 the radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Brook Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Brook Show on this Tuesday, November 28th. I hope everybody is having a fantastic week so far and looking forward to the rest of the week. And yeah, we're gonna cover the news today. We'll also have a show tonight. Sandwich monopoly is not clickbait. Only to chefs, maybe chefs, if you sandwich monopoly is clickbait. But there will be a show tonight, 7pm east coast time. Not sure about the topic, I'll have it up later today. I hope today's one of those days where I've got meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting, but we will schedule something. And I'll remind you, I'm an institute today at 2pm east times, east times and an hour has a special event around the fountainhead. You can register for it. I think you can still register if you go to ironrad.org slash start here, ironrad.org slash start here, and you can find some other interesting things that you can apply for on the website. So go there and enjoy. Now, what's the problem with CRISPR? CRISPR, you don't know what CRISPR is? We'll talk about CRISPR in a minute. CRISPR is amazing. All right. Where are we? Yes, let's get right rolling. I do have a hot stop at 2 o'clock, so we only have a little under an hour to get rolling, but that's okay because today's not a heavy, big, complex news day, at least not as far as I can tell. I'll just say, in terms of a quick update on Gaza, the Hamas violated the ceasefire last night. They attacked an Israeli force. A bunch of Israeli soldiers are injured. There was a bunch of firing back and forth going on. But of course, you wouldn't want anything little like that to stop the commitment to a ceasefire. So Israel's continuing with the ceasefire in spite of that. Last I read, some hostages were being released by Hamas as part of that. Supposedly, tomorrow will be the last day of the ceasefire, and that'll make Thursday really interesting to see what Israel does once the ceasefire technically is over. All right. Let's jump into Nikki Haley. So I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but Charles Koch is a billionaire from Kansas. Why am I thinking? Anyway, Charles Koch is a billionaire. He runs a large conglomerate much of it in the oil and gas industry, but also in a variety of different industries. And he has been, I'd say, politically active for a long time. Originally Koch invested, which is our Kansas, invested much of the money in think tanks. Charles Koch was behind the founding of the Cato Institute, behind the founding of many of what you would consider libertarian institutions. Charles Koch was behind the founding of them. He has probably been the most, he has probably put in more money than anybody on the right, broadly speaking, right, right slash libertarian side of anybody. He's put money into primarily libertarian causes, but also into conservative causes, into a bunch of others. I think Charles is, I think Rimo says he's a classical liberal. I think that's right. I think I'd describe him as a classical liberal. He is certainly not a traditional conservative. He's not religious. He's not a traditional conservative. I actually had the pleasure of meeting Charles Koch once in his office in Wichita, Kansas years ago. Spent probably a couple of hours there talking philosophy ideas. He is a man who has read, I ran thoroughly. He had listened to some of Linda Peacock's courses, knew who Harry Binswanger was, and other intellectuals, and was very proficient in the objective philosophy, even though he did not consider himself an objectivist. Rimo says he had dinner with him and John Allison. It wasn't dinner. It was a meeting with John Allison and him at his offices. John Allison and him are quite friendly to talk about the institute and to talk about the world generally. Charles Koch became more involved in politics, as far as I can tell, during the Tea Party era. He got a lot more involved. Americans from prosperity was part of his kind of baby to try to influence. He was discouraged by the lack of success of the Tea Party movement. He still is a massive donor to university programs, whether it's the program Clemson, the programs at Texas, University of Texas, I'm sure. They're involved at the University of Austin. They're involved pretty much at every university I know of. There is a Charles Koch something going on that relates to free markets and freedom and liberty. Anyway, Charles Koch used to hold an annual conference maybe twice a year, where he would bring together all the big donors, Republican, conservative, classical liberal, libertarian donors, to one big massive event and raise money for a political action committee group there that would then be devoted to supporting particular political candidates, both presidential, House and Senate. Charles Koch was not a supporter of Trump. I don't think any of the Koch network, the Koch fund, the Koch money went to supporting Donald Trump, but he has been involved in House races and Senate races in and out of politics, depending on the situation. But it seems like the political action network is going to be endorsing Nikki Haley or hasn't endorsed Nikki Haley for the Republican presidential primary race. This will give her a huge financial but also organizational muscle. It means that America's prosperity action, it's called, is going to be behind Nikki Haley's campaign, is going to support Nikki Haley's campaign both strategically, booting the ground and money. This is huge. Again, the Koch foundation, the Koch, I guess, network, political network that was founded by the Koch brothers, Charles, and I forget the brother's name who died a few years