 He can't introduce people as great speakers. It's too intimidating. It's like sets the bow way too high. It's scary. So America is a truly unique country. It's unique in history. It's unique in its formation. It's unique in its ideas. It's unique in its evolution. It is why to talk about tribalism in America is so upsetting and disappointing. Really, whether you live in America or not. What makes America unique? What makes America special? Why is America viewed by much of the world or has been viewed in history? By much of the world, there's a shining city on a hill to use a Reagan description. America was founded, and it was the first country, and in some respects, the only country to be founded on the basis of an idea and not on the basis of a tribe. If you think about your own countries, most of your countries, most of the reason your countries exist is because the people within that country share some kind of common heritage, belong to the same tribe, and justify their existence in terms of that tribe. America was a country that had no tribal origin. It was a product of that period that Ankar described, a product of the period of individualism. It was a product of men who had a vision for what a country should be like, for what the role of the state, the role of government, should be. And that role was limited to the protection of the individual recognizing, recognizing that individuals have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, have a right to their own life, have a right to live for themselves, have a right to pursue their own happiness, and that the state was there to protect them, to make it possible for them to pursue the rational values necessary for that pursuit of happiness. It was a country that was founded with the recognition that it did not want to be tribal and established institutions to try to prevent it from being tribal. Indeed, the founding fathers talk a lot about we shouldn't even have political parties, because that might create an element of tribalism. We should run as individuals, not as Republicans or Democrats. Didn't last very long. The tribes formed very quickly, unfortunately. But they understood the danger, and they created institutions to try to protect from it. And it's why the United States was such a hospitable, at least in theory, at least, place for immigrants. The idea was anybody can come here, from any tribe, from any country, from any culture, from any background. And what we expect from you when you come to this country is to think for yourself, to work for yourself, to act for yourself, to be an individual. We don't care where you come from. Now, again, the caveats, unfortunately, because at the same time, as this was such a positive force, they maintained the racism that was so prevalent of that period. They maintained slavery and even post-Civil War that racism sustained itself. And there was always this tension in America between that collectivism of racism and the ideas of the founding. And the ideas of the founding, or what necessitated a civil war to end slavery. It was the ideas of the founding that ultimately manifested themselves in the civil rights movement to end institutionalized racism. But there was always this tension, but in spite of that, it was this amazing place that expected you to be an individualism that called out to you to come to it if you were inclined towards individualism. And even last night, I was talking to people, and they were saying, some people were saying, yeah, my goal is to get to America. And of course, I'm an immigrant, so I know exactly what you mean. My feeling was, from reading Atlas Shrugged On, was, I have to find a way to get to America. A land that will respect me as an individual, not as a member of a tribe. I come from a very tribal culture. Those of you from Israel know what I'm talking about, a very tribal culture. I wanted to escape that culture. I mean, my motivation of moving away from Israel was primarily to escape the tribalism, that you are a cog that serves the tribe. America was always the inspiration for individuals to go and pursue their own life as individuals. And it was a system that kind of reinforced that. If you failed, you failed. Nobody bailed you out. It was hard. And if you succeeded, you got to keep it. It was yours. So people who were willing to fail, risk takers, people who were willing to stand on their own two feet, were attracted to this amazing country. Now, unfortunately, much of that has decayed. And it's decayed for the reasons Ankar gave this morning. It's decayed because of the philosophical attack on reason. And a philosophical attack on reason is a philosophical attack on the individual because it is the individual who reasons. It leaves the individual naked, ignorant, incapable of understanding the world around them, as Ankar described it. And at the end of the day, that brings about fear. It's scary. The world is scary if you can't use your mind to understand it. And therefore, you gravitate towards groups. And of course, it was attacked by the collectivists, those who have always claimed that the group is more important than anything else. But that attack, while it