to be. Like I said, 300,000 pro-Israel protesters showed up in Washington DC. They were peaceful and positive and cleaned up after themselves. In each contrast to the pro-Palestinian rallies, absolutely, a good sign that the West will still reject barbarism outright? I don't know. I mean, I don't know if it's a good sign. $300,000 is that many in a country of $350 million. Many of them were Jews and standing up against anti-Semitism is something Jews do pretty frequently and shouldn't require any kind of special particular effort. I don't know. I would like to see marches in the rest of the West that explicitly pro-Israel, that explicitly pro-Zionism, that is pro-Israel's right to exist as a Jewish country. It'll be interesting to see if any such demonstrations actually happen. Anti-Semitism is relatively easy. Pro-Israel is a little harder. Although, 300,000 was fairly pro-Israel as well. But I'd like to see it in more places around the world. Right now, 80% of the demonstrations in the Western world, 80% of the, no, in the world globally, 80% of the demonstrations in the world globally are anti-Israel. Not a good ratio. Not a good ratio. And my guess is, even in the West, it's close to that. Most of the demonstrations are anti-Israel, not full. But yeah, it was good. It was good to have them there. It was funny because funny, sad. There was at least one airplane full of people from Detroit who flew in to participate in the protest. And they had hired buses to take them from the airport to the site. And the bus drivers refused to take them. Once they heard they were pro-Israel demonstrators, they refused to take them. In Washington, DC, I think it was Dallas airports in Virginia, the bus drivers refused to take them because it was a pro-Israel demonstrations. That tells you a lot about how deep this anti-Israel sentiment goes in the United States. It's quite shocking, quite shocking. Thank you, Michael. All right, more, Michael. Like I said, sorry I'm late. Did you already discuss the almost fight that broke out in the Senate with the Union thug? Bernie seemed to do a good job keeping the peace? No. I mean, it doesn't strike me as important news, right? It's just a Senate who's a bit of a thug and a union leader who's definitely a thug going at each other in a completely inappropriate way, in an inappropriate place at the Senate. And yeah, Bernie stepped in and said, you know, guys, calm down. We're not going to turn this into fistfight, which was good. But yeah, I didn't think it rose to the level of the few items that I have to cover during the news show. All right, we have six more questions. So if you want to chime in with the questions now is your time, or if you want to just support the show in some way, now is the time. Don't forget to like the show before you leave. And don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, to subscribe. OK, Michael says, why doesn't Netanyahu give a great speeches and then act like a coward? Wouldn't it be more in himself's interest to do things he articulates in the speeches? No, I mean, it takes courage to do what he says in the speeches. It takes bucking the trend. It takes bucking public opinion. It takes bucking world opinion. It takes bucking the opinion of his friends. No, I mean, having integrity is not easy. Netanyahu has zero integrity and never really has. He is a pragmatist that's figured out by giving a great speech. He gets people to love him primarily in America, but also in Israel. And he feeds off of love. He's a little bit like Donald Trump in terms of his narcissism. And as part of that, he is, yeah, I mean, he cares about power. He cares about staying in power. And he does not care about much else. And sadly, that has partially resulted in the October 7th massacre. And I blame Netanyahu to large extent for it. I mean, Hamas bears all the blame, but in terms of in Israel, Netanyahu is largely to blame. And he gives a good speech because he can't. He doesn't have the courage. He doesn't have the commitment to his principles, which is not easy to have when you're facing obstacles to actually live by them, to actually live by them. Yeah, I mean, I wish he was his brother. Yeah, Yoni, he has two brothers. And actually for those interested, maybe. I do know BB's brother, and I've spent a little time with BB's brother. Not Yoni, the ones that's alive. Yoni was killed in Entebbe. I know the family a little bit. I know his nephew, BB's brother's son, often videotapes my talks in Israel. So yeah. Yido, BB's brother is never going to criticize his brother online, so anyway, actually, sometimes, no. I actually know the stuff I talk about. I know it's shocking to many of you. Wesley says, the US has seen our birth rate decline below 1.7, and we did it without a one-child policy. Yay. Yeah, I mean, I'll talk about that on our future show. It is a big deal. Yes, I mean, the only reason American population is growing is because of immigration, and it will continue probably to grow for the next few decades because of immigration, and it starts shrinking. But the real consequence is the fact that it starts shrinking, and the real consequence is the low rate of growth in the size of the population in Israel. But it also is a question of why the birth rate has declined so much. What about the conservative policies to try to drive the birth rate up? Countries like Poland, and Hungary, and Belarus, and Bulgaria, and other countries have tried to do this. We'll talk about whether that's successful or not. And in a bunch of other things, so we will talk about that and about what the United States should do to deal with a real demographic issue. And I think there are things that the government can do, which are consistent with what the government should do anyway, which is increase liberty and increase freedom. Roland says that BBC interview skit sounds like great stuff. It really is. I'll be