ago. This is a huge endorsement that comes with more than just the endorsement because I don't know how many people care who Charles Koch agrees with or not. Obviously, he was very, very, very critical of Donald Trump and yet Donald Trump got elected anyway. Remo reminds me his name was David Koch. David Koch died a few years ago. You can see David Koch's name. I always enjoy this to see David Koch's name on Lincoln Center because he basically was the guy who funded the New York City Ballet. And every time you walk along in the Lincoln Center, which a lot of leftist Americans do, there is Charles Koch's name in big letters, pissing them off. Oh, David Koch's name, pissing them off. So anyway, they were enjoying the ballet that is funded by the arch enemy. I mean, Koch is hated on the left. Both the Koch brothers were hated on the left. Anyway, this is good news. I have my qualms about Nikki Haley, particularly her position on privacy on the internet and her obsession with a cold war with China. I think all wrong strategies. But it's still true that of all the different candidates out there, she is still the least offensive and the one that I think has the best chance of even though it's a small chance, very small chance, the best chance of beating Trump in the primaries. And I really do hope that what I hope is she does really well in Iowa and forces the Santas to quit after Iowa. And then basically it's a two-man race between her and Trump. And I think Vivek has finished. And I think Christie's is just in there for fun. I think the only two candidates left are her and DeSantis. And I think whether DeSantis stays in or whether she does stay in is basically a question of how he does in Iowa. Scott's upset because he guaranteed us that DeSantis was going to win. And it looks like his guarantee is not going to play out. So he's very upset. All right. Anyway, you know, I think this is good news for Nikki. And I'm in relatively speaking, I'm not supportive of her, but I'm supportive of her relative to everybody else in anything. Scott is still behind DeSantis. He'll be daily. And when he doesn't do all the things that Scott says he's going to do, Scott's going to say that he was wrong, as he always does when he's wrong. It's the fun of having Scott around. All right. Supreme Court, I'm going to talk a lot about this, but I just want to highlight the fact that this session of Supreme Court, I've talked about this before, is going to be hugely important. A lot of very, very significant cases are going to be coming up for the court to hear cases that have a huge implication regarding the regulatory state regarding what the Supreme Court calls administrative state with regard to a tax code and future, the possibility of future tax codes. And so there's going to be a number of cases I want to highlight too. And yes, Scott, I was wrong about Trump not being able to win the primary. No. I always said he could win the primary. I didn't think he could win the general election. And that looks like he could. I'll admit that I was wrong. I always do admit when I'm wrong. I'm wrong. With the God of politics, I'm often wrong. And I don't have a problem with admitting that. I was wrong about Trump in 2016. And I wasn't wrong about Trump in 2020. I'll give myself credit for that. But I was wrong about Trump in 2016. And I tragically was wrong about Trump's popularity going into the 2024 election. It's more that he's not popular. It's more that Biden is so hated that Trump has a chance of beating him. But I think Haley or DeSantis have a much greater chance of beating Biden. Biden, the only chance I've said this, I've said throughout the election, the only chance Biden has of winning is if he runs against Trump. Any other candidate on the Republican side will beat him. Anyway, the Supreme Court has two big cases coming up. One tomorrow, which is Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC versus Jacqui, Jacquesi. This is a case that is really questioning the whole authority of the SEC to, in a sense, have its own courts, its own penalty system. A lot of what the SEC does today as just common practice and has been doing for a long, long time is being challenged by this. And I'm not going to get into the details of this today. Let's see how the hearing goes tomorrow. But we've got a couple of Supreme Court justices, Thomas and Gorsuch, who are really, really want to challenge the administrative state and challenge them and say they don't have any more jurisdiction than what Congress explicitly gave them. Clearly, the SEC is doing a lot more than what Congress explicitly told them to do. And we will see if they can get another three justices to support them in reining in significantly the SEC. If they can, then the whole what's called the Chevron doctrine, the doctrine that allows massive leeway to regulatory agencies to interpret and to execute on the laws that made them possible and the laws generally will be reversed, which places in doubt the entire regulatory system that we have today, the entire administrative state. I doubt that they're going to do this. I doubt they can find another three justices to support them. But it's going to be interesting in the fact that the Supreme Court is willing to hear this case, which a lot of people think is a ridiculous case against the SEC, suggest that they're at least willing to contemplate the possibilities. So it's going to be interesting. Anyway, the second one has to do with questioning a tax policy that Trump put in place with his tax reform in 2017, where in exchange for cutting the corporate tax in exchange for cutting slightly cutting the top marginal income tax rate, a new tax was added, a tax that actually