 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 Tuesday, a little later in the day than usual, but I think this might be our time on Tuesdays. Tuesdays are getting hectic, so three to 30 is probably going to be my time. Two to 30 years can time is probably going to be the time for our Tuesday shows moving forward. Remind that quickly. Tonight, I will be interviewing Don Watkins. So Don Watkins will be in the show tonight. We'll be talking about current events, analyzing current events, how to do that. We'll talk about some of the courses at ARU. We'll talk about Ocon. We'll take your questions. You can ask him about effective egoism. You can ask him about why not all human life is a value. I think that was a post that he did like yesterday, pretty controversial stuff. So yes, Michigan Dawn, as Jennifer calls him, will be on the show tonight. It should be a lot of fun. So join us at 7 p.m. East Coast time. There'll be, you know, we'll take questions and pretty much everything. So join us, join us then. All right, let's see. Jump right in. I think the biggest story right now is everybody's kind of on pins and needles. Everybody's in suspense about what the Biden administration will choose to do with regard to responding to the death of the three soldiers over the weekend in their base in Jordan, attacked by a drone attack by Iranian connected militias. The Trump, the Biden administration has said that they will hold Iran responsible. But they've also said and they've been very clear and they've gone out of their way to say that they do not want to expand the conflict. They don't want to turn this into a war. They don't want to go to war with Iran. Please, no war. You know, basically Blinken has repeated over and over again that quote, escalation is in no one's interests. And quote, no one wants to see more funds opened in this conflict. Well, I want to call BS on the Biden administration. Escalation is in the United States interest. Opening up another fund in this conflict is necessary because that fund is already open. Iran is clearly the aggressor across multiple fronts. It was the funder, motivator, inspirer, and giver of, I think, permission for his ballot, for Hamas to do what they did on October 7th. It is responsible for what is going on in Gaza right now. And to some extent, you could argue that the blood of Israeli soldiers, but also the blood of Palestinian civilians is on Iran, the Iranian regime. Iran is responsible for the Houthis attacking civilian ships, carrying civilian cargo through the Red Sea and blocking the sea lanes and obstructing, obstructing trade. The Houthis are Iran's responsibility to put aside the horror and the damage and the destruction that the Houthis have inflicted on Yemen, their own country itself. Iran's responsibility, that's a front. That's an Iranian front. What are we doing about it? Israel's doing something about Hamas, but not much about the Houthis. Hezbollah would not be attacking Israel almost on a daily basis without approval from Iran. Iran has already opened another fund with Israel. On the northern border. And Israel so far is doing a tit-for-tat, tit-for-tat, tit-for-tat, tit-for-tat, which is what Blinken is basically suggesting the United States do. And Iran has launched a systematic attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. And whether, again, you think the United States should be in Iraq, Syria, Jordan or not, Iran has no sovereignty there. Iran is not responsible for kicking the Americans out. Iran should not be the one launching attacks. Iran is at a state of war with the United States. So you don't want to escalate. Iran is escalating all the time. The reason only three Americans have been killed so far is because the anti-air defenses of the Americas are pretty good. And because of our intelligence, primarily satellite intelligence, we get notified in advance when they're going to attack and people hide in bunkers. But Iranian intent is to kill lots of Americans, not just three. And Iran is only going to escalate more the weaker we appear. Iran will only do more if the United States does not respond, does not do anything. Now, Biden will respond. But it'll be the same response as we've gotten for the last 40 years. A few missiles into some deserted warehouses or taking out a few particular weapons sites or something like that. God forbid, make sure you don't kill anybody. Maybe they'll kill an Iranian Republican God here or there. It's going to be weak. Blinken is basic. He's saying it's weak. We don't want. Please, Iranians, whatever we do right now, realize we do not want to escalate. Please remember, we don't want to open another front in this war. He is signaling. So just don't take anything we do right now as too seriously. Please. We have to respond because it's like the tit-for-tat, tit-for-tat thing in American public. The kind of stuff the three American soldiers died. So we have to do something. But don't take it too seriously, Iranians. Please, Iranians, we beg. Really, pathetic, pathetic. Yeah, one of three women says, watch the recent Nikki Haley interviews on the subject. Nikki Haley is by far, by far the best politician I've heard on these issues. Again, she has her problems. And the main one was the stupid anonymity privacy issue on the Internet. But in terms of dealing with Iran, she is by far the best politician on this issue. She should be the Republican nominee. She should be the next president of the United States. And maybe because of all those shoulds, she won't out. I mean, American people are not in a mood to actually elect somebody with leadership skills. They're not in the mood to actually elect somebody who