 the radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest and individual rights. This is the Iran Brook show. All right, everybody, welcome to Iran Brook show. What is going on? Can you hear the sound go in and out? All right, that is really weird. What was that? All right, let me know. Did you guys hear that as well? We're kind of winning out and didn't really play properly. All right, more stuff for me to figure out. Isn't this fun? Yeah, just the music. That was weird. All right, I made a change to the podcasting app that actually hosts the music. Maybe that was it. All right, more stuff for me to figure out. God, is anybody out there a sound engineer? Do I have one sound engineer in all the people who listen to Iran Brook show on YouTube, on podcast apps, on somewhere? Do we have one sound engineer to spare who can help a fellow out? I'll pay you. I just don't know if I can find anybody in Puerto Rico who can help me. Anyway, welcome. I hope you're having a great week. It is Thursday. It's a second show of the day, and it's a depressing one. Sorry. We're going to talk about Europe's Islamist problem and how to solve it. I think that's going. We do have the super chat going so you can ask questions, you can make comments, you can make suggestions, you can tell me to go to hell as long as you put dollar amounts on it. I will read it aloud to everybody listening and watching. Let's see. Do we have anything, any announcements? We do have a show tomorrow, another new show tomorrow at, I think it's a 2pm east coast time, either one or 2pm east coast time. And then we will have, let's see, tomorrow, Friday, 2pm east no, sorry, 1pm east coast time tomorrow, 1pm east coast time tomorrow. And then we have a show on Saturday at 3pm, a 2pm east coast time, 1pm and 2pm. 1pm tomorrow, 2pm on Saturday. And what did I want to say about the show on Saturday? Anyway, show on Saturday would be a positive show. That's what I wanted to say. The show on Saturday will be optimistic and positive and full of, I don't know, good feelings of the season, something like that. All right, today we're going to talk about the problem of Islamism in Europe, in particular, because I think whatever problems you might imagine we have with Islam in the United States, the problems in Europe are significantly more significant, the significant larger, the more Muslims in Europe, and they certainly seem to be more radical in Europe than they are in the United States. So we will talk about Europe in this context. I also think as we'll talk about that assimilation of Muslims into the United States has gone much, much better and is far superior to whatever assimilation or non-assimilation has happened in Europe. All right, so what I want to do is start off with some facts, some history, some how we got here kind of stuff, and then talk about where we are today. Talk about the problem of Islamism versus the issue of Islam and Muslims in Europe and what changes one could tell from, I'd say, today, given what's going on with Hamas and what's going on in Israel and Gaza, what impact that has had on evaluation of Islamic migration and Islamic authoritarianism in Europe. So let's just start with basic history. I mean, Muslims have been part of Europe since the beginning of Islam almost. I mean, already in the 10th century AD, Islam had sped to Spain, had already occupied all of Northern Europe and had sped to Spain, and basically was occupying all of Spain. Spain was an Islamic state at that point. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Christians conquered Spain and took it away from the Muslims, but at the same, about the same period of time or a little earlier, Islam spread through the Ottoman Empire, through Greece and up into Europe, through Bulgaria and Albania and all of the Balkan states. At some point, Hungary was ruled by Muslims, as was Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and the Muslims by 1678. I think that's the right date. 1678, they were in the gates of Vienna and the big battle of 1678, where they were pushed away from Vienna for the final time and they basically gave up on taking over central Europe. That's 1678, but for a long time, for centuries, much of the Balkans were Muslim. 1683, Scott says. All right, well, 1678 or 1683, about the right time, about that time. So vast parts, particularly along the Adriatic Sea, North of Greece were North and Northwest of Greece were Islamic. Many of the peoples there converted to Islam. There had been a Christian when the Muslims arrived there, they converted to Islam. And to this day, Albania and Bosnia, Kosovo and a significant population in Northern Macedonia are Muslims. I don't know how many are in Montenegro, but certainly Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Macedonia, drive through Northern Macedonia, even though it's technically a Christian country. You see a lot of mosques, a lot of mosques in the villages, more mosques there and more big mosques, impressive mosques. Then you see Albania. Albania was basically secularized by the communists. So even though technically they're Muslim country, they're very, very, very secular. So that is basically the historic Muslim population of Europe. Muslims have always been a part of Europe again since around 1000 AD. And there was a native population primarily in the Balkans of Muslims. Of course, if you include Russia, if you count Russia as a European country, then Russia, of course, has a vast Muslim population in the Caucasus and Eastern Russia. But whether you want to count that as Europe or not, I'll leave it up to you. And of course, if you count the Caucasus as Europe, then Azerbaijan technically might be Europe and there is a Muslim country as well, although it's so much on the border of Asia that I'm not sure it should count. So really up until World War II, most of the Muslim, almost all the Muslim population of Europe was basically in those countries in the Balkans. There was very little Muslim population in the rest of Europe. There were still some Muslims in Spain from ancient times. There were some Muslims that were settled in Italy from ancient times. And there were some Muslims in the United Kingdom primarily from the colonies who had settled there. But there was not a large population of Muslims in Europe pre-World War II. That really changed in 1945 when Europe was desperate, if you will, to rebuild. And it was desperate to rebuild and yet it had few builders. Europe had been devastated by war and there just weren't a lot of young people in a position to really build Europe. And what am I looking for? Sorry. None of that works. All right. I do need that article though in a second. Okay. We'll find it in a minute. So Europe was in a position where it didn't have the workers. It didn't have the young population. The young population all died in the war. This is particularly true of Germany. Germany was devastated. It was flattened. Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg. All of these cities were basically in ashes. There was nothing standing there. And if they wanted to rebuild, if they wanted to turn their country around and make it into something, they needed people to come and work the place. And as a consequence, Germany in particular invited in to Germany a significant number of Turks from Turkey. Turkey had not really been involved in World War II. And as you know, it had a large young population. It was still a relatively poor place with limited upside and opportunity with a large labor force. And many of the Turks came to Germany in the 1940s and 1950s in order to build Germany. And they're the ones who did the manual labor that resulted in the building of Germany. They were expected at the time to return home. But, of course, they didn't. I mean, it didn't make any sense for them to, if you really think about it, they were settled in Germany. They were making a good living, much better living in Germany than they could make back home in Turkey. And they settled there. And today you have third and third and fourth generation Turks in Germany. And there's a large Turkish population in Germany today that has already been there for the 1950s. Indeed, if you remember the two scientists, the two founders, BioNTech, the company that actually came up with the COVID vaccine that Pfizer teamed up with, but the people who actually did the research, the science, that developed it, were both Turkish immigrants, partially first generation, partially second generation. So there was an ongoing kind of legal migration, regular migration for work from Turkey to Germany, both educated and uneducated Muslims into Europe. The other part of that first migration into Europe of Muslims was primarily in France. Fans had, of course, colonized Northern Africa. When they left those colonies, partially it was brutal, particularly in Algeria. They had allowed a lot of the former colonists to emigrate into France. So a lot of the Muslim population in France has roots going back to the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1950s when there was still a colony, the 1960s in the post-colonial era. And so there was a significant migration into France during those eras of North African Muslims. There was a lot of Moroccans that came in to Northern Europe during this era. And again, primarily to work, there was vast opportunities. The economies of Europe were growing fast. They were growing from a huge deficit. There were lots of jobs. There was a shortage of young people. And the Muslims filled in the employment needs. And again, they had kind of an in into many of these countries, particularly France, because of the colonial history. Of course, the UK is very similar. UK had a lot of Pakistanis and Muslims from India who came there. Nigeria, which was also a British colony, was also Muslim or has a significant Muslim population. It's not all Muslim, but it has a significant Muslim population primarily in the north of Nigeria. And so UK has quite a few Muslims who are from Nigeria. And of course, the UK had extensive relationships with vast parts of the Middle East, because if you remember all my talks about Israel, it was the British who occupied the entire Middle East during the period between World War One and World War Two. And Lawrence of Arabia, if you've seen Lawrence of Arabia, a lot of Muslims came to the UK to get educated, and many of them stayed. I mean, a lot of this kind of changed. And I think the whole, well, put it this way, Muslim kept on immigrating slowly into Europe since in the 1980s, 90s, 2000s, and we'll talk about the 20 teens in a minute. So Muslim population in Europe generally slowly increased as more and more Muslims emigrated again, because primarily of the economic opportunities that were presented to them, but also because of the political opportunities. The reality is that if you were a Muslim and wanted to live under any kind of political freedom, there are no Muslim countries that are economically free. So if you value not economic freedom, political freedom, if you value political freedom, if you wanted to live in a politically free world or country, then you left your home country, you left your North African country, you left the Middle East, and you went to Europe. Most of those were legal immigrants who came by a variety of different means, whether to work or whether through different programs that will allow for immigration into Europe. So even before the mass migration of Syrians and other Middle Eastern refugees into Europe in 2014, 2015, 2016, Europe had already experienced significant Islamic migration in the decades before that, but of course, the big push, the big increase was during 2015 and 2016. So quickly where we are today. Today there are 20, I mean, I don't have up to date, completely up to date figures, but as of 2017, there were about 26 million Muslims in Europe. There's probably a couple million more in Europe today. The largest population of Muslims in Europe is in France, where there are about 6 million Muslims in France, over 5 million in Germany, between 4 and 5 million in the UK, there are about 3 million in Italy, about 1.2 in the Netherlands, 1.1 in Spain, and I think there are over a million in Sweden. In terms of the percentage of the population, all of Europe, it's about anywhere between 5% to 6% of the population in Europe is Muslim today. If you stopped migration today, if you stopped all Muslim migration today, you would probably get by 2050, Islamic population in Europe to be about 7% to 8%, between 7% and 8%. If migration to Europe was kind of at a steady medium pace, not the huge pace of 2016, but kind of the previous state significant, but not overwhelming, the Muslim population in Europe would be about 11.2% by 2050, and this takes into account the pathetic both rates of Europeans. And then if you had high migration, significant migration, 2016 plus like migration into Europe, civil wars, mass migration, you'd probably get into 14% of the population in Europe would be Muslim. So just