involves taxing fine income as companies repatriate money back to the United States. So don't repatriate and still have to pay a certain tax on it. Again, from everything I'm reading, challenging this is going to challenge a lot of different taxes, including any potential wealth tax in the future. It could have massive repercussions, particularly for wealth tax. So this is a real opportunity for the Supreme Court to say no, certain taxes are not constitutional. This particular tech is not constitutional. It's not constitutional, by the way, for the same reason a wealth tax is not constitutional. And therefore we're not ruling on it. Again, we'll talk more about this when the case comes before the court next week, or when the court decides on it in a couple of weeks. It's funny, but everybody is on the side of the tax. You've got Republicans, Democrats, Biden administrations, conservatives, Trump former officials. This is a broad coalition of people, I would say committed to status and committed to giving the state power to tax above and beyond what the Constitution explicitly permits. Supporting this tax, we will see what the Supreme Court rules. Again, I expect at least two members, Thomas and Gorsuch, potentially to vote against this, against the tax. Can they bring around any of the other conservatives? I don't think so. I don't know, but it's going to be interesting to watch. So what do you call it? All arguments are next week on this one, on the one that relates to God, the SEC. I think the all arguments are tomorrow. I'll be reading up on that, and I hope you give me more color about how that looks once those, again, I'm not, I'm picking a choosing the lots of cases in front of Supreme Court, because I think these and the two other ones that have to do with the regulatory state and the Chevron doctrine, these are so big and have potential for such consequences and good consequences, that is repealing this tax or telling the SEC they went beyond their mandate would have such huge ramifications for liberty in America. That's why I'm spending time on it and we'll focus on them again once these are actually debated in the courts. I will remind everybody, you can ask questions. It is permitted. You can use the super chat to ask questions. Some of you said no questions today. Complete silence, little bit of money from the stickers, otherwise nothing, even though we've got 90 people watching. So I don't know. All right, let's see, where are we going? Sandwich monopoly. Yeah, I mean, this is the problem. I guess I didn't have enough stuff on the wall that that always gets a lot of people interested, but sandwich monopoly. So there is a private equity company called, funnily enough, Roark Capital. And it's called Roark Capital, not by accident. It is explicitly named after Howard Roark. If you go to Roark Capital's website, you will find some reference to the Fountainhead. So this is one of the founders of Roark Capital. He's a huge Fountainhead fan. Anyway, Roark Capital has just bought subway sandwiches. They also, it turns out, own a bunch of other sandwich shops. They own, for example, Arby's, Jimmy Jones, McAllister's, I don't know, McAllister's Deli, and Slotsky's. And Elizabeth Warren is up in arms. Clearly, this list provides Roark Capital with a sandwich monopoly. They control the sandwich space. I mean, it's true there's some other Delis and a few other sandwich stores, but very few chains of the size and magnitude of the ones that Roark Capital already has. And this is horrific. This is going to drive prices up, because that's what monopolies do. And at a time of inflation, Elizabeth Warren is very concerned for consumers of sandwiches. Just so you realize that this is serious. The FTC, Lena Kahn's FTC, Lena Kahn being the lady who hates Amazon, is investigating. They're investigating Roark Capital's, and they might not approve this particular purchase. I think this will be a first in the history of the FTC in going against a purchase of a sandwich shop or any, I think, fast food shop. Of course, this brings to the forefront a lot of questions. Among them, very, very importantly, is what is a sandwich? For example, I mean, there is serious discussion right now about is a hamburger sandwich. Because, I mean, let's face it, if a hamburger is a sandwich, then clearly there are other big hamburger chains that Roark Capital does not yet own. And then on top of the question of whether a hamburger is a sandwich, it's a hot dog. Probably not a sandwich. These are difficult ones. I mean, is a hot dog a sandwich? There is a bun. There is meat. I mean, maybe. And in that case, they certainly know we're not. And aburrito sandwiches. Now we're stretching a little bit, right? So what is a sandwich? Tacos? A taco sandwich? What about all the taco trucks? Are they sandwich stores? Are they competing? Is this an issue? And then what about the fact that grocery store sell sandwiches, convenience store sell sandwiches, coffee shop sell sandwiches, the non-chain delis, lots of them, particularly in New York, does they count? Is the category particular sandwiches two pieces of bread with deli meat in the middle, not hamburgers, that are not sold by... I mean, this is just the arbitrariness, the subjectivism, the complete randomness. The FTC and Elizabeth wants complete power lust, wanting to control every aspect of our lives. It is just absurd and ridiculous. But this is the essence of antitrust. This ridiculousness of defining sandwiches and what it involves and what it entails and all of this is just an illustration of the absurdity and ridiculousness in every antitrust case. Sandwiches is just something that's easy for all of us to relate. But the same argument