was there, and it was prevalent, and it kept intensifying. I'd say it really started with a progressive movement in the late 19th century. And it continues through American history, and it's why America turns and becomes a welfare state. But it never really embraces the welfare state. It kind of does it in spite of itself. It's saying America has always been a reluctant welfare state as compared to Europe, which has committed welfare state. But the welfare state itself creates the cycle of zero sum. You're getting something that's coming at my expense, which creates a group over here of those who receive and knows whose wealth is taken away from, and special interest groups, and cronyism. And that gets worse and worse and worse because it's not being challenged. The only challenge, the only moral challenge, the only real challenge to the welfare state, the only real challenge to the slow growth of collectivism in America was Inrant. Wasn't the conservatives? Wasn't anybody on the right or anybody on the left? Slow erosion. And what we've seen in the last few decades is a culmination of that erosion into what I consider full blown tribalism in America. And I moved to America in 1987. And I've seen the change and the difference just over the last 32 years. Sad, tragic. I mean, much of it comes from the left. You see it on American campuses. I know there's going to be discussion of multiculturalism tomorrow, but the multiculturalist movement, which morphed into the identity politics movement, identity politics is what? It's the idea that your identity comes from the group you belong to. Identity politics, it's all about your identity. It's not yours. It's not you don't shape your character. It's the color of your skin. It's the ethnic group you belong to. It's your gender. And what, 98 genders now? So the 98 different groups. All of those things determine who you are. It's how oppressed you've been. And on campuses today, this idea of intersectionality, intersectionality, yeah. I mean, intersectionality is the idea of a morality that says that the needy, the suffering, the persecuted are the ones we should all be sacrificing to. It's an extension of this conventional morality taking it kind of to its logical extreme and combining it with tribalism. Because now the idea is we have a hierarchy of oppression. Who's the most oppressed group? Who's the least oppressed group? And clearly, altruism, the idea that we should live for others, demand that we sacrifice the least oppressed group to the most oppressed group. And you have all kinds of, I mean, it's complicated, right? If you're a white male, it's easy. But if you're a black male, you're black, so you're oppressed. But you're male, so you're an oppressor. And this goes on and on and on. And of course, all of it is based on some truth. There's always some element of truth. If you're black, you have been oppressed. If you're a woman, you have been oppressed. If you're gay, you were oppressed. All these things are based on some element of truth. And what they've done is they've taken that oppression, used the fear that the negation of reason has made possible to now lump you into a group, and the group will protect you. Because you've been oppressed, your only protection is the group. So we see this on campuses in America. And now I think it's sped, identity politics is sped to at least the UK and my guess is to other places around Europe. We've seen this grow and intensify for decades. We've been talking about multiculturalism and the danger of it and the danger of this racist, tribalist mentality that the left has been preaching. What I think is not completely new, but new in its visibility and new in its scope is the tribalism on the right. Now it's always been there to some extent. There's always been, as we said from the beginning, there's always been racism in America. But it's gained traction and become relevant again and become something that people are not embarrassed by. It was a long time in which it was embarrassing. And now it's not. So you're seeing the kind of actions that Charlottesville that Ankar described, the chance of we will not take Jews, we will not let the Jews take over or take our stuff. And the whole idea of America being a white nation. I mean, the first time I heard that I was like, what? I mean, America is the land of the individual. America is the land of opportunity for each one of us as individuals. That's the ideal, that's the dream. But now it's America is white nation. And people say this, who don't consider themselves racist, they just say it factually and should stay a white nation. Some of you might have seen an interview I did with a black interviewer who was actually arguing that America should be a white nation. And it was, I didn't know what to do because it was so shocking. And so it's like other than calling him a racist, which I did. Weird and interesting. But you're seeing that more and more in the United States just taking for granted, taking just being accepted. This implied racism just factually being described. And again, a president who at the very least doesn't speak out against it and the very worst actually