would actually confront our enemies and actually deal with them. They're in the mood of hunkering down and sticking their head very, very, very deep into a pile of shit. Well, into a pile of sand. But in this case, given who they're going to elect, it's a pile of shit. America needs to escalate. The Iranian threat needs to be dealt with. It needs to be dealt with in a way that's unequivocal. It needs to be dealt with in a way that the message of the United States is sending cannot be questioned. It needs to be dealt with so that the Iranians will never attack an American again. That's how it needs to be dealt with. It won't be dealt with like that, which means the entire leadership infrastructure of Iran needs to be taken out. Every single location in which the United States believes that there's nuclear, weapon development should be destroyed. Every single factory that is building a drone should be taken out. And here I include factories and nuclear facilities that are in populated areas. The Iranian national... what do you call it? Republican God needs to be destroyed. It's leadership taken out. And that would be enough, right? And no troops on the ground. Don't eat troops on the ground. There's an excellent article today by Elliot Cohen in the Atlantic magazine. And it basically states a truth, a absolute truth. And that is that Iran cannot be conciliated. That is the title of the article. America segmented, limited, and naive policy towards Iran continues to fail. The U.S. needs to try something new. And to try something new is to destroy this regime. And since 2003, as he points out, the Iranians have worked diligently to attack American forces in Iraq. The weapons have killed Americans. The proxies have killed Americans. They're a revolutionary God. It's not... I keep calling them the Iraqi Republican God. It's a revolutionary God. The Iranian revolutionary God coordinates all these efforts to attack Americans, to kill Americans, to destroy American facilities, and to thwart American efforts in the Middle East. And that needs to be ended. And the only way to end that is not through negotiation. It is through military action. Let me just say, the Biden administration, as we speak, through back channels, continues to try to negotiate a deal with Iranians. As will Obama Iran, they will continue to negotiate. And most of the Iranian team in the Biden administration are former Obama team that negotiated the first horrible deal. And they are trying to negotiate another deal now. If you listen to Bolton, and Bolton is saying... Bolton is being asked, what would Trump do about Iran? And Bolton's argument, again, Bolton had a deep experience with Trump on all these issues. Bolton is saying, Trump would try to negotiate a deal. He would try to show that he can cut a better deal. Trump would not destroy the Iranian regime. He would not respond any more aggressively than probably Biden is going to. He would just try to cut a deal, just a different deal, his kind of deal. He's the deal maker. Remember, he's the guy who ran to North Korea to meet with a leader rather than confront him. He's the guy who trusts Putin more than he trusts American intelligence agencies. He's the guy who is jealous of Xi's the fact that everybody stands up like she walks into room. Isn't that cool? By the way, nothing of this has anything to do with Israel. Zero, zilch. And everything to do with American self-interest. This crisis started in 1979 when I told Khomeini took over Iran. That had nothing to do with Israel. The hostages in the American embassy had nothing to do with Israel. I mean, it is a typical deflection and disgustingly anti-Israelan anti-Semitic to constantly blame Israel for America's failures in foreign policy. The troops in Jordan have nothing to do with Israel. The invasion of Iraq, as wrong as it was, and as stupid as it was, had nothing to do with Israel. 9-11 was not Israel's fault. But you can continue to pretend some of you out there. You can continue to live in a fantasy world that blames Israel for American weakness, that blames Israel for the lack of American strategic thinking when it comes to the threat that it faces in the Middle East. And for those of you who are really interested, Sam Harris has an excellent, excellent podcast that he just put up, I think, a day ago on the myths around what's going on in Israel right now that relates what's going on right now in Israel to the global jihadist movement and the global jihadist war against the West. It is excellent. Sam Harris on these issues is fantastic. And everybody should listen to it, share it, distribute it widely as you can. We will see. I mean, the Middle East is a mess and Biden is definitely the wrong president to be in the midst of this. He's just too weak. And politically, he's torn in too many directions, right? He's got to try to appease the Jews. He's got to try to appease the left. You know, in Michigan, if he wants to win Michigan, he wants to get the Arab vote in Michigan, the Muslim vote in Michigan, which is non-trivial in the state of Michigan. He has to appease his crazy left. He has to appease and on top of that, the guy can't think, right? And he's got a team of appeasers when it comes to foreign policy. All right. Talk about the Middle East. There is now significant efforts being exerted to come to a ceasefire agreement or to come to some kind of long-term agreement with regard to Israel and Hamas. There was kind of three different efforts going on. The first effort is to get a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which the last I saw would involve a month-long or what is it, a month and a half-long ceasefire, 45 days, exchange of