about how ridiculous this whole thing is, is expressed in many other, in pretty much every antitrust case, the same subjectivism, arbitrariness, and so on. Let's see, Jonathan, thank you, Jeffrey, thank you, Stephen Hopper, thank you, Volta, thank you, and Don Reveregif, thank you, all of them, with stickers supporting the show. We're still way short, but we did get a few questions. So, 100 people watching right now, if some of you want to support the show, that'd be great. All right, the Prime Minister of England, of Britain, of Great Britain, of the UK, just cancelled the meeting with the Prime Minister of Greece. And it turns out that this is over an argument over the Parthenon sculptures. So, as you probably know, the Parthenon lay in ruin for many, many centuries. And indeed, it was Christian soldiers who actually took the sculptures that were there and melted them into cannonballs. Just for that, Christianity should rot in hell. But anyway, you know, so in the 19th century, the British as part of, really, not architectural, God, archaeological movements and really campaigned across much of the world, went to Greece and they uncovered and cleaned up and brought out of the ground many of the sculptures, the non-bran sculptures that were at the Parthenon site and that originally being up on top on the, I don't know what you call it, the top of the Parthenon. And the archaeologist, Lord Elgin, or Lord Elgin, took those, what he uncovered and what he discovered and what he preserved. And he took these 2,500-year-old sculptures and shipped them to the British Museum in England. This was during the time when Greece was under the Ottoman Empire, as far as I understand. So the question is, so Greece has for many years now, and I guess this Greek Prime Minister is particularly adamant about this. I can't pronounce his name, so I won't try, about wanting those sculptures returned to Greece. And I guess there's something wrong going on right now about this. And as a consequence, Sunak, but is a horrible Prime Minister, has cancelled the meeting with him. And like the Greek Prime Minister is shocked and dismayed. And as he said, look, you know, I've always had this position. What has changed? Anyway, it is an interesting question. What should be done with the Parthenon sculptures? Should they remain in the British Museum? Should they be sent to Greece? Now, I think here there is no clear cut answer because all of this is tainted by the fact that it's all, quote, government owned. All of this is government led. You know, the reality is, if you ask me what my preference would be, is I would like them to turn to Greece. I think it would be immensely cool. It would be appropriate. It would be aesthetically consistent to have the marbles, the Elgin marbles. And I think they should be continued because the Elgin, because he should get a huge amount of credit for uncovering them, treating them, you know, saving them, preserving them, protecting them. And it would be really cool for those marbles to be where the building where they were meant to be in is. I think it's the right thing to do from the perspective of artistic integrity, architectural integrity, historical integrity. On the other hand, I completely understand the British saying, look, you know, find us keepers. Elgin found them there. They weren't, they didn't belong to anybody. There was no Greek state. But you know, it's not clear. They should belong to the Greek state. And he found them. He preserved them. He kept them. He was committed to preserving them and to maintaining them. And therefore, they should be in England. And they are amazing. If you go to the British Museum, I highly recommend going to the British Museum and to see the Elgin marbles and then going to the Parthenon and seeing where they could be. And my preference would be for them to be in Athens, but I completely understand it, completely understand the British saying no. But this is the problem. They should all be privatized. The Parthenon should be privatized. The British Museum should be privatized. And then the Parthenon could buy them from the British Museum, which is probably the right thing to do, right for the Parthenon, the owner of the Parthenon, to buy it from the owner of the British Museum. And that's how you settle this in a free market. All right. Finally, I promise some good news once in a while. Anyway, sickle cell anemia is a horrible, horrible disease. It is a genetic condition that causes bouts of excruciating pain. The pain is described as worse than a broken leg, worse than childbirth. I can't even imagine that. And it is very little that can be done. It is life disrupting. It is just a horrible condition. The pain can come and goes, you know, and it often requires long and debilitating hospitalization. It inflicts people and they carry this throughout life. And there's really no treatment. You can deal with the symptoms, but there's very little you can do about curing the disease, or at least there was very little you could do about curing the disease. Four years ago, there was a groundbreaking clinical trial in which 30 sickle cell patients were treated with a gene-editing technology CRISPR. What CRISPR does is it goes in and it modifies your genes. And it went in and it was modified, the sickle cell anemia gene that causes this disease. CRISPR, up until this trial, huge hype and, you know, worked in the lab, worked on animals, but had never really been tested in any significant way on human beings. Anyway, these 30 patients got the infusion and huge suspense because nobody really knew what would happen. The amazing thing is the therapy worked and it's worked better than anybody could have imagined. The genes of the patients were edited, were changed. They are basically symptom-free. 29 of the 30, I mean that's an astounding result in medicine. 