in terms of sheer percentages, you don't get a situation at least in the next 30 years where Europe is overrun by Muslims, where Europe is overrun by Islam. You definitely get a situation where 15% of Europe may be Muslim if there's significant migration, but more likely you're getting something between 8% to 10% of Europe, maybe 12% is Islamic. Some countries, of course, affected by this much more, a medium immigration level in France, for example, leads to about 17% of its population being Muslim. So let's say up to 20%, the United Kingdom could see its Muslim population go up to around 17%, Germany, maybe 11%, Sweden. Sweden is probably in the worst state in terms of percentages. Sweden could see its Muslim population go to 20% if it continues the migration, but Sweden, of course, has stopped the migration. And if there's high migration like 2016 into Sweden, Sweden can go to 30% Muslim primarily because Sweden has a small population and it took in massive numbers of immigrants. Right now, if you foes immigration and Sweden has, to a large extent, foes immigration in Sweden, you're looking at 2050 taking into account birth rate differentials, you're looking at Sweden at about 11% to 12% Muslims in the population. So in no scenario, even in the worst case of France and relatively high migration, do you see countries with exception of Sweden exceeding 20% of their population being Muslim? Not 20% is a lot, but it's not yet anywhere close to majority and it's not approaching majority levels. Now, of course, if that continues indefinitely into the rest of the century by 2100, who knows what happens, particularly birth rates don't change and a lot of other assumptions. But those are very difficult to make assumptions about demographics that fall out in terms of religious affiliations and things like that. So that gives you a little bit of sense of where Europe is in terms of just a sheer number of Muslims. So as I said, there are about 20, 26, 27 million Muslims in Europe. This, by the way, excludes Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo and Muslims in that area. So this is just in the, what you'd consider, non-Muslim parts of Europe. In the non-Muslim parts of Europe, there are about 26 million Muslims today. Now, an obvious question would be, who cares? Well, there are two reasons to care or at least two reasons to care, maybe more. One is that the Islamic population is coming from cultures that are very hostile to enlightenment and Western values. They are coming from cultures where there is no separation of church and state. They are coming from cultures where women are treated pretty horrifically and where violence as a means of settling disputes, of settling issues of honor, family issues is much more acceptable and much more tolerable than it is in the West. So you have, you clearly have a culture clash. These cultures, again, where women are treated really, really badly and where, you know, so you've got the issue of women, you've got the issue of violence. You've also got the issue of things like their attitude towards homosexuality, their attitudes towards a lot of kind of the liberal ideas that we have in the West. So that is certainly one issue and that is a primarily a cultural issue and that has, if you will, one solution. The second challenge, and maybe this is the bigger challenge and the more scary challenge, particularly in the shorter run, is that some of these 26 million Muslims, how many is hard to tell? But some of these 26 million Muslims are Islamists. They're Islamic totalitarians. They're active members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were active members or inspired members of ISIS, of al-Qaeda. They are ready warriors, not just in a cultural challenge, but an existential challenge. They are willing to walk into Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that publishes cartoons in France and shoot it up and kill everybody in the building if they can. They're quite capable of killing people in the streets, quite capable and willing of doing so. So there is a real issue of violent Islamists, a real issue of Islamists who want and believe they can take Europe by force. Or in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, the idea of we might have to use force at some point. We want to take Europe. We're going to do it quietly. We're going to do it through intimidation. We're going to do it without saying anything, sorry by saying a lot, but without violence. But we are going to take over Europe. So there's a certain percentage of this population that is actively willing to subvert Europe violently even in order to ultimately fulfill the great Khalifat that rules the entire world. Now what percentage of Muslims in Europe believe this? Hard to tell. Now my guess is that a significant number of them, let's say 10, 20 percent of them, support this. But my guess is also that it's less than 1 percent, way less than 1 percent, that actually active, engaged, committed to something like this. Two violence. Let me add one of, I'll add something to the culture because the culture thing is another aspect of this that's crucial and important. And this part kind of overlaps between the two parts, the two issues, the two concerns, the violence and the culture. One of the things that these Muslims coming into Europe don't have a culture of is free speech and religious tolerance, a separation of state from religion. They do not believe in free speech, in particular when it comes to issues of Islam. And this is particularly evident in their assistance, for example, that no portraits of Muhammad, no paintings of Muhammad, no cartoons of Muhammad be displayed, that no depictions of Muhammad in any kind of form of art be displayed. That Islam is not criticized, that the Muhammad is not criticized in the press, in other places. That Quran's unburnt, as a Bible would be burnt to a cross would be turned into a urinal or the things that, I don't know if you want to call them artists, I don't know that I would call them artists, but provocateurs have done with regard to Christianity. Muslims will not tolerate this. So they fight against it, they argue against it, demonstrate against it, they politically active against it, and they will become violent with regard to it. So those are the two issues, the cultural issue, the violence issue, and the two overlap. The violence in any of Islam, there's also another violence issue, that's violence against women, since they don't have much respect for women, and