 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. Hey, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Saturday afternoon here in Puerto Rico. It's probably still morning in parts of California. Well, all of California and parts of California. That was weird. All right. Welcome. Today is our AMA show and we've got our panel online. It's kind of a smaller panel than usual, so they'll get plenty of opportunities to ask questions. Unless people join us over time. We also have the Super Chat is open. You can ask questions pretty much about anything. There's a lot going on in the world as we speak. Feel free to ask about anything going on. The ceasefire was off in Gaza. Hamas refused to release the hostages. Israel put some airplanes into the sky and said, Okay, we're starting to bomb and Hamas changed his mind and now they're releasing hostages. So anyway, at least that is the latest. As of seven minutes ago, we'll see if anything changes during the show while the show actually progresses. All right. Let's see. All right. Let us get started. Howard, you are on first, so you get to ask the question first. Thank you. I'm relatively new to the group, but we know each other from way back from the NYU days. Okay. Yes. That's right. There was one other talk that we were together. You spoke with in front of a conservative group at a restaurant in New York City a long time ago, if you remember. That is a long time ago, tea party days. Those are the tea party days. The tea party days, that's correct. So strategically, what's the IDF next move? And even more curiously, more curiosity surrounding Massad and dealing with these bad actors that are in Qatar. Yeah. How would that, how would the Massad handle that? How are they going to handle that now? I mean, it's not like the Black September days where they were able to hunt those guys down all throughout Europe. Yeah. And nowadays, it's almost a capitulation. I mean, to see them actually sending Massad personnel over there to actually be part of the negotiation unless there's some other plan that we don't know about. I'm very, very confused by that whole thing. Yeah. So I don't think there's a plan to assassinate the leaders of Hamas in Qatar. I think those guys are going to die of old age, unfortunately. I don't think the Mossad is planning to kill them. Let's hope that there is no Hamas for them to be heads of in a while, but I don't see Israel going into Qatar and killing them. Now, maybe if they travel to Europe, maybe if they go somewhere else, maybe Israel gets a shot at them. But I just don't think it's a priority. Gone are the days of Israel hunting down its enemies and destroying them one by one. Those are the old days in the 70s and 80s when Israel did that. I just don't see the will to do that anymore. Israel is driven by a very different moral code. It's driven by a different set of parameters. It just doesn't do stuff like that. They did kill a Hamas operative in Dubai. I think it was in Dubai a few years ago or 10 years ago or so in a pretty sophisticated mission. But then when all the details went out and they got criticized and they even got criticized inside of Israel. I don't know that they are willing to do that. Remember also the Qatar, even though it's an enemy of Israel, an enemy of the United States in my view, is also protected by the United States. It is an ally of the United States. The United States has its largest Middle East military base in Qatar. The United States has Sencombe. The operations for all the Middle East is in Qatar. Even though Qatar is aligned with Iran and is an enemy of the U.S. and funded ISIS and funded al-Qaeda and funds Hamas, the U.S. still plays this ridiculous game of being nice to its enemies and more than nice, protecting them. And I just don't think Israel has the willpower to go to Qatar with its being protected by the U.S. and execute a couple of guys in the middle of Qatar. I just don't see it happening, sadly. I wish I was wrong. If it was up to me, there'd be a cruise missile on the way to the hotel where these guys are staying right now and it would be rubble. It's Qatar. It's Sunni, though. Speaking of the microphone, otherwise it's Sunni, though. It's mixed because a lot of that part of the world is mixed. Saudi Arabia has significant minorities of Shiite. Really? Most of eastern Saudi Arabia are Shiites. Oil is actually mostly Shiite. And in the Gulf states, it's a combination of Shiite and Sunni. Qatar is very much aligned with Iran. It's a one-guess as part of the negotiation. It's not that Qatar is negotiating with the United States. Iran is negotiating with the United States through the Qataris. The Qataris are just middlemen representing the Iranian regime. Qatar, unfortunately, has a lot of power here because of its connection with the United States. Thanks, Howard. Can you mute yourself while we go through? Amlan. Hi, Iran. This is going to be my second question, but I think it's directly connected to what Howard just asked. Let me ask this now. I guess when I look at how Israel has acted or not acted, all the things you've talked about and so forth, at what point do you start to get kind of want to throw your hands up and say, these guys just don't want to do what needs to be done to protect themselves. They keep repeating the same mistakes, if not making it worse every time. I was mad, mad as hell when those attacks happened and the brutality of them. Same thing with 9-11, right? It's like, what the hell? Why are we putting up with this nonsense and all those things? It's like, we don't seem to do anything. I guess at what point did you just say like, okay Israel, you guys are kind of a lost cause. And I know you talked about this a lot yesterday in your show, so I did. I did see that one. And I fully understand the benefit to us in supporting Israel, but then Israel's not doing what needs to be done. Unlike Ukraine where you can at least say, okay, they're doing I think what the best they can do. But what about Israel? But a big part of the frustration with Ukraine is America's not doing what it can do. And even with Israel, America's not doing what it can do. So look, I threw my hands up. I don't know, 1982, I think. Okay. You know, when I was in Beirut and Ronald Reagan saved Yasser Arafat's butts. And basically Israel was about to do the right thing. It was about to go into West Beirut, kill Arafat and kill 6,000 of his troops. And Ronald Reagan stepped in and said, I guarantee safe passage to Yasser Arafat and his people too. And they got on boats to Tunisia. I mean, and that was Ronald Reagan, right? The last president that at least made a good speech. So yeah, I mean, I gave up a long time ago. It's not that at any point do I expect the United States or Israel or anybody for that matter to do the right thing. The primary purpose of my ranting is educational. It's to educate the world about what should be the right thing so that someday, one day, maybe somebody will be influenced and make a change. But my expectation is not that that happens probably in my lifetime. It doesn't happen. The reality is that, yeah, this stuff is going to keep going, this real politic, this compromising, this a moral way of fighting wars is going to continue. Israel will suffer. America will suffer. Europe will suffer. Everybody will suffer. It might even lead to the collapse of Western civilization. That is what it's at stake at the end of the day. It could lead to that. I hope if that happens, it happens after I'm dead because I don't want to see it. But, you know, I'm completely, it's not, you know, I've completely accepted the fact that nobody is going to behave the way they're supposed to behave. I mean, the same thing with economics, right? I mean, the financial crisis happens. Everybody blames capitalism. And, you know, me and a few others are the lone voices saying, no, no, no, wait a minute. You know, when you throw up your hands, well, they've been up for a long, long time. My purpose is not to change the Washington D.C. or Jerusalem. My purpose is to use this as a means to educate people about morality, about what is possible, about what should be the behavior so the future generations maybe will pick up on it. Yeah, I'm not, I'm not, I was going to say delusional, but maybe it's delusional. Delusional enough to think that I have any impact that anybody's actually listening and that, you know, this is going to change, that anything will change. It's not. That's the reality. It's not. And it's sad. And it's part of my frustration and sadness is that it's not people are dying for no reason. A lot of people are going to die for no reason. You're on. I think people are about BB Netanyahu for 25 years. Nobody listens to me. It just is what it is. And you just have to accept it. And as we always say, it's one mind at a time. And if we can affect one mind at a time, and if this is the issue, they get somebody to listen to the show or this is the issue that ultimately gets them to read Ayn Rand. Great. Then I've achieved what I set out to do. Yeah. Well, that's great that you're doing that. And of course, you know, that's why I support it. But it's hard not to be like really angry sometimes. I know a few years ago we were traveling through Scotland and, you know, we stopped at one of these memorials. And it was in the town. It was for the soldiers who had died in Iraq. You know, and I looked at that list and I'm like, I got so angry. Like I didn't know these people or anything, but it's just like what a waste, right? Like young men and women and just the whole lives ahead of them and just dying for useless nothing, you know. In fact, dying for a step back on top of everything. So I'm happy you're doing it. But it is tough sometimes. No, I am with you completely. It is very tough sometimes. It angers me to no end. You know, on October 7th, it was like, I told you this was going to happen. Yeah. And it doesn't help anybody for me to say that. It's meaningless in the end. Yeah. But it's it's super frustrating and it's it makes me, you know, the ceasefire, whatever it makes me super angry because I know all the lives that are going to be forfeited because of they're doing this stuff. And it seems sometimes that nobody seems to care about human life. Yeah. No. I remember during the rock wall. I mean, I was like, I gave a talk at Ocon. And and I was I was furious. And I, you know, and I basically said, if this is how you're going to fight the wolf, this is what it's about. Then please bring the troops home today. Yeah. Why are these kids dying? What are they dying for? And there's nothing more infuriating than to see our politicians just and our leaders and our intellectuals just not care about young people. People are dying because of this stupid, this stupid, you know, decisions and and and attitudes. But, you know, we've got to care. You've got to keep caring. Yeah. Human and we're rational. We care about human life. Yeah. But I can't let that stop me. The fact that it's, you know, and we have to keep moving forward. Otherwise, you know, I can't just give up. That's yeah. Okay. Well, that's great. Thank you. Yeah. Sure. All right. Andrew. Hey, Iran. I'm so far away from what my first question was going to be now that I'm up so because everything go back to that. We can go back to that. Yeah. Everything was very interesting that was talked about. So let's talk about moral judgment of the leaders of Israel. And I mean, you're, you're very hard on them. So let me challenge it and see what you think of the challenge. Like I'm getting really angry about something. I get really angry when the media talks about Israel. Committing war crimes. Or if they are committing war crimes. It just, it's so wrong, you