29 of the 30 went from multiple pain crises every year to zero, zero in 12 months following the treatment. I mean that is truly astounding. As a consequence of this, the treatment developed by vertex pharmaceuticals and CRISPR therapeutics has become the first CRISPR medicine ever approved by a regulatory agency, in this case the UK regulatory agency. And it got the green light earlier this month. The FDA appears to be prepared to approve it in the next two weeks. This is massive because this will provide proof of concept. This will provide now a motivation for a lot of money to flow into research around other gene editing treatments. And it's super exciting. I mean I'm a huge fan of CRISPR technology, fan of CRISPR technology, what do I know? But I read a book about it, I did a show about it a couple of years ago, and I mean this is an amazing technology of literally going in to the DNA of the cell and changing the coding. And at this point it's a proven technology and now it's a question of can it apply and how will they apply and how long will it take for it to apply to a variety of different other genetic diseases. But we could be on the verge of basically finding a cure for many of the genetic diseases out there. Not all of them, not all genetic disease involve a simple editing of one or two genes, some of them are more complex than that. But certainly some genetic diseases have the potential to now be basically history, and that is very, very, very exciting. So congratulations to Vertex and CRISPR for bringing us this technology. I don't get a sense of people in the chat excited. No, we're near as excited as the Santas versus Hayley versus Trump, but I have a feeling CRISPR will have much more impact on yours and your children's lives than any politician will ever, ever have. So I consider this amazing. All right, let's take your questions. And Sivanos came in with $100, so basically we're almost at our goal, $22 away, so maybe somebody can ask a $20 question and we can get over the goal. All right, Sivanos says, whoa, caught on news show live. Would you be comfortable putting down a dog yourself or would you let it pass naturally? If it was in pain, I would definitely put it down. Now, I'm not a dog person. I'm not a pet person. I don't have pets. I never had pets, but I can't imagine watching an animal suffer. I would much rather take it to the vet and put it down than wait it out and let it die. By the way, I would do the same thing with myself. That is, I'd rather ask a doctor to give me a drug to kill me than live my final years in excruciating pain or debilitated in some other way. So I'm a big believer in putting oneself down when the time comes. So I hope I just fall asleep one day and don't wake up. That would be nice. That would be the way to die. And I've lived wonderfully up until that point. But if I'm on this path downwards and it's clear that that's the path and there's no recovery and it's just going to be miserable, I would rather end it and end it quickly. Unfortunately, that's illegal in most of the United States and most of the world, but not everything I do in life is legal. All right, the Godfather says, heard your analysis of Malay and dollars in the country. I can't see how going to effectively affect currency is a good idea. Could you elaborate how going from the peso to dollar is better? Is this based upon only inflation? Yeah, I mean, it's not ideal. The ideal would be to go onto a private banking system where banks, local Argentinian banks issue currency based on gold or some other basis that is privatizing money completely. But Malay is not proposing that, at least not yet. That is a way more radical idea and no country in the world has that. Malay is proposing dollarizing the economy and then allowing for other currencies to serve as legal tender in addition to the dollar. And will that include potentially crypto, which could allow for private currencies to develop. But it would still be true that the dollar would anchor the Argentinian economy in, for example, you pay your taxes in dollars and everything, at least vis-a-vis the government would be denominated in dollars and that would be the standard of unit. Now, why is the dollar better than pesos? The dollar is better than pesos only because the Federal Reserve is marginally more responsible than the central bank of Argentina. Central Bank of Argentina has been horrible, always has been horrible. It's the same reason why I think the euro is a good idea in Europe, particularly for Italy, Greece, Spain, because Italy had its own central bank, they would flood the market with money and inflate like crazy. At least the European central bank, you know, is going to limit the impact of inflation on the local currency. If Greece had gone through the Greek financial crisis with its own central bank, they would have flooded their own market with money and had hype inflation. That is worse. And as a consequence of the Greek financial crisis, they actually had to liberalize certain parts of their economy, not as much as I would have liked, but they did. They laid off government employees, they capped salaries, they lowered real wages, they actually did necessary things in the economy that they needed to do. If they had their own central bank, they wouldn't have done it, they would just would have inflated it. So getting rid of your central bank should be a high priority. If you can't go all the way to privatizing money, then dollarization is not bad because the fact is the reality is that the Federal Reserve, as bad as it