 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Iran Book Show on this Tuesday, Tuesday after, well, noon, noon here in Puerto Rico, 8 AM Pacific time. But I think we've got some Europeans here, because somebody said good evening, and we've probably got people from all over the place. So yeah, things are cooking here on The Iran Book Show. We are moving forward with our daily news shows. All right, Tyler says, all I want for Christmas is The Iran Book Show. You're getting it, Tyler. See, there is a Santa Claus. And here we try to give you whatever you want for Christmas. All right, let's jump into the news. We have the January 6 committee of Congress has actually sent forward recommendations for legal prosecution of Donald Trump on counts of causing the January 6 riots and so on. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens now, because this is, I mean, what's partially interesting is to see how Senate Republicans have responded to this. I mean, McConnell basically says, quote, the entire nation knows who's responsible for that day. So he's placing the blame squarely on Donald Trump. Now, he's got a feud ongoing with Donald Trump. McConnell said, to remind everybody, on February 2021, even though he voted against or quit Trump back then during the impeachment, he said that people who stormed this building believed that they were acting on the wishes and instructions of the president. I think that's absolutely true. And the testimony that came out on the January 6 panel was truly horrific. It should condemn Trump to never being able to achieve any kind of office, dog catcher, never mind the US presidency. I mean, the way he behaved that day, the way he behaved once you had videos of what was going on in the Capitol already on display. Everything about Donald Trump that day basically discredited him. He should have been impeached in February to make sure he could never run for president again. But the Republicans wimped out. It's one of the great wimping outs of all time. Senate Minority Whip Republican John Thune from South Dakota said, well, it's up to Justice Department now, kind of not wanting to take a position. But he also went on to say, yeah, the partisan, the committee was really partisan. It was mostly Democrats and anti-Trump people. But he said, they interviewed some credible witnesses. Yeah, they did, a lot of Republican witnesses. And he said, they did interview a lot of folks that had a lot of knowledge of what happened. And they were people who I think were credible. Rob Portman said, I think the referrals are not as important as the report. The report's important, even though it came out of a partisan process. So I think Republicans recognize maybe it's because Trump is not doing so well in the polls that they can embolden some a little bit to come after him. Trump should have been impeached in February. I don't know if he will be prosecuted. There is, remember, a special counsel that the Justice Department has appointed in order to investigate the January 6th and to figure out if prosecution is warranted. The special counsel will get this report. And then that special counsel will have to decide whether to go after Trump over that and over other issues, including the classified documents at Mililago. You know, it's going to be super politically risky to go after him. It might actually help his case with the base. It'll hurt his case, I think, with Americans. It'll make him even more unelectable. But he's already, I think, unelectable. But it surely will, if the Justice Department goes after him, it surely is the case that the base will get very, very excited. If you want justice, then I think Trump should be prosecuted. I thought Trump should have been impeached. That would have satisfied my justice. But I think what Trump did is horrific, whether it's criminal or not. I'll leave that to the lawyers and legal experts out there. But he was horrific, irresponsible, unpresidential, stupid, borderline what he did while the riot was going on inside the Capitol was borderline treasonous. All of that should have caused Republicans to impeach him in February of that year. They didn't. Lock him up. Lock him up. The sad thing is that whatever is done to him will only solidify and create more passion among those who support him. I mean, facts, it seems like the fanatical supporters of Trump have never cared about facts, ever. Wes, thank you for the support. Raymond, thank you for the support. And Merry Christmas to all of you. Really appreciate the support. All right, so January 6th panel, that's something to watch. See what the Justice Department does. Hugely risky politically. And really, really tricky to go after a former president who's already announced his candidacy. I think one of the reasons Trump announced this candidacy early was to try to make the decision to prosecute him more complicated and more difficult and more wrought with political meaning for a sitting president to go after a former president who's going to run against him. It'll be interesting to see. Republicans seem to be preparing an alternative. DeSantis will see how all that shapes out and plays out. And we'll see over time whether DeSantis can appeal to the people who he's going to need in order to actually win on a national scale. I'm not sure yet. We will see what happens. All right, tie to 42. Big story obviously has been a big story for years since COVID, since tie to 42 