since they treat women badly in their own culture, and since now they are provoked by Western women wearing provocative clothes, they're more likely to commit sexual violence, and in general, for a variety of reasons we'll talk about, they're more likely to commit violence more generally to be part of gangs and to be quite violent, particularly true. In Sweden, where rates of violent crime have just skyrocketed and they're almost all emanating out of the Muslim community there. Now as we know, there was mass migration into Europe of Muslims during the 2015-2016 period, and those Muslims are in the process of being integrated into those societies or not, as the case may be, it'll be interesting to see in 10, 15, 20 years what the situation, what the attitudes of those Muslims are relative to what they are today, whether any attempts to integrate them, whether any attempts to assimilate them have been all and will be successful. All right, so let's deal with a cultural problem. Actually, let me say this. I think both problems are easily dealt with. I think Europe's Muslim problem, Europe's Islamism problem is primarily a European, primarily a Europe's problem with Europe. Europe's problem with Islam, however you spin it, is a problem with itself. It's a problem of lack of confidence. It's a problem of lack of identity. It's a problem of guilt. It's a problem of an abandonment of Europe's true identity and a failure to properly embrace enlightenment values. Europe does not know what it is. Centuries ago, it was clearly Christian. It was white and it was Christian. Well, it's not Christian anymore, at least not dominantly and not in the elites, among the elites. And it is not white anymore. Five percent of Muslim and there's quite a percentage of Africans and percentages of people from all over the world. And of course, the identification of being white is an identification by a non-essential. So it doesn't add anything. It doesn't contribute anything. And Europeans know that and have abandoned that whole racist, ultimately race-centric racist conception, which they had when they were colonizers and have abandoned for the better since then. They've abandoned too much of Christianity. And then the question ultimately becomes, well, what is Europe? What does it represent? What is its core? What is its identity? And for a while, I'd say in the mid-19th century, I mean, late 18th century, mid-19th century, there was a real attempt to turn Europe into a liberal, liberal in the classical liberal sense, enlightenment continent, a continent that was based on the ideas of reason, of individualism, and of political liberty. But the backlash within Europe against those ideas was horrific. Whether it was the tribalism that led to World War I or the complete embrace of collectivism, communism and fascism that led to World War II, enlightenment values were crushed or at least were opposed dramatically and out of all of that chaos, existentially and out of the ideological chaos that was brought about by the anti-enlightenment primarily German philosophers, you are basically evolved into this postmodern, subjectivist, ruthless, non-principled, non-ideological, you know, emptiness, an abandoned religion, but it had not embraced a proper principled ideology, a philosophy and indeed in many respects, Europe has been ideologically, politically traumatized by the World War, by the World Wars, primarily the Second World War, guilt-ridden for all the death and destruction that they inflicted on themselves. And then I'd say in Murmada times of the last 20 years guilt-ridden over the colonial past and the death and destruction that inflicted on the rest of the world. And as a consequence, Europe today is filled with guilt. Europe today is, has no identity, no confidence in the future, no vision. And here when I say Europe, I'm talking about the European elites, the people who write, the people who kind of set the tone, set the direction of a nation. Europe is very much intellectually adrift. They toyed with communism, that didn't really work. They remember the horrors of fascism, they don't want that. They kind of accepted the idea that the mixed economy was the be all the end all and somehow this liberal democracy, mixed economy, mixed morality, neither here nor there. It was better than communism, it was better than fascism, maybe this was the solution. But that is incredibly unsatisfactory. Over the last 20 years in particular, or the last 15 years in particular, the economies of Europe stagnated significantly, in particular in comparison to the United States, but also in comparison to Europe's own past. So economically, they've seen stagnation again, neither here nor there. This model of mixed economy liberal democracies seems to kind of work, but nobody's excited about it, nobody's motivated about it, nobody's going to go fight for it. And so they stand for nothing. Or at least they don't know what they stand for. I think implicitly, there's still a real sense of enlightenment in Europe. It's still a secular, to a large extent, reason-based. Much of Europe is individualistic, if not completely dedicated to individuals, certainly not politically, but in terms of people's lives. And there is political liberty, for the most part, again, as a mixed economy. But it's all mixed and mushy and principled. And they're encountering a group of people in the millions who are committed to an ideology, who believe in something, or who came to Europe because they don't believe in Islam and so on. They're looking for an alternative, but they're not really finding it. They're looking for a dynamic, exciting, growing economy and vibrant culture, and they're not really finding it. And those of them that are committed to their old culture, they're committed. They're finding Europeans to be weak, unprincipled, compromising, selling out. The Muslims put a little bit of pressure on them, and the Europeans fold. In a class like that, the more principled side is going to win. In a class like that, Europe is outmatched. And I think this is the pessimism. This is the sense of, oh, God, we're overwhelmed by Islam. Islam is conquering Europe. Even though in terms of numbers, that's not happening. In terms of politics, that's not happening. You get the sense of that because the Muslims know exactly what they want, and the Europeans do not. So when the Muslims say no cartoons of Muhammad, no portrayal, no portraits of Muhammad in museums, no operas with Muhammad as a character, the Europeans