condones it. And you're seeing it that reflected in things like, I know this is a controversial topic, but things like immigration. Again, America was founded on the idea of individuals come, come benefit from the freedom, make the most of your life. We are here to protect your rights. And now it's about immigration is a threat because again, we've created a tribe. And the tribe now is the tribe of America. So there's this idea of America and you're not an American if you come in as an immigrant. And there's concern about the fact that the immigrants, and again, this isn't a minor concern. It's a real concern that the people coming in to America are not white because America might stop becoming a white nation. So there's a tribe within the bigger tribe of America. There's a smaller tribe of defined by the whiteness of the skin. And we just, I think Donald Trump this morning or yesterday whenever was declared a state of emergency. America is under attack because of immigration. Because immigrants are coming across the border, yes, illegally because the laws in America are so screwed up that if you want to come and enjoy still the benefits of freedom that America actually provides, the benefits of opportunity that America actually provides, you have to break the law. Big deal. I would say if I couldn't have come to America legally, I would have found a way to come anyway, right? But it's a national emergency. People are invading the country from Mexico, right? They're gonna kill us. Us, who's us? And where there's no attempt to actually use reason and data and evidence to convince us it's all, if you listen to the rhetoric, it's all about fear. It's all about misrepresentation of facts in order to induce fear. That's the tactics of tribalism. It's not about reason. It's not about thinking for yourself. I mean, I've been, because I'm pro-immigration, I've been asked to leave the country to give up my passport. I'm not a real American because I am pro-immigration in America today. You even see it in the issue which I thought was a relatively simple issue, the issue of trade. America has, it turns out, American jobs, which Americans must do. Again, this is a form of tribalism. What does that mean? America used to be the land where we wanted the best for the best price. And we didn't care where it was made. And we didn't care who produced it. We wanted the best because our focus was not on American jobs. Our focus was on our lives and how to make our lives as individuals the best lives that it could be. And in order to make my life the best life that it could be, I wanted to buy a Toyota or an Audi. Nobody cared. It didn't matter that it wasn't built in Detroit. But again, over the last 30, 40 years, you've seen the slow creeping in of you have to buy American, which I think is Harry Binswanger in a famous essay he wrote, which I recommend. He says, buy America is un-American. American means buy the best for the price. Buy what's consistent with your personal individual values. It doesn't matter where it was built. And America thrived on that idea. It succeeded economically on that idea. It's not like we have evidence to say that because we had free trade and because we had lots of immigrants coming in and because we are relatively free to make our own choices, we somehow suffered economically, quite the contrary. America has benefited enormously. Americans as individuals have benefited enormously from this kind of trade. But we're seeing more and more rhetoric around trade that is pure tribalism. My tribe built it and therefore it's good. And if your tribe builds it, it's bad. The whole notion that countries trade with one another, like America trades with China, like who's America? What did they buy exactly? I know I trade with some Chinese guy in China. I buy iPhones, always use my iPhone, which was assembled in China. And I bought it from Apple and Apple bought it from Foxcom or paid Foxcom to assemble it and bring it back. But where did America fit in here? How many countries contribute? Some of you know this. How many countries contribute to the make, companies from different countries contribute to the making of this phone? I think it's 40, 40, 60, something like that. Who cares? It's a phone. It's great. It's amazing. Everybody across the supply chain has benefited from the fact that I bought the phone. But I bought it for me. I didn't buy it because it was made in America. It's because it was beneficial to my life. So much of economic language has become tribal, collectivistic, nationalistic. And I think the reasons for all of this are what Ankar described and what Einran wrote about. I mean, everybody here, particularly those of you from the Balkans, should read global Balkanization. And the idea that she wrote this in the 70s and described exactly what would happen in the 90s and the 2000s is stunning. It's truly, it's one of those essays we read and say, no, she couldn't have written it back then, right? But she explains exactly why this has to happen given the philosophical foundations. Given the attack on reason, given the attack on individualism, the elevation of emotion and irrationalism and the elevation