sure to check it out. Humor is indeed one of the most powerful weapons. Thank you, Roland. Wesley says, some people have said that the future belongs to those who have children. Do you think that is true? I don't know what that means, right? Future belongs to those who have children. Those who have children will not be around for the future. So it doesn't really mean anything. The future belongs to the people in the future. They will have it. I don't own the future. I can't own the future. Even if I had kids, I don't own the future. I'm not going to be around. So no, it's pure collectivism. It's pure tribalism. Oh my god, if I don't have kids, my tribe will go out of existence in 75 generations. Who the F cares? Why should anybody be concerned about it? You should be concerned about your own life and about your own prosperity. The only reason to be concerned about demographics as a political issue, let's say in the United States, is because of the economic implications it has, because the extent to which government is doing things to exacerbate the economic implications. Because one has to be aware, for example, of the workforce growing older and all of that, because of its implications for immigration, because of its implications of government policy for low birth rates, although it's not clear that that many implications, it's not clear to what extent that is actually real. So yeah, I think demographics is unimportant in a free market. In a free society, it would be interesting what the demographics are and what the birth rates are and everything like that. But it wouldn't be important. I think it's only important because of how involved the government is in all of our lives. And the solution to demographic problem is to a large extent, to the solution to problems created by demographics, is to a large extent to get government out of the way so that the cost of living goes down, so that productivity goes up, so that wealth creation goes up, and so that more immigrants come in who work rather than take welfare. James G, how can anyone in good faith recommend the military as a career with wokeness, weaker discipline, and all the other problems developed within? I find it very difficult to recommend the military as a career. I've said this since 9-11. I don't think anything has really changed over the last few years. Once I realized what they were teaching at West Point, once I realized the kind of sacrifice they were demanding of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, once I realized that our troops were basically being sacrificed for the sake of our enemy, after that I could not recommend joining the military because joining the military really means sacrificing yourself for what? For what? So I am against sacrifice, but fighting for what? What are you fighting for? And your commanders don't care about your life and they don't give you the tools to fight properly, they don't protect you, they don't defend you. I mean the military is a tragedy, a tragedy. All right, Sylvanus, $50, thank you Sylvanus. Have you listened to the recent podcast featuring Musk or Rogan and Friedman? Lex comes off as naive framing the question of Hamas and Musk's answer wasn't any better. At least on Rogan we saw the Cybertruck get shot with an arrow. No, I haven't seen, I've seen bits, but unfortunately Lex is way too much trying to find good in everything and not committed enough to rooting out evil and calling it out and identifying it unequivocally. Musk is all over the place. Musk is very weak and very disappointing on so many fronts. So Elon Musk doesn't surprise me at all. But Lex, I think it's too, making too much of an effort to appear and be impartial. Impartiality should be out. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not that hard to figure out. Yes, one should give the more moderate voices within the Palestinians a voice and let's see what they have to say. But at the end of the day, there is right and there is wrong here. There is morality and immorality. There is good and evil. And that needs to be identified, needs to be spoken of. And Lex doesn't want to. He talks a lot about the Nazis, but it would be good to see the fact that evil is not gone from the world. The evil the Nazis brought to the world, the kind of evil that the Nazis exhibited in the world is not gone. It still exists. And certainly the purveyors of that evil right now are, I would say, the Islamists and the Russians. The Islamists and the Russians are the main purveyors of the kind of evil that the Nazis manifested. And you've got to call it. You've got to call it like it is. You know, I'm hoping Lex has me on again sometime to talk about these kind of questions. That would be interesting and fun. And I like Lex a lot. So it would be, I think, a good conversation. And again, Musk, in many respects, Musk is hopeless, really hopeless. He is a kind of naive eclectic utilitarian. James, he says, why does race matter in 2023 so much in the U.S.? As you travel to other countries, even Canada, it appears to matter less. Will this ever change in the U.S.? It matters because we've kept it alive through the Civil Rights Act. We've kept it alive through our legal system. We've kept it alive because we constantly insist on how many blacks are on the board of directors, how many minorities are on this and that and so on. And a big part of that is our legal system has been corrupted by religion and all really starts with affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act that bans private discrimination. Those two pieces, if you... And this is Richard Hananya. I talked about his essay a long time ago. This is one of the best essays on the whole Civil Rights issue that I've seen on the way the Civil Rights issues morphed into what they are today. And I talked about this months ago, or maybe over a year ago, the legal issues, you know, basically, what do