go, oh, we didn't know. Oh, did that offend you? We're sorry. We'll take them down. And what message is that going to send? Here is a crucial value, a crucial principle of Western civilization, free speech, and the Europeans just give it up. They just, okay, no problem. The idea of criticizing religion is the enlightenment, is a huge principle of the enlightenment, and Europe is just going to give it up. We'll criticize our own religion. We won't criticize yours because you pushed a little bit because you seem to be principled people. We're not. We'll do whatever. If Europe believes in the rule of law, protecting the lives and property of its citizens, protecting the rights of its citizens, not even a right like free speech, which is, I don't know, I guess, an achievement, a particularly intellectual achievement, but basic principles like you cannot rape, you cannot murder, you cannot steal, just basic stuff that in the West is part of a long history of rule of law. Well, suddenly the Muslims come to Europe and they say, well, we do things a little bit differently. We treat women differently than you guys do. So we rape more women than you do. You should just accept the fact that this is our culture, not yours. Our culture has more rape than yours and we accept it and we have no problem with it. So why should you? Oh, we want to live in our own communities. In our own communities, we want to be able to do whatever we want. We want. Stay out. Leave us alone. Don't interfere. And if we're violent against our own people, that's our problem, not yours. And sadly, again, Europe has conceded. So in Sweden, in Muslim neighborhoods, there is high rates of violence. Police do nothing. In UK, when gangs of Muslim men raped young girls and women, the police did nothing. They didn't want to, it's their culture. We don't want to, we don't want to see racists. I mean, it's not even multiculturalism because this is the, what we're seeing is the ultimate outcome of multiculturalism. That is the degradation of Western culture. The, the, the turning Western culture into a subservient culture and elevating the culture that is the more primitive, that is the more barbaric. But it's also the lack of any kind of moral certainty, any kind of moral self-esteem, any kind of moral assertiveness in declaring that some things aren't acceptable and some people will go to jail and that, what's going on once, and I need to clean up. Yeah. Yeah, I need to clean up there's some spamming of my, of the chat going on. So the idea that, you know, the West cannot assert itself, that Western values cannot be asserted even though the law that these immigrants can do whatever they want, that has become commonplace, that has become commonplace. So, and part of the reason that this, I think violence is occurring and a lack of assimilation is happening is again a lack of confidence and a lack of identity on the part of the West. But also a big part of it is the very existence of the welfare state in the West. Do you know that in 2015, 2016 or 2014, 2016 when all this mass migration came into Europe, almost all of it went, all the immigrants went to Germany and Sweden? Why? Indeed, I mean, a big deal was made about Obann saving the West because he built a wall that prevented the Muslim from coming and he saved Hungary. He didn't save Hungary, nobody wanted to stay in Hungary, none of those Muslim migrants were going to stay in Hungary. They were all heading to Germany and Sweden. Why Germany and Sweden of all places? Because Germany and Sweden, other two countries that provide incredible welfare benefits to migrants. So you get to Germany or Sweden, you get a check and you get a home. Swedes and Germans don't get a home. Indeed, home prices were going up and there's shortage of housing, but migrants did, seekers of asylum did, and they got a check. So a big part of the problem within Europe is again, not so much the Muslims themselves, but the welfare state that has attracted them there, that attracted the wrong type of people, not the people who want to work, not the people who want to build, create, make a life for themselves, but the people who want to leech off of a welfare state. And much of that emigration, sadly, was emigration of people like that. And to that, the fact that both in Sweden and Germany, they did not encourage these people to go to work. They did not encourage the new immigrants to assimilate, and the best way to assimilate is through work. Instead, they kept them in their own neighborhoods, kept them dependent on government welfare. And what did these young migrants do when that happened? They couldn't get a job. There were no jobs being offered. They couldn't find a place. They had a home because that was given to them. What did they do? They were bored. Well, they organized themselves into gangs and they started fighting among each other for the spoils. Upward mobility that work provides, that integration into Swedish and German or French society provides, were eliminated. All they had was the gang. So the problem of Islam in Europe is that Europeans are not willing to stand up for the proper values, identify them and stand up and fight for them. And they are not willing to insist on the rule of law and live by it. They are overly committed to the welfare state and to a Christian morality that says that you are weak, hungry, suffering, we need to take care of you, even if you're not one of us, even if you're not one of our country's civilization continent, we'll take care of you because we're good Christians, even though we don't believe in God anymore. The Christian morality is still altruism. The idea that the portion of the world, that the meek shall inherit the world, that poverty is virtue, that is still very much ingrained in Christian, in European society, even if they've abandoned elements of Christianity, they've not abandoned the ethical code of Christianity. So you've got a Europe that refuses to stand by its values, refuses to stand by what makes it unique, refuses to stand by the rule of law and still venerates the suffering of its migrants and hands them checks when they cross the border and gives them housing, gives them housing. So that is, I think, the problem of Islam. The problem of Islam can be easily dealt with. It can be easily dealt with, well easily, easily in quotes, easily dealt with because it's primarily an ideological issue. It is Europe that has to change. It's Europe that has to go backbone. It's Europe that has to discover what it is and