know, and so unjust. But if you are a leader. Don't you need to account. Like, is your attitude. You're a leader. You're, it's up to you to not let that get to you and to do the right thing. Or, or should they as rational human beings be accounting for the fact of this. Opposition to them that is so. That is so biased. But that potentially has real harm to them, you know, like being charged with a war crimes. Here is issue. You know, being a leader means leading. It doesn't mean following. It means taking a stand, articulating why you're taking the stand, explaining to the world what is actually going on and leading. Not, you know, being influenced by the, the, the latest noise that I don't know, Greta Thunberg or whoever is making out there. Sorry. I see a video Greta Thunberg on Twitter right now. I'm just trying to stay up to date on the news. I've got Twitter running in the background. I mean, you can't be, you can't be swayed by these things. So they'll prosecute you for, for war crimes. Fine. Let them come after you. You know, you need to make, you, you, you are, you know, look at the reality is, and this is the reality and maybe this is why shouldn't be that harsh on the leaders. I'm harsh on the leaders to an extent that they don't lead and they're not leading. Biden's not leading. What's his name? Netanyahu is not leading. Nobody's leading. There's no leadership here. And there's no articulation of the case. There's no sitting down and telling the world this is the way it is. And when there is, there's, there's that and then, and then the behavior doesn't match the words. It's complete. But I mean, the real, the real, the real enemy, the real, you know, problem here is not a few, a few leaders. The real problem is the culture. You know, let's say Netanyahu decided he was going all in and, you know, it started bombing the hell out of Gaza and thousands were dying. And I mean, what would happen inside Israel? Never mind outside of Israel. I mean, Israeli society would go apoplectic and go nuts. So it's, you know, there is a sense in which it's impossible to lead people who do not want reality and truth and the wants of defense. But I think it's incumbent on a leader to try to make the case and to act. And then if they get kicked out of office because of it, so be it. But at least they made, they took a shot. You know, it really is about leadership. If, if, I mean, it is interesting if, if Churchill had asked the British people whether it was okay to flatten Dresden, I suspect they would have said yes. But he didn't ask them. He just did it. If, if Churchill would have told the British people, you know, here's what's at stake at Dunkirk. And I'm going to take this gamble. And if it fails, we've probably lost the war. Right. You know, he didn't, he did it. And then he gave that amazing speech about, he led. Churchill was a leader. I mean, you could argue a certain of his decisions. But he led. He didn't wait for the rest of the world to catch up on him. Now we live in a slightly different era with media and video and all this. We don't have leaders. We just don't have leaders. The only leader we have in the world today are the bad guys. Like Putin is a leader, right? He didn't, he goes in and he goes to crush Ukraine. I mean, he's a bad guy, but he's at least a leader. None of these people are leaders. They're all cowards. You'll see the kind of pressure Israel comes under from the Biden administration once the ceasefire is over. It's going to be immense in order to stop and to consider a long-term ceasefire and a political solution and this and that and, you know, far from killing the guys and Qatar, they, I mean, the real question I think we need to think about is, will they kill the Hamas leadership in Gaza? It's not obvious to me that they will get them. It's not obvious to me that America will let them. And, you know, we'd have to go into South Gaza with two million civilians, so-called civilians, you know, in South Gaza, they've got no way to go. How are they going to blow up the tunnels? How are they going to get those leaders? How are they going to catch them? So maybe I'm being too harsh on the leaders, but in a sense, that's just a proxy for the culture that elects them and votes them and loves them and supports them. Got it. All right. Adam. I have a two-part question about what happened at Open AI. First one is, is the age of the corporation over? Because as soon as the age of the corporation over, because as soon as the employees of Open AI decided to leave, there was no Open AI corporation left. So no, I don't think the age of the corporation is over. The reality is that the employees decided to leave, but they were going to leave for another corporation. They were going to leave for Microsoft. Or they were going to leave for, you know, some other AI company, what's-his-name, was trying to get themselves forced, was offering them to match all their salaries. So the age of that particular corporation might have been over, but no, I don't think the age of the corporation, I would also add that, again, Open AI was a unique form of corporation. That is, Open AI was a nonprofit, not a for-profit. It was-it has a board that does not have investors represented on it. It has-so I don't think one can conclude much in terms of the way corporations function and act from the behavior of Open AI. They acted based on some kind of social agenda, not on the basis of a-the governance of a for-profit corporate entity. So, second part, it seems to me that both sides of the dispute agree that their business strategy is to preemptively do the regulatory capture. In other words, establish regulations to keep competitors out, and they only disagreed about the most efficient way to do that. Do you have the same impression? I think that's right, but I don't think that's how they hold it. I don't think they think in those terms. I think they-and I think they're honest to the extent that you can be honest in this context. I think they truly believe AI is a threat. I think they truly have an unsophisticated view of consciousness or of human intelligence. They really do think that what they're doing at Open AI could lead to the end of humanity. They-they, you know, think that they can control it internally, but they're worried about other people and they want the regulators. They want government. They, for some reason, bizarre reason, they trust government to control this kind of risk. They explicitly talked about the comparison to nuclear energy and other existential risks, supposedly, that the government has controlled. And they want that kind of regulatory environment. I don't think they view it or they hold it as regulatory capture. I think they view it as hold it as this is really, really dangerous stuff that we're doing. And we can trust ourselves, of course, but we can trust our competitors. And the government needs to step in and regulate us and the competitors to make sure that nobody does something that will end humanity. I think the disagreement was between Altman, who I think believes that he has this risk under control and that he knows what he's doing and he's going to push ahead with open AI and their-and their technology in spite of the risk because he can control it and a board managed by in which at least one of them is in kind of an academic who believes that, oh, no, no, no, the risk is way too big that Altman cannot manage it. He needs to go. He's being too aggressive. He's pushing forward too fast. And we are saving humanity by stopping him, by stopping this project. And I think they, just like I think the climate change people really believe that the world is going to end at some point. They really have deluded themselves to the point. I think these people in the, you know, effective altruism and AI, the intersection between AI and effective altruism, I think that intersection, I think they really believe this. They deluded themselves into really believing that they, if not for them, AI would crush humanity and kill us all and they have to, they're the guardians of humanity by reigning in Sam Altman and reigning in other corporations by encouraging the government to regulate them. There's a lot of similarity here with climate change. It's the same kind of mentality. It's, you know, this catastrophizing, it makes you become, I think it causes you to become irrational. There's a whole, there's a guru of catastrophizing AI. You know, I forget his name. That's part of the effective altruism community. It's also called the rationalist community. And by the way, they're giving a bad name to atheism because now that whole view is being attacked. Oh, you see these atheists, they're pessimistic about the future, only we religionists have optimistic about humanity. It's just, everything about it is terrible and is not going to, it's not going to end. It's not, it's not going to go well. The nice thing is that because this is a competitive market and because people at Microsoft don't really give a damn about all this, AI will continue to be developed in spite of all this fear mongering. You're on. Do you think this really smart people are like overthinking this and that's making them paranoid? No, and there's a sense of which though, underthinking, I don't like overthinking. It's not a good term. They're not overthinking it. They're wrongly thinking it. That is, they're thinking about it in a wrong way. They're thinking about it in, they don't have an understanding of what constitutes consciousness where it comes from. They don't have a sense of what makes human beings unique or what human reason is. And they have no sense of free will. They don't believe free will exists, which is kind of ironic for people who are trying to have an impact on the world when they think, when everything is determined anyway. So it's, I don't think it's overthinking. It's thinking wrongly about it and attributing to yourself more knowledge than you have or wrong knowledge, put it this way, wrong knowledge. And then it's dramatically abusing statistics. Here's one way to think about this, the way they think about it, right? And this is a massive statistical fallacy. And they say, look, it is true. And this is true of climate change. It's how these rationalists think about things. It is true that the probability that AI will end the human race is very, very low. But the outcome is catastrophic. So the outcome is infinite. So is infinitely bad. So even though probability is very low, you're multiplying it by infinity to get the weighting of it. And that's an infinite number. So it outweighs any other decision you might do, which is just nuts because you couldn't live your life if that were true, right? There is a chance it's small that when I step into my car and go drive to the restaurant tonight, somebody will crash into me and kill me. There is a non-zero probability of that happening. And that is catastrophic. It's infinitely bad. I shouldn't get into my car because it's an infinitely bad. And you could do that on every single behavior, right? Every single behavior has some probability that it's fatal. So it's, but that's how they think, right? It's insane, but it's the same. You get the same thing with climate change. You get the whole precautionary principle that people talk about. You have to prove that there's no harm. In other words, that the probability of catastrophe is zero. Well, you can't prove a negative. And even if it is, even if there is a small probability that it's really, really bad, OK? Take that into account. Keep moving. But they can't see that. But anyway, so it's a bunch of different problems that epistemological, fundamentally epistemological problems that they have that basically constrains their