more than 100 Israeli hostages held by Hamas for thousands, literally thousands of Palestinian detains in Israeli jails, including Palestinians who have committed murder, that is, including letting murderers out. And that is the proposal that the Israelis, together with the Americans, the Qataris and the Egyptians, are putting in front Hamas. That is, Israel is now asking Hamas to agree that it released thousands of these prisoners begging Hamas to allow for a ceasefire. It's truly disgusting and despicable what is going on and how much Israel is caving the Netanyahu government is caving on these issues. Hamas so far has rejected these proposals, and that's the one hope. The hope for Israeli victory in Gaza lies with Hamas' obstinance not to accept this ceasefire proposal. What a pathetic, sad state of the world. Israel should be the one saying, no ceasefire until complete victory. A second track of discussions is about trying to reshape the Palestinian Authority so that ultimately one day it can take over Gaza. Right now it administers parts of the Old West Bank. This is where the Arab and American officials, this is an American initiative and a Saudi initiative, they want to overhaul the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, bringing younger people and make it more effective and make it more agreeable to Israel so that once the war is over they can take over Gaza and eliminate Hamas' control over Gaza. You have to remember that even though Hamas would only get, I don't know, 50%, 60% of the votes among Palestinians today, the idea of eradicating Israel in the positive notions around October 7th still gets 70%, 80% among Palestinians. So a Palestinian Authority would have a majority of Palestinians who want to eradicate Israel behind them. It's not clear that the Palestinian Authority would be any different or any better than Hamas. There is again another example of Israel caving and America caving and America pushing Israel to cave and just everybody falling over each other to appease the bad guys, appease those who would commit genocide. And remember the genocide or party here is not Israel, the genocidal party here are the Palestinians. And the third track is American and Saudi officials pushing Israel to agree to create a Palestinian state and in exchange Saudi Arabia is going to forge formal ties with Israel for the first time ever. I really have no understanding of this one, right? So there's a Palestinian state. Do they stop doing October 7th-like stuff? And if they do, what happens to Palestinian state? Let's say there's a Palestinian state and they invade Israel and kill a bunch of people and they rush back into their Palestinian state. What happens then? Was there no real Palestinian state in Gaza? Was Gaza not a Palestinian state? It certainly was. And yet they still killed 1200 Israelis and maimed and tortured and raped them. So what would be the response? What difference does it make if there exists something we call a state versus what we have today? What is the advantage? Are the Saudis going to give Israel security assurances? What are those worth? Exactly zero. How can Saudi Arabia assure anything? Israeli military is far superior to the Saudi military. Saudi Arabia can't assure Israel of anything. So what Palestinian state? Who is going to run this Palestinian state? The people who are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel should allow this. Is this Palestinian state going to have a military? Is the United States going to sell them F-16s? Ludicrous, insane, stupid, delusional, evasive. That's what I think of these proposals. It's bizarre and ridiculous. All right. France has had a significant challenge to its current immigration laws and the current levels of immigration coming into France, primarily from the right. And indeed, the right in France is rising. Uri LaPence political party is gaining strength. Macron is declining. The center and the left are generally in decline and the right is on the ascend. This is true in most of Europe, in almost all of Europe. You're going to see. We'll talk about this maybe tomorrow. There was a new right-wing German political party. The German political map has basically shifted dramatically to the right and the left is in complete disintegration and complete chaos in Germany. The left is threatened to be completely wiped out or wiped out to a large extent during the next election. This is true in France and a big issue in Germany. France and all of Europe is immigration. And as a consequence of this, Macron's government tried to pass a law, a new immigration law. When it brought the immigration law up in front of the French parliament, it discovered it did not have enough votes in order to get it passed. To get it passed, it needed the votes from Uri LaPence party, the right-wing National Front. In order to get their votes, they agreed to a number of provisions. They added about a third to the law. They increased it by about a third. All kinds of provisions limiting things like welfare to immigrants, limiting family reunification, all kinds of restrictions on immigrants who are already in France. Also establishing quotas, parliament establishing quotas and immigration was also part of that. Anyway, two days ago, the Constitutional Council in France and also Supreme Court, the way we have it in the United States, they have a constitutional council. And the constitutional council, which is composed of lawyers, judges, former politicians, people like that, constitutional council reviews laws for their constitutionality, not from the perspective of a Supreme Court, it's their only job is to review laws vis-à-vis the constitution. The