what it represents. It's Europe that has to start fighting for its values. But first, it has to know what those values are. Reason, individualism, political freedom, reason, individualism, but repeat after me, reason, right? Kids need to learn this. European kids need to learn this and they need to start standing up for themselves. And if they did that, then the problem of Islamism is easy. If you're an Islamist, if you're dedicated to the subjugation of Europe to Islam, show them the door. Declare Islamism is an ideology anti-European. The Europe is indeed at war with. The Europe rejects and will not accept. And if you hold this ideology, if you go to a mosque that preaches this ideology, this is an ideology of violence, an ideology of war, an ideology of the enemy of Europe. And here's the door. You're welcome. You're asked, demanded that you leave. That means shutting down those mosques, sending the preachers home, finding the activists and sending them home. Much of the violence committed by terrorists in Europe is committed by people that the Europeans know are radicalized. The people, many of them are being watched by European security forces. They have the names. They know who the people are. Don't tolerate them. Islamism is a violent ideology. It is an ideology of war. It is an ideology that has no place in a free society as long as it resorts to violence. And since it resorts to violence, the ideology needs to go. You don't have a right, a free speech right to incite violence. You don't have a free speech right to actively promote an ideology of violence when violence is committed in its name all around you. But for that, Europe needs to, again, know what it is, have a backbone, declare war on Islamism, kick them out and not allow any more to come in. And by the way, it would be pretty good for the West to then go and destroy the Islamist organizations and the Islamist countries that actually promote, support, and push all this. But that's asking a lot. But if they get the same self-esteem to promote their own values, to promote their own civilization and to restrict Islamists, maybe they'll have the balls as well to take care of the Muslim nations out of there. Wow, we're getting some real trolls today. This is good, but they're putting money. That's good. Keep the money flowing. Keep insulting me, but put for two Canadian dollars every time. That's good. I'm willing to be insulted if you're going to pay for it. Finally, what happens if Europe doesn't discover its true values? What happens if Europe does not find its true identity? What happens if Europe cannot rediscover the Enlightenment? What happens is not going to be good for Muslims. It's not going to be good for Europe, but it's not going to be good for Muslims. A culture cannot survive in a vacuum. It cannot survive with no ideology. It cannot survive with no integrating principles. It cannot survive on the wishy-washy, pseudo-ideology that Europe has today. If it doesn't embrace the Enlightenment values, it will embrace anti-Enlightenment values. Europe is risking an embrace of some form of racist, nationalist, religious fascism. Europe is not going to become communist or socialist. The European Union is not primarily a socialist entity, but a fascist one, a regulatory one, a controlling one. And as part of that, as you see politicians making a bigger and bigger and bigger deal out of Islam, not in the name of liberal ideals, not in the name of Enlightenment standards, but making a bigger and bigger and bigger deal of Islam because of its contradiction with Christianity, because of its contradiction with some ancient version of European identity that goes back before the Enlightenment, because the Muslims have a different religion, have a different color skin, have a different worldview. The more that happens, the more likely it is that Europe goes that way. And you can see that with good builders. Good is not a liberal advocating for Enlightenment ideology. And as such, oh God, where are these trolls from? These are new ones. And as such, advocating for fighting Islam with proper Western values, no, he is a socialist. I mean, not a socialist, but an interventionist. He is a statist. He is, you know, much closer to a fascist perspective on the world than he is to a liberal, classical liberal perspective on the world. In Germany, the SPD, SFD, SFD, right, is not exactly an Enlightenment movement, a pro-free market Enlightenment movement that rejects Islam. It is much more of a, you know, moderate nationalist, socialist, kind of soft fascist movement that is anti-Muslims, because they're not Christians, and they're not Germans, and they're not white, and they're not right in one way or the other. And the more violent the Muslims will become, if they become more violent, the more terrorist attacks occur in Europe, the more extreme the European right will become. The more fascist they will indeed become. And you can imagine a world in which Muslims have rounded up, placed in camps, treated differently, killed in mass, sent out of their country in mass. I don't think Europe is just going to roll over and play dead. I don't see Europe converting to Islam. I don't see Europe just saying, kill us, that's fine, we don't care. I just don't think Europe will do that, or Europeans will do that. I think that'll embrace the wrong ideas, the wrong values, the wrong integration in order to take care of the threat. And in doing so, they will eliminate whatever semblance of reason, individualism, and freedom there is still in Europe. That will all ultimately disappear. One of them wonders, what is the threshold? I don't know what the threshold is, and I don't know when it happens. Again, you're seeing it every time the Muslims rise up a little bit. You saw this in the 2000s, when there was a lot of Muslim violence in Europe, right-wing political parties started to rise. You saw it again during the period of ISIS in the mid-2000s, when there was a lot of terrorist attacks in Europe, the right rose up and increased its power. And you're seeing it now. I don't think, I know some people disagree with me, but actually Anne Hissier-Lee agreed with me in an article she wrote the other day, that good will, you can't understand good builders' success without understanding what's going on in Gaza. And without understanding that Europeans are looking at Gaza and saying, could that happen here? And then looking out their windows and seeing hundreds of thousands of Muslims marching in the streets supporting