came into being. Tie to 42 was basically initiated by Donald Trump as an executive order under emergency powers related to COVID in 2020. And the idea was for health reasons, for health security reasons. People crossing the border and asking for asylum in the United States will not be kept in the United States because they might be carrying COVID. The idea was they didn't want COVID to be Americans to be infected with it. It would be turned around us and back to Mexico. So there was this policy. And we'll get to the whole asylum thing and asking for asylum and crossing the border like that. We'll get to that in a minute. But basically, they were brought over and put, they were brought over. And then they crossed over, announced that they wanted asylum, and immediately returned to Mexico. And that has to some extent reduced the number of asylum seekers because they don't want to have to spend months in Mexico while their asylum request gets reviewed. COVID is kind of over. COVID isn't a big deal, at least not in the United States, maybe in China, but not in the United States. And yet, Title 42 has sustained because the number of asylum seekers continues to grow and the number of people crossing over the border seeking asylum continues to grow. And the US government doesn't know what to do with them. The fact is, if you're an asylum seeker without Title 42, the United States puts you up, feeds, clothes, pays for your housing, at least until your case is brought in front of a judge and your case is decided. That can take months and months and months and months and maybe years. That can take a long, long time. And we're talking about hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people who are asking for asylum, and they have to submit documents, and they have to submit witnesses, and they have to go through a trial. And the immigration courts are overloaded. They're exploding. There's not, there's way not enough capacity to be able to deal with this massive challenge. And of course the easy thing is not to have to feed, clothe, and house them, and that is to send them across the border. The problem is that there's no, in US law, as it is written today, there is no authority to do that. If they come over the border and they seek asylum, US law says we have to clothe, house, feed them until the case is adjudicated by law. And then we either send them back or give them asylum. And no welfare state is geared up to do this, and we're spending huge amounts of money. But more importantly, the resources is not there. There's not enough beds. There's not enough infrastructure to be able to house and feed and clothe all these people for the duration. And again, the court system is breaking under the burden of all these cases. So, Title 42 kept being extended. And, but really there's no legal basis for that extension because it was, it was extended on, it was put forward on the basis of, on the basis of COVID and COVID is not an issue. The state of emergency regarding COVID is gone. So this is a real challenge for the Biden administration. And other problem, of course, Biden faces is he has promised to be welcoming of immigrants and welcoming of asylum seekers and yet he can't cope. The numbers are staggering and he can't cope with these numbers. And so, but he has decided, he decided to let Title 42 expire, a bunch of Republican governors sued to extend Title 42 because they say they, the states and the federal government are not prepared for the influx of massive numbers of immigrants, of people coming across the border to seek asylum is going to be. And since they are, since they're not ready for that, they want to extend Title 42 further. This went for an emergency kind of decision to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Justice Roberts, basically came forward and said, he's extending Title 42 and has asked the government and has asked the government to respond. He's got a series of questions for them. I think in the end of the day, there's no legal way to extend this, without the Biden administration having a new executive order that reinstated on the basis of something different other than COVID or God forbid, the sky opens up, something miraculous happens. And Congress actually passes immigration reform, which there was a little bit of hope they would do during this lame duck session right now, but it looks like they will not be able to. I don't think either Republicans or Democrats have really an incentive to pass a partial immigration reform bill. So here's the problem, because I'm sure many of you are saying, but you're wrong, you're the open borders guy, you want to bring them all in. Sure, not exactly what I've said, but even if you were open borders guy, I'm not a welfare state guy. That is, I don't understand this whole idea that if somebody crosses the border, say asylum, that you just have to roll out a red carpet and give them money, take my hard earned money, take our taxpayer money and give them money and give them support and give them housing and give them all this stuff. It is obvious that this system is not gonna be abused. Indeed, the number of people crossing the border, it used to be that you cross the border in stealth and you try to evade the patrols and get into the country illegally and then go and work illegally and hopefully stay here long enough and one day you'd be legal or you'd have kids and at least they'd be legally even if