constitutional council basically declared a third, about a third of the law. Most of the parts that were added by the far right is unconstitutional. Not so much because of content, but because of procedure, for procedural reasons, the way they were added as right is through a law and so on. So it doesn't rule out that a future government could pass those as a separate bill. But it did restrict the law as it is passed now. But the law went into effect today with those provisions cut out. But the law does include now a few restrictions. For example, in order to get certain types of visas and certainly to get citizenship, the law is now going to require much higher levels of French proficiency. That is, there's always been a language requirement in order to get your visa or to get your citizenship. But now you have to be really good in French to get some of those visas and to get the citizenship. So it's increased the proficiency in French requirements. It has also made it much, much, much easier, to kick out French, to kick out what do you call it, criminals. That's the word I was looking for. Criminals who live in France, who might have lived in France for years. Criminals who might even have moved to France as children. So the French are now going to kick out of the country, send out of the country. The law makes it much, much easier to kick them out of the country. So much more difficult language buys, much easier to kick them out. On the positive side, in terms of positive incentives, the law also makes it much easier to give work permits and legalize the status of illegal immigrants who are working in, you know, areas, working in areas where there's labor shortage. So for example, just like in the United States, there is a labor shortage in France when it comes to construction. So this will allow the government to basically give work permits to illegal immigrants working in construction in France because of the shortage of labor in that field. So that will be one of the things that this law makes possible. So on the one hand, it toughens up the laws. On the other hand, it makes it easier, more appropriate to bring people in or to convert them from illegal to illegal. From the perspective of do they have a job and is the job one French obviously don't want to do or don't have the capabilities of doing. Like everywhere, like everywhere, certainly like the United States, immigration in Europe is a huge issue. Immigration in France is a huge issue. We'll continue to be a huge issue. There'll be an issue in the upcoming election for French presidents which is still a few years off. But when it happens, there's no question immigration will be a big deal. And this law is a way for I think Macron to look tough when he goes up against Marie Le Pen with regards to immigration. One of the issues about extraditing these immigrants has to do with the fact that some of the terrorists that have attacked in France were people who had criminal records and were not kicked out of the country. And what they want to do is toughen, significantly toughen and make it possible to kick people out who have been behaved criminally in France. I found this kind of funny, sad, I guess. So Governor DeSantis had a press conference in Naples on Monday morning, yesterday morning, in which he called for a significant amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This is what he does, I guess, now that he's not running for president anymore. He's calling for stupid amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I'm so glad this guy is not running for president anymore. So what he wants to amend the U.S. Constitution, he wants to have term limits for Congress members. That's an important one. God, if only we had term limits like, let's say, California, we would be in much better shape because it's term limits. That's the solution to our country's problems. We need to alter the Constitution in order to include term limits for members of Congress. Oh, God. Lainana Vito for the president. That one's probably a good one. But again, anytime you open up the Constitution, it changes, beware. We're in deep trouble anytime you do that. And allow the president to, oh, that's the Lainana video. He also, something around constitutional amendment for equal laws for public and members of Congress, you think that's already in the Constitution. You don't need that. And then another one that's terrible is a balanced budget amendment. God, I want to puke. This is what we should start the Constitution on. We should, you know, term limits for Congress members, Lainana Vito, equal laws for public and members of Congress, which I think is already in the Constitution and it just needs to be interpreted properly. And the worst one of all of them, balanced budget amendment, which would just give the Democrats and Republicans an excuse to raise taxes so that they could spend more. This is the level of constitutional thinking that, you know, the Santas can do. That is pathetic. That is so unoriginal. These kind of ideas have been banted around conservatives so close for a long time. None of them is particularly good. None of them would change anything. The only one there that has any values, the Lainana Vito. And again, that exists in place like California, doesn't do anything. I don't know if it, actually I don't know if Lainana Vito exists in California, but the term limits exist in California and has done nothing to save California from the left. This is the kind of lame conservative stuff that's mindless. There's a not interesting. This is the exact opposite of a melee, right? Exact opposite of somebody with some radical ideas of the new, something