is, is better than 99% of all other central banks, is more responsible, less likely to hype inflate. And of course, the other thing that the Federal Reserve is, is it is not susceptible to political pressure from Argentinian politicians, which the Argentinian central bank is. Now, the American central bank is susceptible to pressure from American politicians, but Argentina is too removed into small economy to really suffer from that. So yeah, not having a local currency that can be inflated by your local central bank under the influence of your local politicians is a good idea. Outsourcing money to somebody else who is semi responsible, please compare to what you have, is a good idea. And so the problem is that whoever was semi debating me online doesn't understand that that is the path, that's what it means to get rid of a central bank. The central bank is going to have to take all those pesos that exist out there, they exist somewhere, and convert them into dollars, whether they exist in a banking system or whether they exist in the black market or they exist in business accounts. All those pesos will have to be converted into what is now the official currency, and they will have to be converted into dollars. For that, they need to have dollars. Now, I don't think that's undoable. I think it is doable. And I think they can do it. And the question is, does Milay still have the confidence to do that? Is he still committed to it? Since I did that show, he's come out and said, yes, we're still dollarizing, we're still getting rid of the central bank. All right, good. I'm excited. I want to see it happen. And I'd like to see the plan of how it's going to happen. But Milay is also going to convene a special session of Congress the day after, a few days after he takes the presidency on December 10th, I think, in order to start the radical transformation of the Argentinian economy. So he is already planning to bring Congress into session. Otherwise, I don't think they meet again until March in December to pass the kind of laws that are necessary to take the steps that are going to completely revise, revamp the Argentinian economy. And that's exciting. And again, well, no, then what is politically feasible and what is not, what Congress, the Argentinian Congress will actually pass and what will not? All right, James, you said that the left-hand position in Israel is anti-Semitic, anti-Semitic, or skeptical. Aren't they just anti-Western civilization? Wouldn't it be the same if Israel were a country of Rastafarians who had a free society? I think it's a combination. But you can see the anti-Semitism and the attacks on Jews here in America. So I think the motivation is the same. To some extent, it would be. But you're not seeing, for example, the same condemnation in the case of Russia. You're not seeing in what it is doing in Ukraine and the number of civilians it is killing in Ukraine. I'm trying to think of other free countries that have engaged in this. You don't really see the same condemnation even of the United States when it was fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and when a lot of civilians died. There is a unique aspect to Israel. But yes, fundamentally what is going on, and I've said this over and over again, is that Israel is strong, rich, successful, and therefore by definition the oppressor, the colonizer, the evil one, the Palestinians are poor and they're victims, or perceived as victims, they are weak, and therefore by definition on the intersectionality ladder they are at the bottom and therefore they become virtuous. And Israel is the enemy. This is Christianity 101. And so that is, I think, what is going on. But what you're also seeing in addition to that, you're seeing it everywhere, is on top of that a heavy dose of anti-Semitism which gives this an additional dimension. You're seeing that in the crowds marching all over the place. I mean they're literally calling for the killing of millions of Israelis. Would they be calling for the killing of millions of Rastafarians? I don't think so. They'd be calling for a compromise, a deal, they'd be calling for them to stop, they'd be calling for a ceasefire, all that. But would they literally be calling for the elimination of a whole nation, a whole state? I don't think so. I think that has to do with a latent anti-Semitism that exists in our culture, added on top of all the anti-colonialism and basically the postmodern effects of the woke left. Rand, oh God, the price of my tuna sandwich going to go through the roof, how will I survive without the government to protect me? Well, you're in luck, Rand, because Elizabeth Warren is there to protect you. So you can rest assured. Don't worry, life is good. What will we do without Elizabeth Warren? Doing this, all in the name of preserving and defending capitalism. Lyron says, where do ideas like just war theory and war crimes come from? Well, just what theory comes from, Augustine, it goes back to Christianity's earliest philosopher, really, among the earliest philosophers of Christianity, Augustine. It then is picked up by Aquinas and is dealt with throughout the centuries by scholastic, Catholic scholastic scholars deal with this. And it basically all is developing in the context of when is war appropriate, given Jesus's commandment to another cheek and love thy enemy, and what kind of violence is appropriate, and what is a just cause, of course, spending Christianity for Augustine as a just cause, and what is proportionality. And it really, I mean, Augustine and Aquinas really developed the whole language of just war theory in order to try to justify the Roman Empire in Augustine's time, is expansion of Christianity and using