of the collective. So America today, I think, is in big trouble, big trouble. Not because of economics, but because of the shift towards tribalism, which is feeds on itself and makes itself worse because the left response to the right and the right response to the left and they both become more committed to their particular tribes. There's very little thinking, individual thinking, there's very little independence. There's which tribe do you belong to? Is now how people evaluate you. You can't, for example, as an objectivist be, well, I agree with the Democrats on some things and I agree with Republicans on something and mostly I disagree with both of them on pretty much everything. That, people can't even, you have to choose. It's this one or that one. There's only two choices. You can't make any other choices. And again, that's a tribal mentality. There's only this group or that group. You can't be yourself, you can't think for yourself. So America's in real trouble and everybody wants a political answer and political answer does not exist. The answer is a rebirth of individualism. The answer is taking the individuals taking their lives seriously, taking back ownership of their own soul, of their own character, of their own life. And individuals who have that attitude don't want to belong to a tribe. Reject the idea of tribes. And therefore reject the idea of an all-encompassing state dictating to them what they can and cannot do. So the solution to both the economic issues and the tribal issues is philosophy. It's retaking our soul back. It's retaking our lives back as individuals and rejecting this whole notion of tribalism in America, in Europe, everywhere across the world. Thank you all. So we're taking, so we're gonna take questions. We're gonna take questions over here, please. We've got a mic over here, so if you move over to that mic. We can take our first one from Vinnie here. Yeah, let me just pitch my website. You're on bookshow.com. My YouTube channel, subscribe. And what else? Follow me on social media. Of course, you've got all the Ironman Institute content is amazing, so consume it. The YouTube channel in particular right now, there's so much amazing content going up on that website. There's Ironman Lectures, there's Leonard Peekoff Lectures, and then there's a lot of the intellectuals from the Ironman Institute are represented now on the YouTube channel, so subscribe to Ironman Institute YouTube channel. Yeah. Hi, Aaron. So I know that this is a question that's kind of focused on the US, but I'm sure you can find there's an analog. It's the theme of this cause. I'm sure there's an analog in Europe as well. So you talked about the tribalism amongst the right with the white supremacists. Do you think that, I would say in about the last 10 years, the kind of ubiquitous tribalism amongst the left as well of regarding racial minorities has kind of contributed to that reaction from the right as well? Yeah, that's what I said about identity politics. So I definitely think that the left intellectually legitimized this kind of racial identification. They basically said, we're gonna identify all these minorities and that's gonna be their tribes. And then kind of in a sense, the white, some whites said, well, we can play that game, right? And now it's intellectual legit, right? So before it was views as racist and bad. But now it's being taught at universities. Now it's being presented as a theory. I mean, they took it out of context, of course, of even how the left presented. But yes, I think left legitimized this kind of racial politics. And now it's all encompassing. Now everybody's playing it. Yeah, thank you. If you, I think the best way is to just run over to the mic, just form a line there and we'll take them quickly. So quick questions, because I think there's gonna be a line. Right. I saw somebody else stay with their hand, just go. It's not that big of a deal. Yeah. Morning. So prior to 2016, it seemed like the dominant tribal element on the right in America was religion. What happened to that? And what can we expect? Is it gone or is it coming back? So, yes, I mean, we have been warning about religion for a long time, particularly on the right. Lena Peacock, of course, has spoken a lot about the threat of religion in American politics. It hasn't gone away at all. I would actually argue that much of this tribalism is reflected, I think, in Donald Trump's presidency, is a consequence of that religious mentality that has been growing and growing. Now, again, I don't wanna offend anybody, but if you've got questions about religion, I'm happy to answer them. But I think that one of the identifying factors about religion is that it is authoritarian in its epistemology and its ethics. You're supposed to do what's right because you're supposed to do what's right because it's written in an ancient book or because some preacher said so, some interpreter of the book says so. It's commandments. It's authoritarian in that sense. You don't get to choose. You don't get to understand. You don't get to reason why you should do it. And the same thing epistemologically, in the sense that truth comes from a