ability to see what's going on. All right. Thank you, Adam. Nick. Nick, you are muted. You're not muted, but you're not speaking. I can't hear you if you are not sure what's going on. You're still muted. So you might keep it unmuted. No, you're muted now. That's unmuted. Say something. Nope. Can't hear you. Can't hear you. You can type a question into the chat or maybe log off and try coming in or play around with your microphone. Let me take some super chats and then if you've got the thing working, I'll come back to you. But you can unmute because that way we'll know when you start talking. All right. We've got a few super chats. Michael for $100. Thank you, Michael. He says when Jews were in Europe, they were never considered European. They were always classified as Jews. Now that Jews in Israel, people say they're not real Jews. They're Europeans. They're morphing the truth to be able to put Jews in a position of weakness. Well, I don't know if it's a position of weakness that they're trying to do or really trying to do is today versus, you know, say in the past, Jews were the other. And so they couldn't be European. They were kind of this weird thing and say that you could, you could dehumanize them and you could, you could blame them for all your problems and, and you could, you could, you know, kill them and, and, and, and persecute them because they were the other. And you needed to do that. In Israel, the issue is, you know, now the way, if you will, they're left in particular things. It's not about being the other. Now it's about, are you the victim? Are you victimizer? Are you an oppressor? Are you the oppressed? And what Jews, because they're successful, because they're wealthy, because they're well educated, because they've done well, because Israel is a prosperous country. It's now kind of obvious that Jews are the oppressed, oppressor. They're not oppressed anymore. They're now the oppressor. And by definition, the oppressor, according to this modern kind of postmodern theology, if you will, by definition, the oppressor is evil, is wrong. It doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't matter how they behave. They are always wrong because they are successful. The standard of morality is egalitarianism. It's absolute, complete equality. And if you're above that, if you're better than the average, then you are an oppressor. If you're below, you're being oppressed. The Palestinians clearly oppressed. The Jews clearly are oppressors. They're oppressors in America because they're rich and successful. They're oppressors in Israel because they're rich and successful, relative to the people around them. And nothing else matters. History doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how we got here. It doesn't matter what happened in Europe. The only way they conceptualize anything is in terms of power structure. Is in terms of comparison to this ideal, this utopia of equality of outcome. Equality of outcome. And it's truly stunning how this ideology is just taken over. It's worse than communism. It's a truly nihilistic world view that was best expressed in Popat's Cambodia. And it leads to nothing but death and destruction. But that is the main way in which the world looks at, which the left in particular, but I think this has impacted everybody, the way the world looks at what is going on, not just in Israel, but everywhere. This is egalitarianism, the most evil ideology imaginable. And that is kind of shaping how they look at Jews and how they look at Israel and Palestinians. And it's a, by the way, direct-direct outcome of altruism. It's a direct-direct outcome of the altruistic view of the world. Thank you, Michael. That's very generous. Nick, is the audio on? Can you hear me? Yes. There you go. So, yeah, I just wanted to ask a question just to get this straight in my head. When Israel got the West Bank, was it 67? Okay. You know, Caroline Glick made this point way back in one of her books that Israel should assimilate the whole West Bank. Why hasn't that been attempted? Yeah, why hasn't that been attempted? We wouldn't be dealing with all these BS about settlements, about all these side issues. Well, it hasn't happened for, I guess, that I can think of right now, two reasons. One is that Israel is afraid that if it assimilates the West Bank, it will lose the majority, the Jews being a majority in the country. It would involve several million, particularly if you add Gaza, several million to the population of Israel. It would change the whole balance of power in government. It would give the Arabs a real voice in the governance of Israel. And it has the potential, ultimately, even to change the laws of immigration and to allow the Palestinians what they demand, which is what they call a right of return, which is all the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon and everywhere else, to come back and become Israeli citizens and then clearly overpower the Jewish majority. So that's one, it's just a fear of losing the majority. Well, how many Palestinians are in the West Bank? Forget about Gaza. Gaza is a separate... There's two Palestinians. There's the Gaza and Palestine and there's the West Bank. Well, the Palestinians don't view it that way. Who cares how they view it? Well, they don't view a lot of things properly. The Palestinian population total is about 5 million people. I don't know if that includes just... That's probably including Gaza. So take 2.3 out of that. So you've got 2.6, 2.7 million. 2.6, 2.7 in the West Bank and 2.3 in the Gaza Strip. The total population of Israel is... I don't know if that includes... Some of the refugees in Lebanon. Let me just see if I can get... Yeah, I mean, so you can see, also for many years, Palestinians were having lots of babies and Israelis were not. So there was fear of, again, the demographics. The demographics overwhelming them. Fertility rates among Palestinians have plummeted. It's gone down dramatically over the years. But it's still relatively high. It's still around 3. Which is similar to Israel. It's not that different than Israel. Yeah, it's hard for me. I'm not sure what these numbers mean. I'm looking to find you better numbers. Because I'm not sure if this includes people outside or people within or just within. You know, there's all these websites that say the common population of the state of Palestine is. But there is no state of Palestine. So I don't know what they mean by the state of Palestine. But it does look like it's about 5 million, 5.4 million, including Gaza. So 2.7, 2.8 without... So what was the second reason? You said there were two reasons. The second reason is that they would face global condemnation. That is, the whole world would turn against them. And Israel cares. They shouldn't, but it does. And everybody in the world would hate them. But look, I agree with Caroline Glick. The long-term solution has to be a one-state solution. The two-state solution is absurd. It has to be the integration of the Palestinians into Israel. You couldn't do it today. It would have to be after a generation or two of reeducation. You'd have to get rid of the hatred. You'd have to get rid of the commitment to Jihad, a commitment to killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel. But ultimately, the only solution is one state and let the Palestinians who don't want to live within the state of Israel leave. Let them migrate to Jordan. Let them migrate to Egypt. Let them migrate wherever they want to migrate. And I think that is ultimately solution. I think Caroline Glick would like to see many of them deported out of Israel so that their population is reduced so that when she integrates them into the state of Israel, there are not many of them. But today you couldn't do it because they hate Israel too much. I mean, it would be a bloodbath. You saw what happened with Gaza. Imagine what would happen if the Palestinians could just roam around Israel, go wherever they wanted because they were Israeli citizens. They would slaughter Jews. So you have to go through a period where you undo it. Undo it. So right now, there's 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank, right? The West Bank is divided into 3 different regions. In one region, basically, Israel governs it. In the second region, Israel governs it together with the Palestinian Authority. In the third region, the Palestinian Authority governs, but Israel is responsible for overriding security. So it has the right to go in, supposedly, and clean up. So right now it's divided into 3 different zones. It's very complicated. It's very messy. And of course Hamas is there. Hamas is active. Hamas is unbelievably popular in the West Bank. If there were elections tomorrow, the Hamas would win in the West Bank decisively, not even close. They would get 70% of the vote. The only way to stop Hamas from winning is for Israel to thoroughly destroy it in Gaza. But instead, they're releasing prisoners who are now being celebrated in the West Bank. I don't know if you saw the pictures yesterday. Hamas people in the West Bank found 3 Palestinians that they decided were working with the Israelis. They beat them to death. And then they hung them from light poles. They hung their bloody bodies from light poles. I mean, this is what they do to people they don't like. They don't disagree with. And this is the West Bank. This is in the area that was supposedly the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. They have no real power. The power in the West Bank today is Hamas's. That's the reality. Wow. It's bad. It's bad. And what's one of the more positive things going on right now is that the Arab population in Israel does not seem to support Hamas. We're not seeing uprisings inside Israel. We're not seeing violence inside Israel. There's a lot of fear that we would that a lot of the young among Israeli Arabs support Hamas. But that is not they have not made any noises. And that is a very positive sign. And it might be partially because some of the victims of Hamas in the south of Israel on October 7th were Muslim Arab Israelis. They were they, you know, they actually played for their lives saying, look, we're Muslims like you and Hamas says, yeah, but you live under the Jews. So therefore you're worse than Jews and they killed them. Right. So it is, you know, this is that part of the world. It's, you know, it's not like you cross over to wonderful Saudi Arabia where everybody goes and we dance with the princes and they behave more civilized over there. Right. It's it's this is this is a barbaric part of the world. This is barbarism Israel. These these stupid Jews chose a blame on God. God chose this horrible part of the world to put Jews in. I mean, it's it's it's really awful. The second thought they should have gone to Uganda. They should have gone to Uganda. I think Uganda in spite of Idi Amin is a lot more civilized. All right, let's go back to the super chat. Thank you, Nick. Michael another $50. Thank you, Michael. Norma Finkestein has been making around saying God's as a concentration camp and the Hamas did what Hamas did was like a 19th century black slave revolt. Is he nihilistic self-hating Jew unbelievable since both the parents were in concentration camps. Yes, he's a nihilistic self-hating Jew. There's no question about that. And more than that, he is also somebody who has realized at some point in his career that the way to get attention, the way to get invited on CNN and and you know, to write papers and get published and do all this stuff is to be the guy who hates Israel, the guy who accuses Israel or all these horrors and who has parents who survived the Holocaust. He uses that everywhere. He constantly it's like in his calling card and parents survived the Holocaust. I mean, it's on the calling card right there on his business card because that's what you know that that gives him moral authority gives him legitimacy and he has discovered that that gets him on television that gets him. He is the number one. You know, a hater of Israel in academia. He's well published. He's well regarded. He's on TV. He gives speeches. You know, people debate him all because he's a self-hating Jew and his parents are actually in a concentration camp. But yeah, he's a hater. He's an nihilist. And he should be. I mean, the best thing with people like Finkestein is completely ignore them. Don't give them a platform. Anytime you give them a platform, you're sanctioning their particular form of despicable evil. All right, the best Tom. He says most indices I've seen a political and economic freedom ranked Switzerland at or near the top. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, Switzerland is. I think I think most indexes put it top five. It's not. It's not typically it's somewhere between two and five depend on the index depend on the year and depend if Hong Kong is counted or not. These days we've taken Hong Kong off. So the list has become shorter by one free country. But yes, Switzerland is relatively free taxes are relatively low. You know, the while regulations are bizarre and weird, and there's a lot of things like different regulations and different cantons, which makes it difficult to do business across cantons. A guy who had a trucking company and he said, you literally had to go to the border of the canton, unload all your goods from the truck, put them on to another truck on the other side of the canton border, because you could only use a certain type of truck in that canton. You couldn't I mean, insanity like that. In spite of that insanity. Yeah, I mean, it's it's relatively it's got relatively good banking laws relatively speaking. It's got low tax, as I said, low tax, but also government spending is low. Generally government spending is low. The federal government, I think it's called the federal government of Switzerland is relatively small. Most decisions happening at the canton level. And a lot of decisions are decided on by referendum. And you know, the Swiss are fairly conservative in a sense of preferring the past to the future. And so they don't like big changes. The changes are slow if they happen at all. And yeah, Switzerland as a consequence, not because it believes in freedom in some deep sense. But just because of that inhibit conservatism, I think is basically is one of the freest countries in the world. All right, let's go back to our panel and do another round. Howard. I'll yield my time to the next to the next speaker. I'll come back. I'm trying to still formulating a question. Okay, sounds good online. Yeah, so last I think it was last week you talked about or two weeks ago now time time is hard to remember sometimes that letter that was published from Bin Laden. Yeah. And I think one of the points he made in that letter if I recall correctly was that there are no innocence in the West. So setting aside and I'm not doing any moral equivalency here obviously but I mean it's somewhat the argument that we've been making around, you know, that well we should flatten Gaza, right? Or Israel should flatten Gaza. So is the concept of innocence I guess something that really applies or is it dependent on the underlying morality of the parties involved and therefore it does apply in one case and not the other. I'm not sure my question is clear but I'm just trying to understand how we should be using the term or we should be using a different term. Yeah. I think that I think Bin Laden's view on this issue on the issue of whether of whether a people are innocent of their of the actions of their political leaders. I think he's right. Yeah. So one thing in the document that I think he's right on and I wish we understood that that is. And I said this I said look if America invaded Mexico tomorrow on you know out of nothing I mean there are a number of political candidates right now running for president who would like to be in Mexico tomorrow. I mean Vivek and I think others have picked up on the same thing. But if America invaded, you know, Mexico tomorrow Mexico would have every right in the world to bomb me. And and it's not their job to figure out who I voted for whether I voted at all or whether I talk about it or not or whether I stand up to my government or not. They're only responsible these defend themselves and if bombing me helps them defend themselves if every single they have every way to do so. And it's why one of the reasons why it's so important to be involved in politics is whether you like it or not you're going to be held responsible justifiably for the actions of your government and the actions of your governor going to impact you one way the other even if you oppose them so they impact you you might oppose them raising taxes on you still going to pay higher taxes. So the reason to get involved in politics is that the government represents you will impact you. You know has influence on your life. I think I ran makes this point that yeah, you will suffer the consequence of what they do including attacking Mexico. So he's right in that sense. And, you know the only people you could say a real innocence. Let me let me step back. So he's right on that. Of course he's wrong, because this whole is wrong on attributing evil to the United States government in the way he does, and therefore evil to its citizens. So the citizens are responsible for the government, but he's wrong in his evaluation of the US government in its actions in the Middle East and elsewhere. I know and said the only innocence real innocence in war are the people who are actually fighting to change the government fighting to stop the government from doing the evil that it's supposed to do so I don't know. Muslims in the Gaza Strip were fighting to overthrow Hamas. Maybe you could make the case that children are innocent but the problem with that is the children are neither here nor there in a sense that children are the responsibility of their parents these kind of decisions are made to them by their parents they suffer, or they benefit based on the quality of the decision making the parents. Right. Yes children are innocent but but you can't function based on children you can you can make decisions based on that. So the only innocence of the freedom fighters, the people fighting the author authoritarian regime. And this is what's interesting. If they're real freedom fighters. They would encourage you to bomb. They are already risking their lives to overthrow the regime. They would want the help of the Americans Israelis or wherever to do they work for them. I was reminded of this the other day was watching this amazing TV show there's a really really good TV show on Netflix right now there's worth watching. It's very inspiring it's it's difficult but it's also Dan benevolent. It's about World War two. And in it. The allies. It's about a town in France, a small medieval town in France on the coast. Right. And the allies the Americans are bombing it ruthlessly. It's a French town. The French are allies there are friends that resistance fighters inside and yet the resistance fighters are the ones giving the Americans the targets to bomb themselves. And it's like this is mind boggling and Americans are killing civilians killing children all over the place. Right. Nobody's complaining. The French are not complaining about it because the French realize that this is necessary in order to free them from the Germans. And indeed the I think I think in one of the points a significant number of the French resistance are killed from an American bombing. And that's just accepted right that that's World War two and somehow we can't extrapolate that to anything around us right that was World War two that's how they did things back then. But true freedom fighters understand what's at stake. Yeah, it's called the light. We cannot see and it's really good. I encourage everybody to watch it. It's it's it's beautifully filmed. So watch it on a good TV. Don't watch it on your phone. And it's and it's it's it's really well acted. It's got some good actors in a Q lorry for example. And the girl who plays it's about a blind girl in this French town. The girl who plays the blind girl is very, very good. And it's just it's just a it's just a hardwarming, good, sad, but really, really, really well made TV series. And it shows this it shows how wars were fought. And I don't think anybody even thinks about it like World War one is in one or two is in one category. All right, that's all fine. And today, oh no, we have to behave completely differently with no explanation and no thinking. Yeah, it's it's interesting. It's like it's almost like a switch was thrown after the end of World War two on how to how to fight wars. Yeah, I mean, I wasn't I wasn't there personally to remember it. But you know, like Korea was a disaster. Everything's been a disaster since then. I mean, what was the last successful war the Americans bought Grenada or something? Yeah, I mean, it's ridiculous. Yeah, the first goal for but that's only because they had very limited goals. But yeah, absolutely. I mean, it is a switch was thrown. It's the switch of altruism as applied to war. It was thrown by the intellectuals. And and it Truman, who had approved of the bombing of human Nagasaki was already weak need when it came to winning the war in Korea. He had already that switch had already flipped in his mind. And he had a fire. He had a fire MacArthur, because MacArthur wanted to win the war and Truman was not willing to do what was necessary to win it. Yeah, it's the power of altruism and the power of kind of modern intellectuals. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, I'm on Andrew. The university students who feel unsafe because of certain speech that that they disagree with the whole safe space phenomena. Where do you think that comes from? Why do you think it exists? Oh, I mean, that comes from elevating emotions to the defining characteristic of being human and to to and the all important role. It comes from the diminishment of reason and the the negation of reason as as important as a means of knowing the world as the means of survival. So hurting your emotions is the worst thing that anybody can do to you. It is it is attacking your very means of knowing the world for them and a very means of communicating and and and dealing with the world. And, you know, there's no there's no mechanism by which to control your emotions because there's no reason, you know, and there's no mechanism by which to arbitrate disputes because reason is out. So all we have is emotions and this is taught to kids from kindergarten when they sit around and and a taught to express their emotions to talk about their emotions and how does this make you feel. Which I which I think is actually could be a good thing for them because the society that's really repressed. But that's it they if they were if they were taught to tie their emotions to reality. Yes, what they don't get is learn how to think and and and know what the place of emotions is is in your life and know that your true guide to the world is reason that you should base all your decisions and reason. So it's all about emotions and therefore, you know, they nobody can understand in in the modern world. Well, if hitting you is wrong, then why isn't insulting you wrong. I mean, I feel bad. Is it in I feel bad when you hit me and I feel bad when you insult me. They're the same thing. It's affecting my feelings and standard for everything