you want. But what's happening now because of these, they figured out that they can exploit the asylum laws is that they're crossing the border, immediately surrendering to the border police and declaring that they're seeking asylum. And at the very least, I advise them time. And what standards do you have for asylum? Poverty, I guess, is not a stand for asylum. But if gangs are chasing you, if drug gangs are chasing you, that's a basis for asylum. If your kids are being recruited for gangs, maybe that's a basis for asylum. If there's a civil war clearly, that's a basis for asylum. If the government is after you, that's a basis for asylum. I mean, what are the objective, I mean, there might be objective standards out there for actually asylum, right? So it's truly non-objective, I think, at the end of the day. And in spite of that, in spite of that, and it's the whole notion of the United States has to be this place where we can't bring in workers, we can't have people to actually work. We can't bring in people who actually invited into the country, but anybody who declares need is invited in. I mean, this is an altruism-based immigration system, which is absurd and ridiculous. It's the worst of our world. What we need in the United States is systematic immigration reform. Systematic immigration reform that favors people who can come here and not go on welfare. Systematic immigration reform for jobs. I've said this over and over again. What you need is a massive overhaul of legal immigration to allow anybody who has a job offer in the United States that they can get while they're overseas, whether it's for picking strawberries, picking apples, or getting a professorship at a university or a senior position as a scientist at Intel. Any job offer, at any level, the government shouldn't be about, ooh, we need really smart people. The government shouldn't be in the business of trying to figure out what jobs the market needs. The government should allow the market to function and say, if you want to bring in employees, that's fine, we'll give them a visa. And we should have employment agencies all over the world granting visas to people who want to come and work in the United States and that the employment agency can match up with an employer. And that should be the basis of immigration. And that would mean that almost anybody, because there's such a shortage of jobs in the U.S. right now, millions and millions of jobs, shortage in the United States, that almost anybody who wanted, a lot of people who would want to come to the U.S., a significant, I think, majority, maybe, you know, could. If they were interested in working, which I think almost all immigrants to the U.S. are interested in, and drop asylum as a standard completely, drop asylum as a standard completely. Yeah, employment agencies would do it over the internet, but you'd have to maybe, you know, because this is primitive stuff, you'd have to actually stamp a visa in their passport or whatever, she'd have representatives around the world, but you would do it all over the internet. Yeah, we could, I mean, I wish you could do it all over the internet, have blockchain and verification and all the fun stuff that technology today allows for us. It's, that would be the way to do it. Thank you, Ion Milkhead, you're right. Who needs employment agencies when you've got the internet, when you can do it all digitally? And then you would match employment with demand for employment. And would some Americans lose their jobs? Yeah, would some wages go down? Yeah, most wages would go up. That's been shown over and over again. Immigrants overall raise wages in an economy, but specific wages might go down because in specific areas there might be competition. Americans who can't compete, some of them would lose their jobs. Fine, there's competition. But right now, Adam says as of November 30th, the 10.3 million job openings, we could increase immigration at 10.3 million by filling all those jobs. That would be amazing. Grant them five-year visas, renewable, if they are still working, right? If, you know, maybe they're eligible for citizenship after 25 years, maybe they're never eligible for citizenship, who cares? I don't care that much about citizenship. What I care about there's ability of people to come to the United States, benefit from the relative freedom that we have here. Sorry, and benefit from the availability of jobs, which we'll all benefit from. By the way, as soon as those 10.3 million jobs are filled by immigrants, more jobs will be created than ever before because the reality is, and all of economic history shows this, jobs beget jobs, jobs beget jobs. And by the way, robots beget jobs. Technology beget jobs. Robots who will place human beings beget jobs. Freedom generally begets jobs. All right, so all this nonsense and demonizing the people, crossing the border, they're just coming because of our stupid immigration policies. Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't you? Anyone, if you would, if you were rational, would exploit immigration policies as they are right now and try to get out of a place like Honduras or Guatemala or any of these violent places in the world. So I don't blame them. I blame us stupidity. We've been trying to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform since the 2000 for 20 years now. Haven't been able to. That's on our politicians. That's on us as the electoral. That's on the crazy, crazy left, crazy right. And there are, and there are rational ways of doing it. Now, they probably won't do it the way I wanna do it, but they're ways to improve the system beyond what we have right now, which is completely insane and being exploited. All right, quickly, Carrie Lake, the woman who ran for governor in Arizona and who lost and has been crying about her loss since then filed a lawsuit demanding that she be instated governor of Arizona or that there be a new election. She lost to constitute 10 different claims against the state of Arizona for all kinds of fraud or claims or problems with the election that would justify this. A judge yesterday dismissed eight of the 10 claims. The two last claims are now gonna go to court. There's gonna be actually a court, a trial. It'll be a two-day trial. These things are pretty minor. So, suppose the claim is valid, not that it's true, it's just that it's a valid claim. The chair alleged that a county employee interfered illegally with the printers, quote resulting in some number of lost votes for Lake. So she is gonna have an opportunity to prove that in a court of law. And then there's one other one. She made a specific allegation that an unknown number of ballots were added to the county's total by employees of Runbeck Election Services, a Phoenix company that provided election equipment for the county and that the seats of delivery were not maintained in violation of state law and that claim has been allowed to proceed. Whether those claims, even if she wins them, are enough to overturn an election. The court will have to decide. I obviously doubt that. I obviously doubt that, but we will see. So she's gonna have a day in court. Of course, she will argue that the court is biased. She will appeal. She'll cry. She'll be mown. She'll say it's all a conspiracy. This is the deep state thereafter. She's the victim. And she'll go kissing Trump's feet to try to, for him to make his running mate in 2024. All right, that's Update on Kerry Lake. And finally, from the wonderful institution of the United Nations, this is, of course, an institution I believe should not exist. I believe the United States should stop funding tomorrow and should basically vacate their premise and send them to Caracas. That is valuable resource, valuable real estate in New York and also ugly building. It's a 60s type modern building if you've ever seen the UN building. It's an ugly building. The UN is an immoral institution through and through and does damage to the world by elevating dictators and elevating authoritarian's and giving them sanction. It should be disbanded. Anyway, the UN has had an historical meeting on biodiversity. It was in Montreal and they now have an historical plan to save, actually to halt the decline of wildlife and ecosystems. And in other words, to save nature. They're going to save nature. It includes a commitment by 190 countries who signed this convention, including this conference, including the United States. And they include conserving at least 30% of all land and water on earth by 2030. Means no development on 30% of all land and water. It's the largest land and ocean conservation commitment in history. Shrinking subsidies for activities that harm nature. I'm for that one. Shrinking subsidies, that's a good one. And all activities that human being engage in harms nature. So, I mean, they think about industrial fishing, but I can think of pretty much everything that human beings do harms nature by their definition. So maybe we just, how about eliminating subsidies, period, on all human activities? I would go for that, UN Biodiversity Conference. Here's the key curve, of course. This is what it's all about at the end of the day beyond helping snails. Is that the framework is committed, this is the same thing that came out of the Global Warming Conference that was held a few weeks ago. The framework commits rich countries, guess where you guys live, you guys mostly all live in rich countries. Rich countries are going to pay developing countries $30 billion a year by 2030 so that poor countries can conserve their wildlife. And this is because it's not fair because rich countries have spent 200 years killing off wildlife, partially it's how they became rich I guess, and destroying nature. And they're not going to allow poor countries to do that, so instead they're just going to give them cash. Of course, the environmental movement is saying, this agreement is saving the planet, it's the last chance to reserve declines in nature, the ecosystem is in decline, everything's dying, one million species are now at risk of extinction, one million, and many wildlife populations have an average decline by nearly 70% in the last 50 years as Marco Lebertani or whatever director of general of WWF International says, the figures are terrifying. We've lost almost half the forest, half the coral reefs, it's really, really bad. This is typical, this is the same kind of hysteria that you always get out of environmentalists, this is the same kind of idea that we're placing nature above human activity as if human activity is not part of nature, nature's out there, and I've said this many, many times, this is the principle. Human beings survive, thrive, succeed, only by changing nature to fit their needs, by exploiting nature. We are the species that survives by exploiting their environment. Any attempts to stop human exploitation