book. Truth comes from revelation in some sort. And it instills an authoritarian mentality. And I think that that authoritarian mentality now dominates much of what you'd call the religious right. And then they're willing to vote for somebody who's not religious who's authoritarian, who reeks authoritarianism, Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump, what was surprising in the American election in 2016 is that Ted Cruz ran a very focused campaign on evangelicals. He ran a religious campaign. He focused on them. He wanted their vote. But the guy who was the least religious candidate in all of them, at least in his life and the way he behaves, but the most authoritarian in the way he presented himself is the guy who got the evangelical vote. I mean, Donald Trump won South Carolina over Ted Cruz, over Huckabee, over people who are far more religious than he is. Because I think for them much more important than your religious affiliation is this idea that you can solve problems, you will just do it. You will get it done, which is Donald Trump's kind of shtick, right? And I think that is why the religious right voted for him. So I don't think religion is gone. I think it'll come back as explicitly. It shapes very much the thinking and I think the epistemology and the way people view the world among voters in America. Thank you. Hello, that was an excellent speech. I am not sure if I'm saying it right, but the saying goes like, I would sacrifice myself for my brother, for my four cousins or 16 second cousins. And it goes along with the fact that tribalism is somehow kind of coded into our DNA. I mean, Richard Dawkins wrote a book, Selfie Gene, that he's basically on the gene level. We want to preserve something which is closer to us. So how do we find something which is very much connected to our existence and it's very much the survival method of evolution? So I wouldn't sacrifice my life for any of my cousins. I wouldn't sacrifice my life for all of my cousins combined. You know, I just wouldn't, I like my cousins. I mean, they're like three people in the world, four people in the world. I would literally give my life for my wife, my children. That's where, that's the, but not my cousins. So I don't think it's coded. This is exactly what Ankar was talking about. This is conventional morality. It's coded only in the sense that it's the morality that we've all been, that's ingrained in us culturally that our preachers and our philosophers and our teachers and our mothers have told us that this is what you're supposed to do. Family is everything. No, it's not actually. I like, I love my friends much more than I love my family. I include my brothers and sisters and my parents. I mean, I love my parents, but you know what? If I had to help my friend, a really close friend or my parents, I would help my friend first. Because I've chosen my friend. I didn't choose my family. So the elevation of family is one of the ways in which we inculcate this tribalism. And you know, you can see that conventional morality, this idea that your life is not yours. Your life belongs to, that's where it starts. It's the most reasonable group of people that your life might belong to is your family. So you start with that sacrifice and then you expand it and expand it and expand it until it includes the whole tribe. I disagree with Dawkins. I disagree with all the kind of evolutionary psychologists. They've taken evolution in a very bad direction in terms of claiming that we don't really have free will, that we're not, don't choose our own values, that we don't choose our own ideas, that somehow there's coding that determines this. And I'm just an evolutionary freak because I happen to have different genes, I guess, than everybody else. But I think that I used to believe, I used to believe when I was young that I would jump on a grenade pretty much for anybody if they were in my tribe, the Jewish tribe, let's say. But I learned new ideas. I changed my values. And now I'm not jumping on the grenade for many people. And I used to be waiting for the grenade. I mean, literally waiting for the grenade so I could jump on it and be a hero. And it's gone because I changed my ideas. I'm not predetermined, you're not predetermined. You're not just a collection of genes. You have control over your own life. You get to make choices about the values you have. You're not predestined to just be conventional, which is that approach. Okay. Hi there. So you spoke a lot about the United States and its current shape and the trends. I do see that a lot of people in generally speaking, broadly speaking, liberty movement have a bias towards hating their own government the most. So I wonder, what's your stand? Because I'm, I think, quite typical IT startup guy who immigrated to London. And I thought about it as a point before going to States because I always was also drawn to these ideas. It has in founding, but now the question is, is it really worth it? I mean, London's also great on opportunities. So what is, except for hating your own government, your tendencies? What is the point that you think is a future for States and is it still the best place