is my feelings. And again, it comes basically where they come from is the negation of reason. It's the undermining of reason as a basic as a means of knowing the world as a means of making decisions as a means of survival. Very interesting. Let me ask you a quick follow up. Do you think the universities are generally speaking? Are they placating it or are they challenging it? I mean, most universities are placating it absolutely placating it and most professors are placating it. Ultimately, most professors are have embraced this they believe in this. They, you know, the whole postmodernist project, if you will, is the negation of reason. And therefore, what are you left with? If there's no reason, all you have is emotion and faith. That's it. And that's why the left is emotion driven and the right is faith driven in that because that's all you have in a world with no reason. So that is what drives everything. Is it related also, you're on to sort of like the ridiculous level of helicopter parenting that that we have? Or is that also a consequence of the emotion? I think it's like, you know, complete inability to judge risk and to kind of base decisions based on probabilities and risks and things like that. I think it goes hand in hand. It reinforces each other, right? So the parents are way too sensitive to what the kids feel and way too sensitive to any kind of risk the kids might take. The parents also have elevated feeling to above all else. So it reinforces the parent reinforces in its child, the child reinforces in the parent. And so absolutely, I think that helicopter parents makes this much, much worse. All right. Thank you, Andrew. Adam question. Why are people who write books and also do things in the real world completely disconnect what's in their books and their actions. And Netanyahu is the most common example. He writes very principled books and is completely unprincipled or anti principled in his action. Another example is Mark Anderson, whom you may remember from the antitrust action against Microsoft. And that was only one of the many dirty tricks that Anderson pulled while he was in business. And yet he writes these inspiring books and manifestos about techno optimism and building a builder society and how good it is to be making things. Why is there this disconnect between what people write and what people do? I mean, I think there's a variety of reasons and I don't want to put Netanyahu and Edwison in the same camp because I don't think they belong. Netanyahu is a coward. So to live up to your principles, you have to be brave. You have to be strong because other people might not accept your principles. And indeed in this case, most people don't accept the principles that Netanyahu articulated in his book. I think also Netanyahu is a power luster. So he writes these principles, but then if he thinks that they will be unpopular, if he thinks that they will get in the way of him winning an election, or thinks that they'll get in the way of him being a successful politician, then he abandons them. So I think the two with Netanyahu, the two are fear and power lust. So fear and power lust are values. Fear is not exactly a value, but they're more important to him than the principles he articulated in the books. I'm going to be more benevolent towards Andreessen. And maybe I shouldn't, but let me say, I think Andreessen just doesn't get it. He doesn't get, and he probably has to evade it or not to get it. So I'm not taking him off the hood morally, but I do think, I don't think he gets. So there are a lot of people out there, a lot of people out there, who say they believe in capitalism, in markets and everything that truly hold, that in order for markets to work, you have to break up the novelties. It's just, you know, every economist teaches this. The textbook teaches it. It's everywhere, and people really buy into this. And I think Andreessen has bought into that. Now, I don't know what his views were in the 1990s when he actually sicked the Justice Department on Microsoft. Of course, it didn't need much motivation as Justice Department was eager to get Microsoft. Anyway, I don't know what his views were back then, but it wouldn't surprise me. He was in this startup called Netscape. They were trying to dominate and trying to be successful in the space of Internet browsers. They were selling browsers for $70. Along comes Internet Explorer, offers it for free, basically destroys their entire business model, destroys their company. I don't think it's excusable. I don't, I don't, you know, but, you know, so he's sick, you know, he complained. He complained to the government about it, which is just standard practice. Unfortunately, in America, in America today, among businessmen, how many businessmen out there don't believe in antitrust? Almost zero. I think Andreessen acts based on his beliefs for the most part. Again, inconsistently. Look, he has built one of the most successful venture capitalist firms in the world, Andreessen Horowitz. They have the most success for incubator in the world. The incubator specializes in taking particularly young entrepreneurs and training them up to be able to be founders and start companies and change the world. And he is behind a lot of the companies that have changed the world over the last 15 or so years. So he doesn't just write about technical optimism. He puts his money where his mouth is. He puts his energy where his mouth is. And he's actually acted on it, and he acts in a way as to promote it. Now, not consistently, but who's consistent out there? Almost nobody is probably nobody. Why Combinator is Andreessen? Ian says, why Combinator is most successful. Why Combinator is part of Andreessen Horowitz? Andreessen Horowitz is the regular venture capital firm. Why Combinator is there what that word was? I forget it. So he is one of the most successful entrepreneurs or venture capitalists, at least in history. So you've got to give him credit for actually putting the technical optimism into play. I wish he was consistent. He also quotes Iron Rand all the time. If you follow him on Twitter, he's constantly quoting Iron Rand. I wish he understood Iron Rand more and was more consistent. But we don't get what we wish. Somehow we've got to educate Andreessen. I'm not sure how. Incubator, that's the word I was looking for. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Adam. Nick. OK. I wanted to ask you a question on Gavin Newsom. Do you think the Democrats will turn on Biden if he keeps stuttering in the polls and there's some decline? I mean, Newsom has taken a trip to China. He's taken a trip to Israel. It looks like he's their backup plan. And in the polls, I'm looking at election betting odds. He's at 16% for the Democratic nomination and 10% for the US presidency. So there's traction there. Yeah. I mean, I definitely think the Democrats are hedging their bets a little bit. It's a little late. If they don't finalize soon, it'll be too late. Kamala will have something to say about it. She's not just going to walk away and give it to Gavin. They'll compete for it. But it is late for him to do this. I also think that Gavin Newsom is thinking about four years from now. So he might not be the candidate next year. But in 2028, he's running for president. There's no question about that. And starting to go to Israel and starting to do trips to China and starting to doing this debate with the Santas that's coming up. He's prepping himself for the opportunity to run for president if not next year, then in four years. But there's no question. Democrats are prepping. What happens if Biden drops dead tomorrow? Do they really want to put all their bets on Kamala? I think they want some options. And Newsom is probably the best option that they have. And I'm not even sure if they chose to walk away from Biden or if Biden decides not to run for some reason. I think there'll be more candidates. I think suddenly three, four, five people might jump into the race. You've got a number of people who think that they have a shot at this. Gavin Newsom is not a shoe-in, although he's probably the most likely winner. What would get the Democrats to turn on Biden? Because he's getting no traction in the polls despite Trump's... I don't know. I mean, that is so inside Democratic Party, whatever. I don't know the people. I really don't know. I mean, my guess is if he's clearly diagnosed with the guy's completely demented or he has a stroke or he drops dead, that would be one. I think another is if the people inside the administration put enough pressure on Biden and he decides not to run, which is possible. It is possible that he changes his mind in the next... I mean, it's going to be in the next two months, so it's not going to happen. We will see. I mean, both parties, it's going to be super interesting because Trump is going to be in court. He could be in jail. I don't know what happens and how that plays out. And we'll see who... Yeah, I mean, I think he holds the Republicans. If he's not in jail, but if he's in jail, does he still win? Is there a revolution if he's in jail? Is there civil war? What happens if he's in jail? It's going to be an amazing year next year for people like me commenting on the news because... At least your horse, Nikki Haley, is a clear second. I mean, I'm looking at the polls. She's at 12%. Right now, she looks like she's... But that could change very quickly. The Santas could have a great performance against Newsom in this thing and he could rise up. He might come in second in Iowa. And then the question is, can... So she might not do that well in Iowa because the Santas has the evangelicals and she doesn't. So going into New Hampshire, the Santas might rally to top her. It's basically between her and the Santas. I think the other candidates are irrelevant at this point. And a lot of what happens with the Santas will depend on how he does in this debate with Newsom and how he does in Iowa. He's betting everything on Iowa. He has to do well in Iowa. If the Santas comes in third in Iowa, I predict he drops out. If Nikki Haley beats him in Iowa, he drops out and basically the party coalesces around her as the alternative to Trump. I mean, the party, the part of the party that doesn't want Trump. And it's basically a two-person race. And that's probably the best outcome possible. The best outcome right now is the Santas drops out because of Iowa and it's basically Nikki Haley versus Donald Trump. And I don't think she has a chance, but maybe. I mean, that's the only chance anybody has. If it's a basically a two-man race. All right, Steve, thanks, Nick. I promise next month I'll come with something that doesn't involve current events. I enjoyed the two shows you did on, I guess, almost on, like, why does the LGBT side of Hamas... The left in Hamas and the left in anti-Semitism. Yeah, so the left though in anti-Semitism, why does it require such like a deep philosophy? Because like Europe has, I don't know about the rest, the history of the rest of related areas, but Europe has a long and storied tradition of killing with Jews. It's been doing so for 1500 years. You say, why isn't this just tradition? Why do you need philosophy to justify? Like in some ways it just seems like we're reverting to the mean of where we would be in 1600s, 1700s, 1800s. Yeah, but you've got to explain it in every one of those centuries. There's a particular explanation for why it rears its ugly head, right? So and they're not all the same and they're not all the rationalization is not the same. And they're not all justified in the same way. In the Middle Ages, Jews were killed because they killed Jesus. And in the 19th century, they were persecuted because they were the other