the sword and Rome ultimately had to fight and had to protect itself, and Augustine was very aware of that. And then Aquinas, the church is now more solidified, there's a somewhat a separation between church and state, which wasn't true in Augustine's days, because the Caesar was also the religious authority at the time, that's true from Constantine on. But Aquinas, there's more of a separation, but it's still true that they are now Crusades, and how do you justify Crusades, and what is appropriate behavior during the Crusades, and is it appropriate who you kill, pagans, Muslims, all of that. And then all of that just gets secularized, like all of Christian morality gets secularized, by modern altruistic philosophers, Michael Walzer is the relevant one today, because it's his book that is taught in West Point. I read the book years ago, and I wrote about just war theory, but I haven't looked at it in recent times, I don't remember. War crimes again comes, war crimes comes, I don't know where the terms come from, but certainly they exist during the Middle Ages in the context of chivalrous fighting, how knights should fight each other, what is fair, what is proportionate, what is appropriate, fairness in war, that whole concept in this. I have a lot to say about this, I mean, we need a whole session on war crimes, because it really comes from an era where war is more of a game, war is a competition between, or war is purely about power. They're no good guys, they're no bad guys, everybody's a bad guy, it's just a matter of which bad guy is going to win. And there's some concern by certain humanists reigning it in, controlling it, how do you regulate it, how do you make it not too bad. The first thinkers with regard to the beginnings of thinking about individual rights, Poopendorf, and I forget the guy's name in Holland, who were thinking about these, how should one prince attacking another prince, what constitutes a war crime, what doesn't, what constitutes, how does just war theory again, how they help secularize it all. In the modern times war crimes guided by the Geneva Convention, it's a convention of countries that have come and signed to it, but again it kind of pretends that war is a game, that you can have rules that there's, of course there's no governing authority and there's no way to enforce the rules, so it's meaningless, like all international law. And it's a way to pretend that you're virtuous and bring war under the effect of altruism. But it's also, what's interesting about it is that the good guys are going to follow it, the bad guys never will. It doesn't hold for the fall, I mean what are the bad guys care, they don't care about the Geneva Convention. Amen, thank you, amen. It's been a while, good to see you on a live show. Doesn't al-Khamas supporters in the West establish the case against immigration? Well, I mean I've talked about this, I do think it establishes a case against immigration of Muslims, particularly if you can identify, you know, Islamic fundamentalists, Islamic totalitarians, Islam or fascists, political Islam, however you want to call it, but Muslims who believe in the same ideology of Islam, al-Khamas, the idea that Islam should guide a political agenda, the same ideology of Iran, the same ideology in many regards of Saudi Arabia, and it's absolutely appropriate to have a complete and utter ban on people who hold that ideology and to evaluate them on the basis of that ideology. So if you're coming in and there's any reason for the authorities to think you're Muslim, they have every right to question you and to interrogate your past and to figure that out. And more than that, as I've said many times, I believe that the United States and the West more broadly should declare war on Islamic totalitarianism. They should declare war on jihadism, Islamism, again, however you want to call it. And as part of a war, you don't allow enemy combatants or other enemy or people who hold the enemy ideology to immigrate into your country. It's hard to pass a limitation on immigrants without the declaration of war because then you're not serious. I mean, a serious position would be we are at war with Islamism, with Islamic totalitarianism, which means we're at war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad, Iran, elements within Saudi Arabia, and so on. And anybody who funds these groups and we will eliminate these groups, whether that's Israel, whether it's the West more broadly, hopefully it's the West more broadly. And for the period of the war, you can't come here just like during World War II, Germans were not, couldn't immigrate to the United States. Japanese not only couldn't immigrate, but then they were interned in the United States. I don't think you have to intern all the Muslims in America, but you certainly have to stop immigration. But you have to declare war. There has to be, we're at war. Iran's at war with the United States. Iranian proxies are attacking US bases every single day. They've been killing Americans since 79. So there's nothing, they know they're at war with the US. We just pretend there isn't a war. Hezbollah Hamas committed to a war with America once they go with Israel. So this is, I mean, I've been complaining about this since at least 9-11, that America and the West doesn't take this seriously. We shouldn't allow Islamists to immigrate to the United States. But to do that, we need to make clear opposition vis-à-vis Islamist organizations and states out there. And, you know, they are the enemy. They are explicitly an enemy. And we need to take care of that enemy. Karnas says, I met someone from, I mean, thank you for the support. Really, really appreciate the monthly support and