you call it, you know, entrenched racism into our legal issue, into our legal system, and we really literally have not been able to get away from that. And, you know, we're still... you know, since we're still there today. And now, the left has picked up on all of that and elevated it to a new level, to a new level of racism. The whole idea of identity, identitarianism, you know, identity is defined by your color of your skin, defined by your ethnicity, defined by your race. I don't believe there's such a thing by your race. And as a consequence, you know, they have elevated racism to a new level that now is legitimate in our society. So we have schools that are segregating. We have universities that are segregating. I mean, who would have thought that in America, which supposedly thrived towards colorblindness, we are now encouraged to be aware of our skin color, aware of our race. We need racial identitarianism. So it really, you know, over the last 10 years, this has been elevated above and beyond. But it only... but it was kept alive and became part of our corporate life and part of our culture because of the legal status. Of course, what happens is when the left elevates race, the right goes, OK, cool. We want to elevate race to. Right? Lucas says there's a new sub-stack named Israel Talking Points. Yes. I encourage you to look at Israel Talking Points. I was retweeting the talking points that Israel Talking Points put out. So it's... let me just say that it's something organized and, you know, some objectivists you guys might know, certainly objectivists that I know, but might want to remain anonymous. I'm not going to say who they are. A behind this. So it is kind of an objectivist project. Some objectivist intellectuals are behind it. So I encourage you to go find it on Twitter, on X. Ilan Juno has announced that Israel Talking Points, Israel Talking Points on Twitter, please go there, publicize it, retweet it, tweet it, whatever. And it should be, it should be, it should be, get as much publicity as we can, because I think it's, well, first of all, the Talking Points are fantastic, and they're going to continue to be fantastic, because they're all coming from the right philosophical perspective. I think, given that I know, given that I think I know who's behind it. All right, Deepa with Diego says, how can we push America to make Israel the 51st state? No, don't do that. I mean, why would you want Israel to become a 51st state? I mean, it's far away, and it's, God, I mean, America is such a mess. Maybe Israel can fix itself without becoming a state. I don't know, I'm mixed about it. There's certainly advantages for Israel to become a 51st state. It would be good for Israel, it would be good for America, I think, in some ways, but in other ways. Yeah, I mean, and America's so weak, America would probably make it a 51st state and then hand it over to Iran as part of a nuclear deal or something, right? At least this way, there's some people they're willing to defend themselves. I'm not sure Americans are actually willing to defend a 51st state so far away. James G. says, besides New York City, did you find any cities where race matters less? I don't know what that means. Did you find any cities where... In Boston, San Francisco, Fort Worth, et cetera, it seems to always be a political weapon. Yeah, I don't know, I don't know that that's true. I think it's become a political weapon over the last 10 years, but I don't think... Yeah, I don't know that that varies across different cities. I'm just not sure, James. Colin says, your show with Greg and Amos the other night was fantastic. Great, I'm really glad you enjoyed it. Hopefully you will tune in to their conference on Saturday, the conference on Desocializing Medicine in America, which is going to be broadcast live, so you'll be able to watch it on YouTube. The whole day, it's a whole day. I think 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. or something like that. So please do that. Thomas Cervillo, would you summarize the objective position on how the U.S. should regard China? Is it an enemy, a military threat, an economic threat? What should be our action? I don't think there is such a thing, so my view is, I don't think there is such a thing as an economic threat. There's just no such thing as an economic threat. Economic is not violence. Economic power is the power to voluntary engage, and if people don't want to volunteer engage, they don't have to volunteer engage. So I believe we should stop thinking of China as an economic threat, or any country is an economic threat. There literally is no such thing. I think we should consider China is not yet an enemy, but as a potential enemy, could become an enemy. And as such, we should think about not from an economic perspective, but from a national security perspective, are there crucial supply chains, crucial to our military? Are there crucial supply chains that today rely on manufacturing in China? And if they are, then the military, the Department of Defense, do what it can to diversify that away from China to Mexico, or even to the United States itself, or to Europe, or to somewhere that is not directly linked to the South Pacific, to South Pacific, or to China. And I think there's a lot that can be done, and it's not that expensive, and it's relatively easy, and it doesn't violate anybody's rights where the Department of Defense can do that. So I don't think the U.S. should regard China as an enemy. You know, as an enemy, you know, you would basically be on a war footing with them and complete embargo, 100% embargo. I don't think that's appropriate. What I do think is that it's a threat, and it could become an enemy. So you want to watch them. What does that mean? Now, they're not a rights-respecting country. So I don't think we should have diplomatic relations with them. I don't think we should have an embassy