and certain elements. So there was always an excuse. And the point is we need to understand the excuse now in particular, I think. Because we live in a society where supposedly racism is out, anti-Semitism is out, particularly on the left. I mean, the whole point is the left is claimed that there are anti-racism and anti-anti-Semitism. The left is claimed certainly after the Holocaust, right? World War II, anti-Semitism is out. It's unacceptable. But there is this interesting phenomenon of the last five years where racism is being elevated by the left. And now anti-Semitism is elevated and really the causes are the same. It's a form of tribalism. And it's this idea of victimhood and intersectionality. So what's interesting is the particular cause in a particular time. The fact that when we refer to finding somebody to take out our frustrations on, it will always be Jews. That's kind of a given. It's more the question of why particularly now, you know, whether the particular is being involved. And look, Jewish success in the 19th century is a big part of anti-Semitism. Then Jewish success in the 20th century was to be part of the Germans' hatred of Jews. If the Jews had went to successful, if they weren't money lenders, you know, all of history would be different. So this idea of altruism driving it is still true and has been true throughout history. Do you have any thoughts on the export or call it the exportation? Or is it just that we've exported or the exportation of anti-Semitism? Because you see it now in places that historically have had like a zero contact, like places like Japan or China. Is it just that we've like, American has exported its culture. Everyone kind of buys into it a bit. And what's interesting is that the first exportation of anti-Semitism was really to the Muslim world. Islam was not anti-Semitic. It treated Jews as second-hand citizens because they were of inferior religion. They worshiped a different God, but you know, nothing personal. But if you worship another God, you know, you have to pay a fine. So they'd pay a fine and the Christians did too. But they weren't treated especially bad qua Jews, right? Until the 19th century, when literally Western missionaries came into the Middle East and started telling the Muslims about these horrible Jews and conspiracy theories about them and all of that and exported anti-Semitism. And now the Muslims are the biggest anti-Semites in the world, much more even than the Europeans. It's interesting that it's so easily exportable. Of course, they've exported it to Japan and China where they've almost no Jews. They probably never met a Jew in their entire lives. They probably never will. But it, you know, we live in an era, maybe we've always lived in an era, right? Human beings need explanations for what's going on in the world. And they need them to be relatively simple and, you know, and conspiracy theories are simplified explanations of what's going on in the world. Religion is a good example of this. And the idea that there are these people who are somehow super smart, but really, really devious and really, really being captured by the devil in some ways, who are manipulating world events and that the cause of why things are so bad in the world. And so people feel so much angst and there's so much upheaval. That really appeals to almost everybody. Everybody buys it. Okay, so now I get it. This is why the world is some mayhem. This is why I feel so much angst. These people, they happen to be in Europe primarily in the US and in Israel who are manipulating everything. So I feel this way. They're the enemy. I get it. Okay. Right. And that's much easier to explain than the role of ideas in history. It's much simpler and people buy it. And, you know, and people buy it all over the world. People who've never met a Jew buy it. I once literally met somebody in the Southern United States who believed the Jews had horns. Literally had horns. This is in 1979. So this is not ancient history. And he'd all each seen the only Jew he'd ever seen. I guess there's a picture of the sculpture of Moses by Michelangelo where Moses has horns. And he has horns because of mistranslation of the Bible. One wonders how many mistranslations they are in the Bible. Given that this is pretty obvious. When Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, I've told this story before. Moses comes down from the Sinai. The Bible says he is radiating rays coming out from his face. He's radiating light. The word for ray and the word for horns is the same word in Hebrew. As horns when he comes down and therefore Jews have horns. I mean, this is why Michelangelo, Michelangelo, not a dumb person. Michelangelo sculpted Moses with horns. A magnificent sculpture in spite of that. All right. Thank you, Steve. Howard, I don't know if you're ready. I'm ready. Interestingly enough, diaspora Jews, the largest population of them, I believe is still in Iran. Where? In Iran. No, they're very few Jews in Iran. I saw that the latest figure was a 6,000 or 8,000 still remaining in Iran, which is higher than any other Muslim country, I believe. Oh, any other Muslim country. Right. Yeah, that is quite possible. Is that because the population of them is so old? I think the population is old, but it's also a consequence of the fact that Iran as a more Muslim society does not discriminate against Jews in the same way. They're much more likely to tax them and treat them as they've treated the Jews for thousands of years. The Jews were kicked out of Morocco and Iraq and Yemen and all these other primarily by nationalists. Primarily by people who said, we don't want these Jews here. They've got their own state. Let them go to their own state and they kicked them all out to those countries. Primarily not by the religionists. The religionists' attitude if they're in charge, right, is yeah, you can live as Jews just as long as you pay your tiding and you pay your fine. We'll treat you as second-class citizens, but we're not going to slaughter you. You only want to slaughter you when you have political power. So the exit of all of them basically under the Nasserites in 1947, where did they all left the Arab world? As far as I know, there was never an exodus of Jews from Iran in the same way as there was an exodus of Jews from Iraq in 1950, something the Iraqis basically said, you've got 48 hours to leave. And they all left in the same in Morocco and the same in Yemen. They just all had to leave within a particular amount of time. And that, as far as I know, that never happened in Iran. Are they still paying the jizy or that special tax? No, I'm sure they are. And one rather follow-up. Most Iranian Jews have just left, but it's been a trickle-out effect, particularly since the Islamic Republic. A lot of them went to America, a lot of them went to Israel, but it's been, it wasn't one big mass forced migration. And a follow-up question. So in terms of the citizenry in Iran who are reposing it, we know of all the actresses, all the women who are refusing to cover where the traditional head covering. Is there any hope for that country at all for anything without a violent upheaval? You need a violent upheaval. So it's only going to happen once somebody with weapons, somebody with a capacity to actually engage in violent upheaval once they're willing to do it. So it's going to take time for the police, for the military, if somebody there to be willing to kick out these mullahs out of their positions of power. The women in the goal cannot do them by themselves. They need somebody who's willing to take up arms to do it. But within, this will be my last question, there's the IRGC, there's the Republican Guard. Yes. I read also that there's also the Iranian army. Yes. So there's a kind of a split, well, not, I mean... So there could be a split, that is the Republican Guard is clearly committed to the regime, created, committed, and they've all been made very wealthy as part of this. And I think that the general military is less committed. And if you see an uprising, it could happen within the military. You could see the military rising up. But so far, that has not happened. Thank you. One point, since you were riffing on anti-Semitism, is you brought up the point about the hatred of the good for being the good. I think that that's a big factor in all of history's attitude, like all these different cultures' attitude towards the Jews. I think it's unfortunate. Because were the Jews the good? Well, they were good in the sense of if they were merchants, they were engaging in virtuous activities, you know? But it's not clear that they were always killed because of that. You know, there are a variety of different ways. And like a lot of the pogroms in Eastern Europe were against very agricultural and very poor Jews, less against the merchant class. Anti-Semitism that goes back to really the early, early parts of Christianity, the days of Christianity, have more to do with religions, sympathies and religious disagreements. I mean, look, I'm reading a lot about Christianity these days. Christians didn't tolerate other Christians who disagreed with them. Oh my God, the things that they did. The mass execution of Christians who didn't agree with the Pope or didn't agree with Martin Luther or didn't agree with whoever. They just slaughtered them left and right. And from the beginning of Christianity, this was a theme, not just in the 17th century. So they disagreed with Christians over little issues in theology. Why would they feel bad about slaughtering Jews who denied and rejected that the Messiah had come? There was this guy who said, I mean, a very well-known theologian in 1550 something who said, look, Jesus was the Son of God. But he only comes into existence once the Spirit inhabits the womb of Mary. And he was born to life for that because Jesus is the Son of God but has always been the Son of God, has always existed as part of God and indeed is inseparable from God himself. And now you make sense of that, right? That God is three things that are the same thing and not different attributes of the same thing. Three separate things that are actually the same thing. I mean, it's the rejection of Aristotle's ASA. But if you disagreed with any little comma there, burnt at the stake. So they had no qualms about killing a bunch of Jews who didn't even think Jesus was a Messiah, nevermind Son of God. So anti-Semitism is a complex phenomenon. Envy is certainly a big part of it. Hatred of the good for being the good, certainly in modern times that has become the dominant. But that entrenched hatred towards Jews has real cultural resonance. It's part of Christian culture. And you can't explain, I don't think you can explain modern attitude towards Jews without understanding that it's an inherent part and has always been a part of Christian culture. And even secularists are raised often in Christian culture. Marx, for example, was raised in a culture of Christians who hated Jews. It didn't take him much to spin his hatred of Jews into his particular way of thinking. But he hated the Jews partially because he grew up with that. That was part of what everybody hated Jews in Germany in his town when he was growing up. It was what you did. Luther was an unbelievable anti-Semitism primarily because of what Jews had done to Jesus and the fact that they rejected him. All right, let's do some super chats. Hopper Campbell, do you feel more like Moffias or Neo in The Matrix? I don't know. I mean, The Matrix is not a movie I particularly liked. It's not a movie, so I don't know. Who is Moffias and who is Neo? I can't remember. It's a long time ago. Sorry, I'm so culturally ignorant, I know. But I never liked The Matrix. I never