of the environment are attempts to stop human growth, human flourishing, human success, human prosperity, and should be treated as such. So it's in all. Now, you know, we all fall clean and clean water primarily for human beings, and if you love a particular type of animal, then buy some and you can preserve it on your land, but don't force me to preserve it. All right, let's see, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. Two quick stories, and then I'll go to the super chat. Two quick stories just don't even need much commentary on this one. Japan, Japan has announced that this year, Japan will have the lowest number of births, the lowest numbers of babies born ever since it started documenting this kind of stuff, so not ever since it started documenting stuff in 1899. So the lowest numbers of birth in Japan since 1899, since the turn of the 20th century, births will fall below 800,000 in 2022. Now, just to put this in perspective for you, just to put it in perspective, the number of deaths in Japan last year, all in deaths in Japan last year, was 1.44 million, probably higher this year. So let's say 1.5 million this year because they're aging population. So what you're seeing is that Japan is barely covering half its deaths with new births. Now that's spooky how fast a population in Japan is gonna shrink with those kind of numbers. So 1.44 million deaths, 800,000 births. That is, and it's heading down. So the number of births are setting down and the number of deaths are setting up. Japan has a problem, a problem, by the way, common to much of Europe, South Korea, China, and Russia in a place like Italy and Spain. So a real challenge in terms of just simple demographics, the number of people. This should have ultimately an impact on housing prices and impact on land prices, which should come down because the demand for new housing is gonna go down. People are gonna have more than one house because their parents are gonna die and leave them a house and there's not gonna be demand for the housing. There'll be a lot of vacancies, a lot of, now most of those are old houses, but there's gonna be a lot of land available for sale. So the whole economic impact of that, pricing impact on that should be interesting. It should be interesting story to follow. And then finally, quickly, Germany, yes, I guess over the weekend, there was some military maneuvers and they took out their new tanks on to the new, whoops, what happened to my, what happened to what I had already here? Sorry, whoops, not that, not that, not that. That's not it, that's not it, yes. So Puma tanks, which are a combination of a tank or have a cannon and troop moving, infantry moving vehicles, they took them out for a little exercise and every single one of them broke down, literally every single one of them broke down. This would be something that the Russian army you'd expect from, not the German army. You know, Germany is gonna have to really think about what they're doing, if this is what happened to, as Politico Europe reports, our tanks went kaput, German general warns. Yeah, kaput and not a good position for Germany to be in given what's happening in Ukraine and Russia. Now so far, it doesn't matter because Ukraine's beating up on the Russians so the Germans don't have to, but still not a good position, particularly if the US, you don't wanna be completely dependent 100% on the US. You wanna be able to have the ability to defend yourself. All right, thanks everybody for the super chat. So we're gonna move now quickly to the super chat and I'll just remind everybody, what I wanna remind you, tonight there will be a show at 7 p.m. Eastern time. The show will be on James Cameron's movies. So we will talk about Terminator, both Terminator movies, we'll talk about aliens, we'll talk about true lies, and of course, how can we not talk about Titanic and Avatar. So I've called it The Good, The Bad and the Ugly of James Cameron movies. So it'll be one of these shows that deal with the statics. So it should be fun. Hopefully you'll join me getting into the fun Christmas spirit. On Thursday at 7 p.m. Eastern time, Don Watkins will, oh true lies, of course, Don Watkins will be joining the show and we'll be talking about stuff. So that'll be fun. A week from Thursday, we will have Tera Smith join the show. So we will start our interview shows here. All right, we are about $80, so four $20 questions away from reaching our goal for the day. So hopefully some of you can jump in and allow us to reach the goal. Of course, if everybody on the super chat just does a dollar, we're done. So consider just chiming in with a dollar and helping out to get us to a goal. All right, triple C says, if Trump were reelected, do you think Musk would invite government oversight into Twitter in exchange for subsidies or favors in order to make Twitter profitable? No, I don't think he will. It's not exactly what happened with Twitter in the past. Although the government, it does look like the government somehow, you know, there was some transfers of money. It's not clear exactly what was going on there. I'd position it as the government bribing. It'd be interesting to know how far up that went and to the extent to which Jack Dorsey was okay with and knew about and okay with the fact that Twitter was receiving funds. So it's important to really figure out what exactly happened there, what the money was actually used for and how