for opportunities and life of individual? I think in many respects it still is the best place, which is sad, I think, a little bit because it's deteriorated and the rest of the world has gotten better, much of the world has gotten better but not better fast enough to overtake it. I would love to be able to tell you know there's this better place, right? Yeah. But it's, the difference has shrunk. So if I were evaluating where to be and I was in London, you know, we'll see what happens March 29th, but if I was in London, you know, in ranking the countries that you could go to, a lot of it has to do with your particular profession. There's a lot of it has to do with your particular lifestyle and what you want to, you know, how you want to live. Like I'm a, I've become a huge fan of New Zealand but you can't, not everybody can go to New Zealand. It's like really far away and it's, you can't see your family and you know, it's really hard to travel to and there's not a lot of job opportunities there. The beauty of the United States is that the sheer size of it, the diversity, the ideas, the opportunities are almost, still almost endless. Silicon Valley is still this amazing place which in spite of a politics of tribalism, they're unbelievably individualistic. It's this real, I mean, Silicon Valley is a whole analysis in and of itself in terms of the gap that exists between how they act and how they behave and how they do stuff on a day-to-day basis and the politics that they espouse. So I still think that particularly if you're in tech, that the best place in the world to live is America but of course we're making it as Americans now, making it very hard for you to come. It's really hard and London also has a lot of great cities. London is a great city, it's a great city. All right, so still? I would still, you know, I'd still say America's the place to go, yes. And we need you because the battle, the battle, you know, you have to sacrifice for the cause, you know. I'm kidding, kidding, kidding. Hi, thank you for your talk, it was very interesting. Make them really short because we're running out of time. Yeah, okay, so I was going to ask you about the evolutionary psychology, like the question that was asked before. But I was wondering about what are your thoughts on the future of humanity? Are you optimistic? I mean, knowing that humanity is so invested in the ideas of the culture. So we're short on time, so let me cut you off. So evolutionary psychology asks the philosophers. You heard a little bit of what I think, but I think you should ask tomorrow, particularly Ben and Greg. Greg today is going to talk about thinking. So there's some good questions there to ask. I think evolutionary psychology is much more complicated, complex. There's something there, but what is there is not what they claim there's there. That is, clearly, there's something about human nature that comes from evolution, right? But then the question is what is it and how do we define it and how do we address it? But your ideas do not come from evolution. And therefore your values don't come from evolution because your values are shaped by your ideas. So are you optimistic that the world is becoming? Am I optimistic? No, and yes, right? So no in the short run. I'm pessimistic in the short run. I think in the short run in terms of politics, in terms of directions, of freedom, I think it seems to be collapsing. I think there's real challenges. I see even Asia now turning against the ideas of freedom, which they seem to be moving towards. I see Eastern Europe becoming more tribal in spite of the fact that they seem for a while to be moving towards more freedom. But overall, I'm optimistic. I think good ideas went out in the end. I think if the good ideas are out there and if we keep doing the work and if we keep talking to people and educating people, I believe in free will. I believe people can change and they can change fairly quickly. So in the longer run, I'm very optimistic. And even in the short run, I'm pessimistic about all these political stuff, but I think there's this island of sanity and that's intriguing in terms of how we use it, which is technology. So I'm intrigued by the fact that we now have these technological tools that have never existed in human history. Nothing close to it has ever existed in human history. And how we can use those tools to spread good ideas, basically, and to implement those ideas in ways and creative ways that I think are exciting. So the extent that I'm optimistic, it's about tech and it's about the long run. And to the extent that I'm pessimistic, I look at politics and I look at the drift, a political drift in the world right now. Thank you very much. Hi, thank you again for your speech. I would like to ask you when you mentioned in your speech, Apple, and your phone, it took me to think about one of the biggest challenges we have nowadays, which is the environment and the environmental destruction. And so I wanted to ask you, how do you perceive individualism and objectivism in relation to trying to save our environment? Because it was caused by our selfishness. Yeah, so let me, I mean, I just came from