Hamas and coming to the conclusion, yeah, it could happen here. We better get tough, but not tough around proper enlightenment, classical liberal values. No, tough for their means, given their collectivism, given their abandonment of reason, it means much more like fascism. Ken is already writing off London. London is finished. What a joke. I'll bet anything that London is a magnificent city in 10 years in spite of all of this. It won't be tolerated ultimately. But again, the cost will be liberty for everybody. The cost will be liberty for all of us. All right, I think I've talked for long enough. Let's see. Questions. I've got a lot of, I think Michael has asked like $20, $10 questions, which I will get to. He's also asking $20 questions, so that's great. If you guys would like to ask questions, please make them $20 questions mostly, because I've got a lot of these, a lot of questions at the lower end. And so let me see if we've got how many of these questions are on topic. Let's start with that. In India, Israel, Michael asks, about the far left and Islamist death cults equally evil. When you're delivered your mind, when you're, you've delivered your mind over to total mysticism, you become a worshipper of death, you become hostile to life and oath as such. No, I don't think they're equally evil. I mean, clearly the Islamist, Islamists, you know, flight airplanes at the buildings, they go on rape, pillage, slaughter, massacre campaigns. They blow up subways, they blow up buses, they put on suicide vests, and they walk in a crowded restaurant and blow themselves up. I mean, that is a unique evil in all of human history. This is not the same as the almost stupid, mindless idiocy of the left. The left still does not have suicide bombers. The most the left is willing to do, and it's pretty bad, but the most they're willing to do is, I don't know, steal stuff en masse from Louis Vuitton in Chicago or, you know, burn down stores and shops usually in their own neighborhoods and neighborhoods where they go shopping. So, you know, I think the left is far less evil than the Islamists are. Right? The Islamists are. And, yeah, I mean, again, just look at the kind of violence. Look at the amount of violence that the Islamists inflict on the world and inflict on themselves and inflict on everybody around them. And look, Islamists, a small percentage, active Islamists, a small percentage of the Muslim population, and the sympathizers to Islam, Islamism to the Islamists are usually a small percentage. That percentage increases when the Islamists seem to be winning, when they score victory. Like after October 7th, they seem to have really inflicted serious harm on Israel. The popularity Islamist goes up. After 9-11, popularity of Islamism going up. ISIS taking territory, Islamism became super popular. So the Muslim population is very susceptible to the Islamists, but it's susceptible to the Islamist success. If the Islamists are losing, the Muslim population loses interest in them. And this has been my point from the beginning. If the West actually fights, if the West actually stand up to them, if the West actually defeats them in the Middle East, let's say, then the problem that they face in Europe itself goes away for the most part, right? They'll start to round up the Islamists here and there. They'll start to take care of some of them. But the support from regular Muslims that the Islamists get will go away once Iran is crushed, once Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East are destroyed. They're not going to sustain themselves in the Middle East, in Europe. Once the West has stood up with confidence and certainty and power to the Islamists, the Islamist's power over the Muslim world will disappear. It'll go away. You saw that with ISIS. As soon as ISIS started losing in Syria and in Iraq, the amount of support it got in Europe declined dramatically. And the amount of terrorist activity that happened in Europe declined dramatically, declined dramatically. All right. I'm going to take James's question because it's a $50 question, so I'll take it now. Are you still considering doing a course on public speaking in Miami or somewhere in the United States? Do you have an idea of when you will do it? Will you go over speaking to media and being recorded? So I'm still considering it. I don't know when. I think the next public speaking course I will do is I'm going to try to do it just after the Ironman Institute conference in Amsterdam in March. So what I'm thinking is whoever comes there, if you come to the Ironman Institute conference in Amsterdam, which would be fun and exciting and it's Amsterdam, so it's a great city, then stay on another day and do the public speaking course. So that is the next one I am planning. And we'll see if I can get enough people to attend it. And then after that, sometime later in the year, I will be trying to organize one in the United States. And then the question is where will it be in Miami? Will it be in California? Maybe I'll try to do it around Ocon in California and hopefully get some of the people coming to Ocon, coming to the big conference in California. So I'm trying to make it easy for people in terms of travel. People are traveling anyway to a particular, to some conference and then do my course in addition to what they're already doing rather than a special trip to Miami or something like that. I only need five, six people to do it. So if anybody out there knows five, six people would like to take a public speaking course for me, I will bring it to wherever you are. So James, if you have a particular place you'd like me to do it at, if you can get a couple of people together, I'll try to get some people together, we can pull it off. So it doesn't take a lot of people for me to do it. Again, five to 10 people is ideal. I don't want more than 10, less than five, it's hard to make money off of it unless you're willing to pay more. It'll probably be about $1,000 per person for a full day, maybe a day and a half or maybe two half days, depending on how I structure it. Will I do media and being recorded? I certainly could. It would be, it would be a little different. Maybe I could do that as a separate thing for the people interested in that particular aspect of it. We could do another couple of hours on that. It's a different skill set than public speaking. It's not the same thing. It's quite different. It's the question of looking at the camera. It's an issue of speaking more in sound bites. It's how you