it was received. But look, I'm all for, I've always been for Elon Musk succeeding in Twitter and making Twitter better and making Twitter more independent from the government. But again, the fault, I don't think the fault lies with old Twitter. And if you read the commentary in how Twitter tries to push back against the government and tries to resist the government and tries to tell them, no, this is inappropriate. And the government keeps coming back and you get the sense of the kind of pressure that was placed on Twitter. By the way, Elon Musk resisted that kind of pressure from the government if it was imposed by Trump. I don't know, I mean, did Elon Musk, as Elon Musk resisted pressure from the government to subsidize his cars in Tesla? Tesla, no, I mean, he's embraced subsidies for his cars. He doesn't embrace subsidies so much when other automakers get the subsidies, but when he gets the subsidies, he embraces them. And you know, who knows how much the government is involved in what happens to SpaceX and how much not only are they a customer, but they also are pressurizing. So I don't know what Musk thinks the role of government should be given that he has not run his companies free of government intervention so far, at least not when it's been convenient for him. Shazmat says, how does honor appell by military soldier to great as a great virtue fit into objectism? I think honor is an aspect of integrity, standing by your word, doing what you say. So it would have to be, of course, rational. It would have to be within the context of rationality. Don't stick to your word, no matter what. You know, if circumstances changes, if the data changes, if things change, you have to be willing to adapt and change your views based on reality, based on facts. So honor is, I think, if you will, a subsidiary virtue under integrity, under integrity. All right, 80 bucks, guys. That's all we need in order to get to our goal. A buck from each person online. Fender Harper says, if a company leads into automation to save money and production, then sell their goods reflecting that price, do you think competitors would antitrust them? I feel something like this are officially keeping prices from dropping. I mean, it would be hard because what would really happen is a company would do that and competitors would probably just adopt the same policies they did. But yes, I mean, certainly antitrust laws can be used to do that. Certainly there's nothing in the antitrust laws to prohibit that used by competitors to go after somebody who's automating. And it really is a danger. It's unlikely to happen and I don't know of any cases where that has happened, but nothing's to say it couldn't happen. It's certainly in, you know, you constantly see people accusatorily, you know, talk about, oh, big business uses robots to destroy jobs. And you see that over and over and over again. So robots are the enemy of many people, particularly on the left, but I think also on the back porch conservative, right, who thinks we need to protect the workers of America. So I think there's a big kind of consensus on the left and on the right around resentment of automation. I don't know if they can do anything about it, or they can. I don't know if they're willing to do anything about it, but they're certainly willing to yapper about it and to try to gain votes by saying they're gonna bring the jobs back in manufacturing. Again, almost all the jobs in manufacturing were lost to the Chinese. Almost all the jobs in manufacturing were actually lost to automation. Big worm says, completely off topic, can you describe the effects of federal minimal wage in Puerto Rico? They passed their own increase last year, discussing with a friend the other day on the ground thoughts. You know, I don't really know the empirical evidence about Puerto Rico, but generally, you know, I am sure because this happens everywhere that particularly if you increase the minimum wage, that creates unemployment among the poorest, least educated, the least able. Now, of course, Puerto Ricans have American passports, they go to America, but if you're a teenager, you might not get a job because the minimum wage is too high. So it has to have that kind of consequence. Puerto Rico generally has high unemployment, although it also has a significant illegal immigration from the Dominican Republic. So the jobs are here and maybe because the illegals take the jobs, they don't have to get minimum wage and therefore they are taking jobs away from, in that sense, from local Puerto Ricans. Minimal wage always, everywhere and always, basically, you know, destroyed job opportunities for those who can least afford to have those opportunities destroyed. So that's true in Puerto Rico, that's true everywhere else, but I don't have the stats on what's happening exactly in Puerto Rico. And look, the reality is today that the minimum wage in the US is so low, 725, that it probably doesn't do any harm at 725 and it probably doesn't do any harm if they raise it a little bit. I think once you start raising it at 15, it does real harm, real harm. And that's part of the problem with the studies is that the minimum wage is below the wage that you would pay anybody to do anything anyway, even if they didn't have any skills, then it's not gonna have an impact to raise it a tiny little bit. But if you raise it a big chunk, then clearly you're gonna distort the market. Scott says