dramatic, something to really shift the country's direction. You know, I don't know, a separation of state from certain parts of the economy at the very least, right? Something interesting, something dramatic. This is like, what did, did, did Trump call him pea brain, but this is pea brain. All right, finally, exciting. Neuralink. Neuralink is Elon Musk's company that implants chips in your brain to allow the government to control you. No, no, no. Sorry, that's not what they do. The idea is to implant chips in your brain and the chip will be able to, in a sense, read your mind. And turn that into actions in the real world. That is, turn your thoughts, turn your, what you want to do into a reality. And this is primarily for the purpose of people like a paraplegic who can't use their limbs, you know, because of, let's say, a spinal cord injury. This would allow them to use the limbs, in a sense, bypassing, in some way bypassing the spinal cord. Right now, what they're trying to do is the idea is that they put a chip in your brain and you will be able to operate a computer or a smartphone by simply thinking that you want to operate a computer or a smartphone, right? So, you know, the intention would be, again, the chip would read your mind and then execute in the real world. Well, for the first time ever, they've actually implanted a chip in a patient's brain. They did this, I think it was last week, and they have been looking for a volunteer and they found one. The volunteers are paraplegic. They implanted the chip inside the brain. I suppose the surgery went fine. No complications from the surgery. The chip is in there. It's monitoring. They've already picked up the chip's ability to monitor the brain activity and to monitor neuron activity, which is, again, super exciting. All this is super exciting. And we will see what happens beyond this. They've already demonstrated this on a monkey brain, on a chip, on a monkey who is able to move a computer cursor around with only his brain. So, it might be possible in humans, right? It might be possible in humans. So, the tests up here, this is, you know, I think revolutionary in many, many respects, and let's see what happens. I mean, it's exciting. The Food and Drug Administration approved the neural link for human trials last May, and they've already implanted one chip in one human being. Let's see what happens. I think super unbelievably cool. I mean, I think this is the ultimate in the end, is, you know, the computer will be inside your brain. It'll be interesting if the communication is two-way. Right now, the chip can read the neurons and can therefore affect the external world. Can then you put inside the chip something that then feeds to your body and allows you to use the limbs in ways that you couldn't because you're paraplegic. So, go Elon Musk. I'm with Elon on this. I think it's exciting and thrilling, and very much hope that his optimism with regard to this actually pans out. All right. That is our content, the content I have. So, reminder quickly that the show is funded through the support of people like you, like John and Alexis, who got questions on board there. And if you're watching live, you can support the show with a super chat question. That way you also get to shape the direction of the show. And you can also support the show with a sticker. That's just money without a question. And finally, you can support the show monthly through Patreon or you're on bookshow.com slash membership, which is using PayPal to support this show. All right. Let's take the super chat question. We don't have a lot of them. So this might be a short show, which is fine. But if you have a question, now is the opportunity to ask. John says, thank you for reviewing coherence. The ending was disappointing to me too. It was a fun ride that I thought was making a very real point about villainizing the other and not being able to fix problems by dwelling on the past. Ending dropped the ball. Yeah. And I think there was too much of playing this gimmick of the multiverse, which is confusing. And you spend most of the time there. And I think the rest of the message about the villainizing the other and realizing how ignorant you were. That gets shuttered to the side because so much of the focus is on kind of the multiverse dilemma that is created. So thanks, John. Thanks for sponsoring that movie. Really, really appreciate it. All right. Charlie, thank you for the $20 as a sticker. Jonathan, thank you. Vadim, thank you. Maryalene, thank you. Sylvanus, thank you. Zack T, thank you. All right. We've got three questions. If you want to ask a question, you got to do it now. Otherwise, the show will be over. Alexis asks, anything you would advise me to do to prepare for the Amsterdam March conference? Huh. I mean, there will be some, there will actually be some assignments, some essays to read before the conference. So stay tuned for that. I don't have the program yet finalized, but I do think that there will be some good readings to have before the conference. In Amsterdam and in Austin, I think it will be a lot more interactive than past conferences. There's going to be breakout sessions of smaller groups. There's going to be a lot more classroom style rather than just lecturing. And there's going to be a really an attempt to dive deep into a deep dive deep into a few topics. And that I think is going to be exciting. So very different conferences. Again, those of you still want to attend, you can still sign up. Those of you still want to sign up for scholarships can still apply for scholarship for another few days. And you can do that on your own book, sorry, not your own book, einran.org slash start