you being here periodically on the live shows. Karnas says, I met someone from Haifa while backpacking in Australia, while back. I still talk to this day and he doesn't think it's possible for Palestine to embrace Western ideals if Israel annihilated them. Do you agree? No, I don't agree. The Palestinians were very close to, the Palestinians were very close to Western ideals in the past. They were secular. It was a relatively secular people. And I think they, I think there was an opportunity in the 70s and 80s, early 80s to do this. But, you know, Palestinians failed and Israel failed. But they, you know, again, they need to be crushed and they need to be occupied. And without that, it won't happen. But I think the whole Arab world could be westernized with, if they're first defeated. And then the demand is that they westernize, they're expected to be westernized. All right, let me know. No more questions, please, because I have a hard stop at 12. At two, my time to your time. One, let me run through these questions quickly. John says, how about the government monopoly on education? One might be interested in that. You would think, huh? You would think over education. I mean, it has more than 50% of the healthcare system. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot. But education, it's, it's what 90% it's, it's dominant. Definitely break that up, break up that monopoly. The Godfather, I'm a statistician specializing in chronic disease. I'm thinking about starting a substack evaluating different papers and research used by political pundits. Any advice you could spare? Oh, yeah, I mean, that's a great idea. There are some people already doing this. Do your research and figure out what they do and how you would differentiate yourself from them. There are a number of people out there, but that would be a great service. I mean, it's, it's, it's really, really needed. There's so much distortion and perversion of statistics, particularly in healthcare studies. But check out the different substacks of people already doing it. Yeah, let me know when it's out. I'd be happy to support it and to, and to link to it. Because I think, I think it's crucial, you know, the people out there doing it, doing it for various, certainly in epidemiology, but there are also other people who claim to be doing it. But the more the better, we need kind of an objective approach to the statistical analysis to show the flaws and so many of these studies, a lot of these studies are just awful. But also what they actually mean, which the study itself doesn't always articulate or doesn't always accurately articulate because a lot of doctors are not statisticians. And a lot of their journals don't do a good job reviewing them for statistical truth, statistical accuracy. WCZN, thank you. I appreciate it. He says this for positive news, Wes. Thank you. I appreciate the sticker. And let's see, Miguel, Millay, quote, I liked capitalism because of its effectiveness in producing wealth, but I fell in love with it because of its moral superiority. Watch as Ted talk, please. Yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm on board. I, you know, I, I, I wish he, I mean, I wish he didn't go to some old rabbis grave site here in New York on his visit yesterday. You know, and declare his lands with Judaism for some bizarre reason. I wish he didn't have the position he has on abortion and some other issues. I wish he wasn't a what he calls himself an ant cap. But yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm enthused about him and I'm excited. He's clearly been influenced by Ayn Rand, that whole perspective of moral superiority is an Ayn Rand point. I wish he understood it better. I wish he understood it better and, but I'm eager to see what he does. I'm eager to see what he does. He's, he's the most exciting politician out there in the world today. Let's hope he lives up to that. All right. Final question. Ed says, how do you stop and interrogate Muslims with bad ideology if you have open borders? Well, I've never been for open, open borders in the sense of no restrictions. Quite the contrary. I've always said there should be, you know, there should be a place where the, you know, the people are quickly, quickly evaluated in terms of background checks on terrorism and crime and on infectious diseases. And, you know, you, you basically you allow anybody in who doesn't cause a significant red flag. That's not open borders in the sense of anybody can walk across the border. I do believe particularly in the world in which we live, you need some means by which to evaluate the people coming, coming in and, and evaluate them based on national security, based on crime, based on things like that. But it would be very easy to do. And if you followed my prescription, everybody would be getting their visas from employment agencies in their own countries. And those employment agencies would be running background checks. So by the time you reach the border, you'd already either got a thumbs up or thumbs down. And there'd be plenty of time for the authorities to run the kind of background check that was necessary. So I'm not a proponent, at least not in the world in which we live, are people just walking across the border without any screening. I've always been for minimal, the minimal screening, terrorism, crime, disease. All right. Thank you, Armin. And thank you, Silvanos, for Silvanos. That was about half the money came in from those two guys. So I really, really appreciate it. Appreciate all the super chatters. Thank you for the support. I will be on tonight at 7 p.m. East Coast time. So stay tuned. Yeah, 7 o'clock East Coast time, topic to be determined. I'll see you soon.