for Adam, right? You said Jordan Peterson was priming his audience for fascism and knew what he was doing. Well, but is it also your position that doing an interview with someone like this isn't disappointing? No, I don't think it's disappointing. And again, what do I mean by knew what he was doing? I talk off the cuff all the time so I don't always clarify exactly what I mean. Granted, what I mean is he should know what he's doing. That is, I think that he's engaging in evasion. I don't think Jordan Peterson is a fascist. I don't think Jordan Peterson thinks explicitly in his mind that he's grooming people for fascism. I don't think that's what he thinks he is doing. I think he thinks he's doing the opposite. But I also know, think, that he is evading the knowledge that what he's really promoting is fascism. What he's really pushing towards is a fascist attitude towards the world. So he's evading, I think that makes it immoral. But by that standard, you couldn't do television at all. I mean, I don't resent people from going on Tucker Carlson if they have an opportunity to go to Tucker Carlson even though I find him despicable and horrific and immoral. I would go on Tucker Carlson if he invited me. That is not the standard. What am I going on? I would make clear, I disagree with him. I would make clear, I would argue my case without compromise. But when somebody, and you guys are comparing this to going on with, what's his name? I forget his name now. When you go on and somebody, and they wrap their hand around you and say, we're jointly fighting for liberty. And you don't say, no, we're not jointly anything. You're undermining liberty, your religiosity or these other things are undermining the case for liberty. Then that's where you really have a problem. It depends on how, would you debate somebody like Jordan Peterson? Yes, would you go on and argue for your thing and then correct Jordan Peterson when he says stupid things? Absolutely, but Jordan Peterson is still not in the category of Anand Chomsky. He's not in the category of, you know, certain people who I will, you know, certain people who I will not go on stage with. Jordan Peterson is not in that category partially because I think he's so compartmentalized. He's so managed to ignore this knowledge today. I do think he thinks, even though I think he is based on evasion, that he's doing good. He's pro-freedom. But if those issues came up, I would definitely point out to him how wrong he is. All right, Andrew, random thought inspired by the modern wonder that is Spotify, the music industry stood up for the rights of artists when they were being robbed by file sharing. They won, customers won also. Yes, and you know who really won the wolf of them? The person who won it, the person who won it was Apple, was Steve Jobs. I mean, it was Apple Music. It was the iPod that really changed the world and destroyed file sharing forever. Well, maybe not forever, but at least for now, for a while at the time. Frank says, why does the New York Times are on a communist in yesterday or bit? They had a big pick of this guy who founded the Philippines Communist Party Pathetic. First, because they do a bit about famous people and well-known people, and even if you're a well-known evil people, they're gonna do it. It's why Time Magazine sometimes picks Time Man of the Year, some horrible awful person who they hate, we all hate, they might pick Hitler, because it's not about whether they're good or bad, it's about the impact on the world at that point in time. And the New York Times, I think, has a similar standard, but also because the New York Times still views, to some extent, communism with a certain benevolence as do, I think, a lot of people. Good intentions, bad practice. I still think that is a, I hear that all the time. Even among right-wing people, I need to show you a clip of a really good economist or really admire who you all, I'm sure, like saying something similar to that. Oh, socialism is wonderful, if. No, it's not, there's no if, it's just not. Jeffrey, five dollars to protect the snails, thank you, Jeffrey. J.J. Jinbis, Japan has long had a fascination with suicide. It's not me not being able to read its typos. Do you think that this population decline is a sort of subconscious collective expression of that? No, I think it is a subconscious expression of people's lack of optimism about the future, lack of excitement about living, lack of excitement about prospects, lack of excitement about their own prospects, or their own flourishing, their own happiness, their own success, in that sense maybe, but because suicide comes from a similar place. So yes, there's a sense in which that's true, but I often thought that people not having kids in mass as a cultural phenomena is usually a sign of a culture that just has a very, very negative view about the world and about life and about prospects for the future. All right, thank you, Tyler, really appreciate it. We're like 50 bucks short of our goal, but I have to go. So have a great day, everybody. I'll see you tonight. James Cameron movies, it's gonna be fun. I think these are some of the most philosophical movies. I'll just say this. James Cameron has made the most philosophical movies, I think as a body of work of any director I can think of over the last 40 years. So we'll be talking about what philosophical, what philosophy is expressed in his movies, if any. Thanks, guys.