here, einran.org slash start here. So I think it's going to be a lot of fun. I'll just mention that the day after the conference on the Monday, I am planning to do another public speaking seminar. So if you are attending, I know that Alexis has expressed interest in attending this, but if you're attending the conference in Amsterdam, I will be doing after the conference on the Monday, the conference ends Sunday night, Monday morning, somewhere between 94 and 95. I'll be doing a public speaking seminar with you actually delivering stuff. And again, there'll be homework for that as well. I need in addition to Alexis and other four, five, six people. And if you guys, if anybody out there would like to attend, please let me know whether you're attending the conference or not. Maybe you're just in Amsterdam or you live in the Netherlands or you live anywhere in Europe and you'd like to come and do the public speaking seminar. Yes, come on over, please do it. And I think it'll be a lot of fun. So join us. It's $750 for the day. And yeah, and the location will be close to the hotel where the einran Institute conference is being held, not in the hotel, but close to it. So thank you, Alexis. All right, one more for Alexis. Why so much more immigration now across Western Europe versus 10 years ago? I think the primary reason is the growth in population in Africa and in the Middle East. The reality of the conflicts in the Middle East and the lack of resolution of those conflicts in the Middle East that have resulted in people just wanting to leave and not wanting to be in their hometowns all the way out to Afghanistan and so on. And certainly in Africa, northern Africans, but primarily sub-Saharan Africa, just the distress, the poverty, the existence of an internet and the awareness of people in those countries about the relative prosperity that exists in Europe. And I would add to that is the existence of jobs in these places. The economy does not like a vacuum. If there's demand for drugs, drugs will find a way in. If there's a demand for workers, workers will find a way in. And I think the aging population in Europe, the fact that Europe is fast, is aging very, very fast, is creating real opportunities for young people, all over the world, to go to Europe and take the jobs that used to be had by Europeans, but now those Europeans are retiring and somebody is going to have to do the work and pay the taxes to fund all the social programs that have been promised to old people. We generally live in a world in which all of our lives are mortgage to old people. That's true in America, that's true in Europe, so security, Medicare and the equivalent in Europe basically all programs geared towards the elderly. And we are fine, I've been saying this for two decades now, we are fine with sacrificing the young to the old. And that's what we continue to do. And since we don't have a lot of young, we replenish those young by bringing in immigrants. So if there were no jobs in Europe for these people, they wouldn't come. And if life in their countries was great, they wouldn't come, but life in their country sucks. It's always sucked, but there were a lot of them now. A lot of, because life expectancy has increased, child mortality has decreased, death and childbirth has decreased. So the population of Africa is exploding and they're looking for places. And to some extent the same is true in Latin America, although in Latin America it's primarily just the poverty and the sharp difference in America. And the fact that in America more even than Europe, because the American economy is doing so much better than the European economy, there are tons of jobs in America. And these immigrants know it. They know their jobs and therefore they're willing to come. You know, one of the female says elder care workers, huge demand for elder care workers all over Europe, all over the United States and no local people want to do it. So you can either have legal immigration to cover those and that is done to a minimal extent, or you can have illegals do it. And that's what's happening, particularly in the United States. So I think that's why. It's the lack of jobs and the lack of people to do the jobs and the state of the culture and the economy in these countries in Africa and the Middle East. Thank you, Alexis. All right, Sylvanas, $50 really appreciate it. Whoa, excited to see progress in your link. If the day comes when people could talk through the implant without speaking, do you think it will yield better communication in society? Oh, God. No, I don't think the problem is that we don't speak up or the problem is we shy to verbalize it in like this. I just don't, I don't think that's the problem. The problem is fundamental philosophies, ideas that we hold and I don't think Newellink solves that one. So I don't see it solving that particular problem. What I do see is it just making a life so much more efficient because we don't have to deal as much with the physical world out there directly, physically. We can use our minds to directly control what happens in the physical world. For example, our brain can be connected to the Wi-Fi system. Now, I don't know if this is possible yet, but theoretically our brain could be connected to the Wi-Fi system. We could turn on our televisions by thinking, I want to turn the TV on, right? And we don't even have to say it. If you think about the potential applications of this, I can't think about, you know, all my sense is the gazillion applications for this that we haven't even thought of. This is one of those technologies that just changes the world in dramatic fashion. Shazbot, I want cybernetic eyes with