understood the big deal. I know the special effects are pretty amazing. I know the blue pill, red pill, whatever. Everybody, you know, it's become a cultural thing. But it never struck me as a particularly interesting brain in a vat kind of silly kind of. And I didn't like the way Keanu Reeves acts in it. And I just don't like it. Catherine says, YouTube owes you money. I don't know why. Why does YouTube owed me money? Where does it owe me from? Neo is the engram for one. I'm lost. James, should objectivists talk about the world collapsing entirely, talk less about the world collapsing entirely, and more about the missed opportunity we are forging by now living under laissez-fait? Well, I don't know of any objectivist talking about the world collapsing entirely. I certainly try not to talk about that. And I don't know that anybody else does. I don't think with that pessimistic or that dark or obsessed with the world collapsing entirely. Steve says, YC is not part of A16Z. But isn't Malkin's recent part of both? Maybe not. All right. Maybe I'm wrong. They have a complex relationship, like most people in Silicon Valley with YC. Yeah, but in recent, it's part of the founding of YC, right? No, Paul Graham founded YC. But Andreessen invests in a lot, particularly not at that stage. Like they don't do tons of seed investing. No, not the hedge fund itself, yeah. Okay. My mistake. So should we talk about the missed opportunity we're forgoing by now living under laissez-fait? I think we do. But it's really hard to do because it's hard to project what the world would look like under laissez-fait. Because it would be so much driven by the, what do you call it? It would be so much driven by the markets and go predict how that looks like. Freedom would create things that you can't even imagine, right? So, but yeah, I think more shows about what we're missing out is not a bad idea. I just don't think that it really has a reality in most people's minds. I mean, I did a show about what I thought the world would look like or how to solve all the energy problems or all kinds of things. How the world would solve, how laissez-fait would solve environmental problems. I don't think anybody was particularly interested. It's part of the challenge. Marilyn, Mary Eileen, sorry, Mary Eileen. Marilyn, have you read The Scout Mindset by Julia Gallif, a book Don Watkins recommended? She advises asking, is it true rather than doesn't support my existing beliefs? And she gives strategies and tactics. I'm loving the book. I have not, but it sounds amazing. Any book that tells you always ask what is true rather than how do I feel or did it support my beliefs? Or is the, is right? That is reality is the judge. Truth is what matters. We, more than we are objectivists or anything else, we should be truth seekers, the seekers of truth. And reminds me of a, what's his name, a book where he carries around the sword of truth. Names just impossible. And this guy was a friend anyway. The sword of truth. We are the seekers of truth. All right. We're going to do a quick round with our four panelists who are left. A number of people have left us already. Terry Goodkind. Thank you. Yes. Terry Goodkind, who passed away a few years ago, wrote a series on the sort of truth. And yeah, I like that imagery of being a seeker of truth. All right. Howard, if you have a question, go for it. Yes, I do. Have you just any, any thoughts on Andrew Tate? Beyond, in terms of what, what could follow from his, I had the view of him that the women who would come into his circle, that there's a real potential there for conversion to Islam. Oh, in that sense. Like in terms of the social impact of what he had before and what he has now with his embrace of Islam. I mean, he's been a Muslim now for a few years. This is not new. I think two or three years he's been a Muslim. You know, I've spoken quite a bit about Andrew Tate and how, how horrible of a human being he is. And I really don't understand why he gets so much media attention, why they give him that much. Yeah, I mean, I think his embrace of Islam is going to be popular among young men and among young women. You're seeing that I think with there is a trend among young women in America to embrace Islam. It was reported in Barry Weiss's website. It doesn't surprise me. There is a, there's a move right now towards religion. I think that'll increase. And I think Islam, as Islam looks like it has strength. It has sustaining power. And it is a victim. You know, I think that it appears to certain people on the left, a certain weak people on the left who are looking for answers. The thing about the left is, it is, as, as Lenin Pekov says, it's disintegrated. It's disintegrated completely disintegrate your mind. You can't really think. And what what religion does is it integrates for you. It provides you with answers. It tells you what to do. And I think Islam can provide people with answers. Just like Christianity can, for some people, Islam will be even more, even more appealing than, than Christianity is. Is Tate really a Muslim? I think so. I have no reason to doubt that he considers himself a Muslim and is converted to Islam. What does it mean to be a real Muslim? And who gets to decide? He says he's a Muslim. As far as I know, when he was in jail in Romania, he was praying towards Mecca. He was doing his prayers. As far as I know, he is a Muslim. I have no reason to doubt him. Thanks, Howard. Thank you. Amlan. Yeah. So I don't want to misattribute anything, something you said in the past around giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So I think it was early on in the war. There was the context of the demonstrations. And if I recall correctly, you said that if, if we were to declare war properly, then these demonstrations would be considered as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Yep. No, did I am I recalling that correctly? Because I, like I said, I don't want to. I think that's right. I mean, not all demonstrations, but certainly certain parts, certain of these demonstrations would be considered that. Yep. So how would, how would, how would that balance with kind of setting aside protests? So let's say these were done properly and like private property and all that stuff. How would that balance with a free speech? Well, you have no right to support somebody who's trying to kill me. Right. You know, so in a, in a war, if you are advocating for not, let's say World War II, if you're advocating for Nazism, then the government has the right to stop you. Now, after the war's over, you can go back to advocating for Nazism. But while the war is on, you don't have the right to advocate for the people who are killing, you know, the people around you, if you will. Your neighbors. And the speech, you know, the speech doesn't cover that. It is, again, aiding and abetting. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. But the enemy has to be defined very, very clearly. That's why I acquire a declaration of wars. It's not, you know, ambiguous. Right. So, so let's use the World War II example, because I think that was the last time where we actually formally declared war. Yeah. I mean, if there's somebody who would advocate not being involved in the U.S., like, let's talk about the answer. They could advocate for not being involved, absolutely. But would that not be an awakening aid in comfort to the enemy? No, not being involved is fine. You disagree with the government about when to go to war. But if you're advocating for the Nazi ideology, promoting it, writing in the newspaper saying, no, Nazism is a good thing. We should have more of it. America should join Germany. Then it's aiding and abetting. Okay. I mean, in some ways. You're saying this is a mistake. We shouldn't be entering this war. They never attacked us. So then I don't think it is. And look, it's going to be important to set exactly the guidance of what constitutes and what doesn't constitute. Yeah. Because I mean, it's a real, it's a line that would say, you know, I don't think they're as bad as the government is making them out to be. And therefore we should not be at war with them. Yes. Versus, oh, they're great. And we should adopt that methodology. Yeah. I mean, there's always a line, right? So these things tricky. And that's what the legal, the legal, you know, they would have to forget. I mean, okay, you know, FDR basically rounded up all the Japanese. Yeah. They didn't say anything and he put them in a camp. So no free speech there. No, no, no. Yeah. So there was this concept even then, I think, you know, Leonard just at least come out in support of that in the Japanese internment. I'm not sure I agree. But, but, you know, again, in a time of war, you have to make you have to draw lines in the sand somewhere. And clearly, clearly supporting the enemy should not be tolerated. Okay. Okay. Andrew. Yeah. Is there any movie that you would consider great both aesthetically and philosophically, at least from a sense of life philosophy? Yeah. I mean, quite a few. A couple of examples. Got it. I know I hate being asked about this. What's the movie about the blind girl, the girl who has her senses all gone? The Miracle Worker. The Miracle Worker. I mean, that's a perfect movie. I mean, it is, it is a masterpiece. It's brilliantly acted. It's astounding how well it's acted. It is deeply epistemological. It is, it's incredibly inspiring. It's beautifully made. It's, yeah, I mean, it's a 10 out of 10 basically. The Miracle Worker. So the original, I think there was a remake, but the original Miracle Worker. You know, I don't know. There were a lot of others. I would just have to go through a list. What's the movie with the jury? 12 Angry Men. I mean, 12 Angry Men. Yeah, I think 12 Angry Men is great. The only challenge with 12 Angry Men is that it's not particularly cinematic. Right? It's basically a play that's put up on stage. So they make it cinematic. They have dramatic angles, camera shots and everything like that. There's music. And it's again, but it's not quite there in terms of just what is possible. On a movie screen, right? And sadly, there are a lot of big cinematic movies that are like that, but there are a lot of great movies. I mean, Christopher says Unforgiven. It depends which one, right? The original, the original one is really good. Granterino. The modern Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood is not a great movie. Fight Club is not a great movie. The Matrix is not a great movie. Tucker is a really good movie. It's had certain weaknesses, but it's really well done. Singing in the rain is a masterpiece. Chocolat is a great movie. Really, really good. So yeah, there are a lot of great movies. Particularly old from the 30s and 40s. But Casablanca is a great movie. Yeah. And cinematic and positive and in real conflict. And yeah, so I don't think there's a shortage of great movies. If you're willing to go back to the 30s and 40s in order to see. All right, thanks. Yeah. All right, Adam. In Poland. Intel has just announced that they're expanding their R&D facility. For planning neural network chips for AI servers. Which will be required in large quantities. And that's where they're being designed. And this will overtake Israel as the second largest R&D facility for Intel. They also have. In their school school curriculum. And in what their politicians appeal to. Explicit appeals to the American founding fathers. And of course, to the history of having had the first American style constitution in Europe. And if I look at the economic figures, they're doing exceptionally well. Do you think the idea of being a second America. But within the European Union is a viable path. For the future. I mean, it certainly