there. We don't think we should have, we should treat them. I don't think our president should meet with their president. I don't think we should treat them like a legitimate regime. But that I think is true of Saudi Arabia. I think it's true of every country out there that's not basically fundamentally free in some fundamental way free. So I think we should differentiate free and unfree countries and treat unfree countries like, you know, with a certain disdain and with a certain separation. But on the economic front, we should have complete free trade if there's certain things that we're worried that the Chinese army can use, I don't know, advanced chips or something like that, then embargo that, ban that, but zero tariffs. I would like to see the United States go to a zero-tariff policy regarding the entire world, with the exception of those countries that we embargo, but a very few of those, and those products that we deem products of national defense, but basically zero tariffs for China. And then we should be far about our presence in the Pacific. We should make it very clear to China that we will not tolerate aggression against us or against our allies, and we should be very clear on who that is. And we should basically ignore them otherwise. That is, don't take them seriously. You know, let individual Americans trade with individual Chinese as much as they want. But other than that, we should have no business with the Chinese. Just ignore them. Which is, I think, how we should treat every authoritarian country out there that is not a clear and present danger. Enrique Teller, recommendations on continuously following the moment-to-moment news on the war on acts frustrated as expecting progress at rooting out Hamas and lack of observed accomplishments. Yeah, I mean, you're not really going to be seeing the accomplishments. They're not going to be reported. You don't have a body count of Hamas people being killed. A lot of them are. I follow a number of accounts on Twitter that I think do an okay job, but even they are slow to report because they don't have the information. You can only report what you actually know. You know, there is, let's see if I can, just skimming this if I can find a few, maybe not because they might not be posting right now since it's evening in Israel. Israel War Room does a lot of breaking news. And then, so these are the two I follow kind of for breaking news. Israel War Room and the other one is OSINT Defender. All one word, OSINT Defender is, you know, also good uncovering breaking news and stuff that's going on in Israel. There's also, I think war, something that I follow, not war monitor, war monitor is really bad, but there is a war somebody who I follow who's very good in Ukraine, but also probably just on the situation in Gaza a little bit as well. But now I, yeah, war monitor one word, not two words. The one with two words is a really pro Hamas guy. The war monitor one word is good on Twitter for following primarily Ukraine, but also once in a while stuff in Israel. All right, Frank says, but don't you debaters not respect talking points? I don't know why we don't respect talking points. You need talking points. Talking points is just an outline. It's just key points you want to make and absolutely respect talking points. Part of how you prepare for debate is figure out what the talking points, what are the points you want to make, which is ultimately talking points. And go check this out on Twitter. It's very good. James G, how much is it more a segment about a new Bloomberg video title globalization is fracturing? So what comes next? The mainstream media. God, I don't understand what you wrote here. How much is it to make us, how much is it to make a segment about a new Bloomberg video title globalization is fracturing? So what comes next? The mainstream media's view. I don't know. It depends how long it is, how long I actually have to review. So maybe send me a little bit more information on the link in an email. You're on at youronbookshow.com and I'll let you know how much it is. Juan says, I'm a 24 year old mad that most my age only think of booze. I couldn't find a single goal to date. There wasn't this. This led me atheists to join the Mormon church. What would you tell a man like me? Oh my God, don't join the Mormon church. You know, you obviously not looking for the right places. I don't know. I'm not in the dating scene, but there's got to be better places to find women who don't want to just get drunk. You know, maybe you'd have to move to a different city. Maybe you have to expand the realm of where you're searching. I certainly don't understand getting involved in the Mormon church. Who the hell would want to marry a Mormon? Yeah, so, you know, there is... You don't want to... I don't know. I can't imagine marrying somebody dedicated to religion. You know, 24 years old. Particularly a religion like Mormonism, which is pretty posh. So I would... Yeah, I would expand the reach of your search. The best I can do. Yeah, Enric says, Visit God 24 on Twitter is also pretty good on the war. That's right. Visit God 24 is pretty good as well. All right. Okay. I'm not big on drinking. I'm not big on getting drunk at all. Ever. I don't like... I don't like getting drunk. I don't like being with people who are drunk. If you're going to go on a date with me, don't get drunk. You're not going to go on a second one. Or another one. And... What else? Yeah. Mormons are hardworking. I'll give them that. Very hardworking. And I like ex-mormons. People who've left the moment show it to you. I find a lot of them to be quite good people. But Mormons themselves, I am always suspicious of. All right. Everybody have a great rest of your week. I will see you tomorrow. Again, thank you to all the Super Chatters. We met our goal. Really, really appreciate that. Yeah. See you guys tomorrow. And we'll have two...