telescopic, microscopic night vision and heads-up display. No more glasses. Hopefully that will happen soon. It exists already, Shazbot. It exists. My business partner, Robert Handishot, who you might know from Ingenuous, he's had basically the lens in his eye replaced. He used to have to wear glasses and different glasses and thick glasses and couldn't see anything. And he's basically had the lens of his eye replaced by a little robot. It's a robotic lens. It's a robotic lens that responds to stimuli from the nerves and the muscles in the eye and acts like a human lens, like a biological lens. No glasses, no reading glasses, no long-distance glasses, no glasses at all. And it feels completely normal. It's an expensive procedure right now, but it is doable. You can get bionic. They already are cybernetic eyes. Maybe they can't do the kind of, you know, microscopic telescopic that you would like, but they're about as good as human eyes. As good as human lenses. It is unbelievably cool. The science behind it, the technology behind it, the ability to do that, to put you asleep a little bit. And they go in and they take out your lenses and they put this in and within days, you're seeing perfectly. 2020 vision across the entire field, a vision you can see sharply. And somebody who his whole life has worn glasses and struggled with eyesight and all of that got rid of all of that. Contact lenses, glasses, all gone. Reading glasses. I can't remember the name of the procedure. I'll get it for you next time. But it just look it up. Artificial, bionic, cybernetic, whatever you want to call it, lenses for the eyes, you will find it. It is super nifty. Super cool. Savano says, will you get an implant if it's feasible, an implant all in the brain? I want an implant. I want RAM. I want RAM. In other words, I want memory implants. I want my memories to be stored in an implant because I can't remember anything and I don't remember anything. So it'd be nice if I could access a RAM that had all my memories in it automatically. I mean, that would be super cool. It would also solve maybe some of the problems with all kinds of dementia problems, right? Is if you just had it in, if you had, you just had your memories in RAM. So yes, if they could do, you know, under certain circumstances, I would have the implant. I do worry about implants. My biggest worry about implants is that it is potentially a tool by which the government could in some distant future control you. Control you. I have a lot of DHA in my food. I eat a ton of Omega-3s. So that's not the problem. And I wish, I wish health problems and aging problems and all these things were cured by one supplement you took and it all went away. It's much more difficult, much more complex, much harder. I've looked into it. I study it and I take my fish oil because of it, but it's just not enough. The brain ages, just like if you have the part of the body ages and just like it's more difficult for me to recover from a workout, no matter how much protein I take, no matter what vitamins I take, no matter what supplements I take, it's the brain struggles. I've never had a good memory, even as a child, even as a child and an adult, I've never had a good memory. Salmon is good. I eat a lot of sardines, but I also take supplements on top of all that. And I watch the anti-aging literature because if they come up with something that can reverse aging, I'm in. I'm absolutely in. So, you know, excited about the possibility of reversing aging or at least shutting it down. That would be cool. Kabutah, does it prove that consciousness is a product of the brain? Yeah, I mean, we all, I think, know that consciousness is a product of the brain. It doesn't mean it is the brain. It does mean it's a product of the brain. It's some outcome of the brain. And maybe the brain is something else that we don't know of. But there's, of course, a relationship, a direct relationship between the brain and consciousness. I don't think anybody ever, I don't think anybody in the project has ever questioned that. Andrew says, I hate the way the right talks about immigrants. The majority of workers, the tiny minority drug and disease carriers, to switch that is xenophobic. Absolutely. And yeah, I mean, the whole way in which they talk about immigrants is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. It's despicable. And yeah, but that's the right, that's who we have. All right, finally, we have Justin who says, I still support BB, good for you. This is why Israel is in the situation it is. This is why October 7th happened. It's because people stuck with BB no matter what. However many times he proved himself to be incompetent. However many times he proved himself to be weak. However many times he proved himself not to have the defense of Israel as a primary in his mind. However times he divided Israel, people still voted for him. People still supported him. That is the kind of mindless support that brought Israel to the state it's in today. And of course, that's the kind of mindless support that so many people also apply to Donald Trump. And we all are suffering the consequence of all that. All right, thanks everybody. Tonight, 7 p.m. East Coast time, I'll be interviewing Don Watkins or will be more, I think we'll have a chat. I think we're going to have a discussion about a bunch of different things. I hope you join us. I hope you bring a lot of questions and a lot of different issues. We'll talk about what basically you guys want to talk about. As you know, Don is great and he's smart. He is interesting and there's a wide array of things we are going to talk about. All right, everybody, see you tonight, 7 p.m. Talk then. Bye.