is whether Poland will live up to that. You know, I'm somewhat skeptical primarily because of the heavy influence of Catholicism in. And on the one hand, Catholicism. On the other hand, European Union and European kind of leftism. Whether they can sustain an independent ideology. That keeps them free of the ideological influences coming from Western Europe. Or the ideological influences coming from Catholicism. I'm skeptical whether they can hold on to that. But yeah, Poland has done very well. It's just replaced its. It's. Theocratic or relatively theocratic government. With one that is going to be more liberal in a positive sense. Regarding social issues. But then will they hold on to the pro pro market agenda that the polls have. You will see. But you look Europe has better education than the United States much better. In Eastern Europe, in particular, I think Poland has a well educated smart population. Intel is not the first almost all the tech companies have people in Poland. And a lot of startups use Polish engineers because they tend to be a lot cheaper than American engineers crack out as a huge tech. You know, infrastructure. A lot of engineers, a lot of computer engineers. So I hope I hope it develops into kind of that alternative that free a free beacon within Europe that maybe pushes Europe towards towards more freedom and more economic liberty, more liberty generally. Although I have to say that the polls that the Polish politicians I've met have all been from the right. And they've been terrible, just terrible. They were the most committed to the idea that individual rights are nonsense on stilts. They wouldn't even talk to me once I mentioned the concept of individual rights they walked away. They are they are the most committed to kind of a nationalist anti individual rights individualism more broadly perspective. I don't know how characteristic they are of the rest of Polish politicians, we will see, but but certainly the ones I met have been horrible. A lot of libertarians in Poland, interestingly enough, it probably has one of the most varied and active libertarian movements in the world. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that Intel in Poland, very proudly says that they have scientists from 40 countries working there. And the main political advisor to the incoming government has a five point plan, the five eyes, and the third one is, I'm sorry, the fourth one is immigration. The fifth one is integrating the immigrants and integrating the immigrants rather than separating them is something distinctive in the entire world because the United States now has a policy of not letting immigrants work, which they copied from Europe. And I think that's disastrous, whereas integrating immigrants is the right way to do a cosmopolitan society that reflects the world that we live in. That would be great if it happens, we'll keep an eye on the formation of this new government and what they ultimately do. But that is a great sentiment to have, of course, it's all about integration of immigrants. And the fact that in many countries in Europe, immigrants are not allowed to work. The fact that now in America, immigrants, some immigrants are not allowed to work. Yeah, I mean, how do you expect them to assimilate and to integrate without working. All right, thanks, Adam. Thank you to the panel that we're going to do a bunch of these super chat questions, and we'll call it a day. All right, Scott says, isn't part of I in her sees a Lee message that she sees many secular intellectuals as being too dismissive of the work threat. No, I don't think I don't think there's any secular intellectual who she would consider as one of the good guys who dismiss the work threat. The secular intellectuals. Many of them are woke, but the ones that are anti walker anti walk and there are plenty of them and that that is not the problem that is not what drove her. And if you read what you wrote on Thanksgiving, you'll understand what drove her is fear, loneliness, lack of values, depression, that drove her to religion. She's she's so she literally wrote in the Thanksgiving thing, how she has found surrendering to God as bringing meaning to her life. But I know, Scott, you're actually referring to me. I don't think I don't think given my weak opposition to woke. I don't think I was the one who swayed on her silly towards religion. I wish I was that important. Liam says, I still think blocking Scott would be a great way to begin the new year. I've got I've got a whole month to think about that and consider it. I'll keep you in suspense. Stephen Katz, how you on do you think it's better to laugh at yourself or to talk to yourself in a serious tone. After you do something wrong and stupid. I think you should talk to yourself in a serious tone. I think you take it seriously and to take changing and fixing and doing whatever needs to be fixed seriously. It shows you that you take your life seriously. James says, would you say the objectivist ethics aren't so much rules to live by, but a roadmap identifying cause and effect relationships. Yes, I mean, objectivism does not provide you rules to live by, but it does. But it's more than a roadmap in a sense that live by reason. Is that a roadmap? It gives you the principles. And this is why metaphors are problematic. It gives you principles by which to live by. It gives you principles by which to guide your life to guide your decision making. Not in terms of rules. This is specifically what you have to do, but rules in terms of guiding what you should do. That doodle bunny. Millet doesn't even take power until December 10th. Give the guy a chance. Even if he only accomplishes 50% of what he wants, it's still a huge achievement. I'm giving the guy a chance. All I did was read to you what was being reported yesterday about him replacing two of his committed economic advisors to two sellouts from the previous administration. I don't know what ultimately is going to happen. And for all I know, that news will, that fact will be reversed. I don't know what's going to happen. I wish me lay the best. Clark asks, has Douglas Murray been influenced by Iron Man? I think so. I think to some extent, not enough. I wish it was more, but he's been excellent on Israel and Hamas. I'll give him that. I've done two events with Douglas Murray, two or three events with Douglas Murray. I've done this as far as I know. I've read some of my books. He's definitely read Iron Man. So I assume we've had an influence. It would be ridiculous if we hadn't. It would be pretty pathetic of us if we hadn't. So we've had some influence on him. I have an Iron Man, but mostly Iron Man. Hopper Campbell, I guess it's an improvement that our status overloads give us enough freedom to steal from us rather than completely enslave us like North Korea. Well, it's not the right way to think about it. It's as if, you know, they decide, Hamas, no, it's we decide, right? We decide if the people in North Korea, you know, decide they want to overthrow them, they would. We decide how much, how free we are. As a culture, we've clearly decided that we want a mixed economy. We get a mixed economy, but it's not we don't have overloads. Our ideas are what restrict us, not the government. Liam says, if Melea is successful, will it inspire conservatives in the West to become a radical? Some, some, but not most of them. Conservatives don't want to be radical, but by the very essence, they're conservatives. Conservatives means non-radical. I mean, read book. This whole argument is don't be radical. We need a, we need to be, revolution's a bad. Don't, don't be too radical. That's the whole point. Michael says, is physics the most philosophically corrupt of the hard sciences? Probably. But I don't know that for a fact. It makes the most sense that it would be. And I don't know enough about the sciences to tell you in detail that it is, but it does make the most sense that it is. That doodle bunny says, why did I ran wait 30 years to release these? Why did AI wait 30 years to release these TV appearances with Lana Peacock? What TV appearances with Lana Peacock? I don't know what you're talking about. AI has released appearances with, with Lana Peacock. From what? From television? Which television? Which context? Yeah, I don't know. I'm behind on the news from AI, obviously. So go figure. I'm looking it up to see if I can see anything jump at me. I don't see anything that jumps at me in terms of Lana Peacock videos. Yeah, I don't know. What else? I'm looking here to see. Russell, I've just posted something. This is my question TV. You know, I don't know why, why, why it's in a sense took took that long. I think these particularly one these are both my question TV. The question TV had the rights to it. My guess is that the Institute is in the process over the last year or so of going out to all these media companies that own the rights to I ran lectures I ran interviews and talks and just buying those rights. So the reason it took this long is identify this as of strategic importance and get the money, raise the money to do it and go out and and then negotiate with the different media entities and sometimes because these shows are so long ago finding who owns the rights is difficult. It takes a long time. I know I was involved in some of these things and then negotiating with them and sometimes they won't sometimes they want a lot of money. So it just it takes time. It has to be a priority and now I guess it became a priority and you have to have the money and you know they obviously have the money and it's become it is a party. It's also true that when these were done by the question TV, there was no way to put them up. There was no YouTube. There was no platform on which to launch them. You know, so you have to have the you have to have the platform you have to have the think about those old interviews and find them and negotiate with them and buy them and do all that and then upload them onto your channel. None of that is straightforward and easy and obvious to do. Michael says an evil man will burn his own nation to the ground in order to rule over the ashes like Trump. True. Michael says is Jordan Pearson more Kant or Plato. I think he's more Plato. I definitely think he's more Plato. He brings in that mysticism. Yeah, I definitely get a sense that, you know, Kant. Yeah. But, you know, I don't I couldn't break it down for you to prove one way or the other, but he strikes me as more platonic. Maria lean. I would call Gallup's book layman's epistemology sounds like it. I mean, and it sounds really good and that focusing on truth, focusing reality, focusing on evidence facts. That's fantastic. John says I was raised in Texas and was in high school before I learned that some people did not like Jews. I thought that only happened in Germany. I had never heard anyone disparage Jews. That's good. That's good. He says he grew up in the 40s and 50s. Yeah, I think I think there was a lot of ignorance of Jews, depending on where one grew up. And yeah, there was there was just I don't think I don't America had anti-Semitism, but certainly in the 40s and 50s it was in decline. It was going away post World War Two. It existed before that in Ivy Leagues and elsewhere where Jews were restricted in participating. Thank you, John. All right. We are done. We'll call it a day. Thank you to our panel for participating and for supporting the show. Really, really appreciate it. Thank you to all the superchatters. I'll be back on on Monday. And yes, on Monday for a news roundup next week should be on a regular schedule that should hold until Christmas when we'll have a holiday schedule. All right, everybody. Bye. Thanks a lot. Bye-bye. Bye, guys.