a tour of the UK of high schools. I spoke to 10 high schools in the UK. And this is the dominant question I got. I mean, over and over and over and over again. And young people today are terrified because the environment is collapsing and we're all gonna die, according to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in exactly 12 years. And I'm sorry, I don't get it. We live in the best environment ever in human history. The water's never been cleaner, never been cleaner in any period in human history. You know why Europeans drink beer? I mean, the real reason is because the water was too polluted. So they had to come up with a different, why did Chinese drink tea? Because they had to boil the water, the water was so polluted that it boiled it before they drank it. The air is cleaner than it's ever been. And it's only gonna get cleaner as China becomes rich and cleans up its environment. Because first you have to get rich and then you clean up your environment. The human environment, which is my focus, is what it's like to be human in this world right now. It's never been better. And I know you're all shaking your heads because I know that this goes more against convention than anything else we're probably gonna say, which is kind of strange in and of itself. But the world is amazing in terms of the environment. Okay, so it's warming. Let's say it's warming. I'm willing to concede it's warming. Then we have the capacity as reasoning beings to solve whatever problem comes at us. I'm not worried about warming. I know that people will solve problems. Amsterdam is below sea level. There's a dike built, I don't know when, a long, long time ago that prevents Amsterdam from flooding. I'm pretty sure we can figure out how to prevent other places from flooding if it came to that. If it got warm, I'm pretty sure we could figure out technologies that would cool our lives. Because what's important, it's our lives. The idea that the world's gonna end, you know, it's almost like there's a, here's my evolutionary psychology, almost a human need to believe that the world's gonna end soon. Because it seems like every generation believes that they're doing something that will end the world. It's probably connected to tribalism somehow. We'd have to think about it. But it's just, I just don't see it. Like, you know, that is the last thing I worry about right now is the environment. Because I've seen how much clean air gets. I mean, anybody visit London in the 70s? What a dump, right? It was filthy. It was filthy, really filthy. And now it's clean. And you go in America, city after city. We were just at a conference in Pittsburgh. One of the cities that was considered the most filthy in America. And it's beautiful. It's clean. They cleaned it up. Why? Because we are rich enough to clean it. China will get rich enough to clean its environment for human beings. And the global warming stuff, you know, why, you know, sort of warm? I, you know, one of my favorite lines is Canada will become habitable. As will Sweden, you know. But the point is we can use human ingenuity to solve these problems instead of panicking and fearing and wanting to coalesce around groups in order to, or coercion and force in order to solve the problems. I want to unleash the markets and unleash human freedom and human ingenuity on the problems. To the extent that they affect individuals. That's how you get the best results. Okay, last question. Thank you. Okay, hello, the last one. I would just ask you about because I spoke many times to the radical leftists and I see that the mechanism that they use is very similar that was mechanism used by fascists or communists. They take something that is true. For example, the racism exists and this problem because the white privilege, because the white man or something like this. And they add the ideological extent to this. I want to ask you, did you have this same feeling about the radical leftists or the radical rights or how to prevent this radicalization? Yes, I mean, I think every set of ideas, good or bad, starts with some element that is reasonable, that is a semi-true and then builds a lot of bad stuff over it. And certainly much of the left, much of the feminist movements are built on some grain of truth, right? I mean, women couldn't vote 100 years ago in most of the Western world and couldn't inherit wealth and there was a lot of discrimination against women, right? And the same is true of certain ethnic groups and certain people of colored skin. So they start with that and then they perverted and distorted and built a whole theory about it. And that's true, I think of every set of ideas. It's not like Marx when he wrote Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto was completely detached. I mean, a lot of what he says is true. You read the book and you say, yeah, that was happening. And then he comes to these weird conclusions about it that don't make any sense. But he starts with an element of actual reality, of actual truth and builds on that. And I think that's true of every set of ideas, otherwise it's dismissed very quickly. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everybody.