hold yourself, how you sit in the chair, things like that. Happy to do that and how not to be distracted. Happy to do that if there was interest in doing that. So the best thing, James, is to write to me, let me know what you would like to do, what you're interested in, where you would travel to in order to do it. And I've got a list of people who are interested. And I think I'm pretty sure you are on that list, but I'll have you on the list. And then when I'm intending to do it, I will let you know. All right, let's see other ones on this topic. That's not it. That's not it. Not really, not really, not really. Michael says, how do you change the mind to think you're millions of Islamists who want the motor and want the mayhem and want the martyrdom? I don't think there are millions of Islamists who want to murder and mayhem. I mean, imagine if they were, imagine if there were tomorrow a thousand suicide bombers in Europe. And the next day another thousand suicide bombers in Europe. It's never happened. You get one, you get some crazies going in and shooting up, you know, Charlie Hebdo. And then a few months later, you get something else. But there's no indication that there are millions of people getting ready for martyrdom and willing to sacrifice themselves and willing to kill and destroy. Where are they? If they exist, then God, why don't they just go out there into the streets and stop blowing things up? Why isn't it happening? Right? If there were millions of them, then every day you could have a thousand. And by the end of the year, you would only have 365,000 people, you know, terrorist attacks. But the reality is you get a handful in a year. So there can't be millions of them. So you have to have perspective on the threat. You have to have perspective on who they are and what they are in order to, you know, properly understand what the threat really is. Again, catastrophizing these things does not help. They're not millions. The millions who will go out into the street in support of them to demonstrate, the millions and maybe hundreds of thousands who will say in surveys that they want Europe to become Islamic, are they willing to fight for it now? Are they willing to die for it? No. Even during the interfa'at, they want one or two a day. There were days where there were one or two. There were weeks where there were more than one. But it wasn't every single day for three years of the interfa'at, one or two a day. That's just not the reality. It just didn't happen. And of course, the interfa'at was unique. And it wasn't just Islamists. It was secular Palestinians as well. And that's not happening in Europe and hasn't even come close in Europe. So you have to have the right proportion about the threat. And again, the ebb and flow and the ebb and flow has to do with whether they think they're winning or not. Michael says, if Trump, God formed because God forbid, became president, I guess, can we expect the Islamists and Putin to become more emboldened? I mean, I don't know. They're pretty emboldened right now. I think they, I think the one thing that Trump has going for him is that they have no idea what he'll do. They really have no idea what he'll do. So there is a little bit of that. He's a crazy man. We don't know how we respond. So maybe we shouldn't poke him. Hard to tell. But it's not a virtue. It's a vice of his, his instability that might result in less craziness in the world. I'm not convinced of that. But that's hypothesis that I think is very reasonable. But would Trump do anything to them? No. Nothing. Nothing. Trump would, will try to cut a deal with Putin. He won't fight Putin. Will Trump do anything to the Islamists? I mean, maybe something here. I mean, he, he negotiated with the Taliban. He signed a peace deal with the Taliban. He almost brought them to Washington DC to Camp David. I mean, what a travesty that would have been if he'd brought them in. Was he tough on the Palestinians? Not particularly. Did he, did he do anything with Iran? No, not really. He killed one general and made a big deal out of it, as if that mattered. No, I mean, Trump is very weak. But he's also crazy. And they just don't, I think they, I don't think they moderate, but I don't think they, they exacerbate things because I, they might not want to see what crazy Trump would do. Now it all depends, right? Because he's bringing in one of the things about the first Trump administration is he brought in a lot of very good people on, on, on defense of foreign policy. He brought in Mathis who's relatively good, relative to what's out there. He brought in Kelly. He brought in even John Bolton at some point. He's not going to bring people like that in the second term. He's going to bring in American firsts who are non-interventionists, let the Russians have Ukraine who we don't care that much about Israel, except we have to appease the evangelicals. Yeah, I mean, Trump works with these people, particularly, particularly Putin. He's a friend of Putin's. What else? I'm just looking quickly. Frank says, what's Muslim threat in Italy? They've had problems with Albanians, but I don't know if the evil Islamists often refer to them as white Muslims. And now the Albanians, the problem they have with the Albanians is organized crime. Albanians are pretty active in the mafia. They are maybe competition to the Italian mafia. They, they begin to drug smuggling and other forms of smuggling. So, you know, cigarette smuggling is a big deal in Europe. The Albanians are not Islamists. They're very, very secular. They're mainly just organized crime. Italy has 4.8 percent Muslims. They don't really have a, they haven't had any major terrorist attacks that I know of. You know, even though Italy is relatively close to North Africa, they really haven't had a substantial Islamist problem in Italy. It's been much more the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, now Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and more than anybody, France, right? France. France and England are the most problematic of all of them. It's where the most committed Islamists seem to live. Scott, what percentage of EU migrants are somewhat Islamist? It depends what you mean by somewhat Islamist. Again, how many of them are really Islamist, willing to go fight for the cause? A fraction of a fraction of a percent. How many of them will say, yeah, I'd like Europe to become Muslim? Maybe 10 percent. Maybe more. How many of them would fight for that? Again, a fraction of a fraction of a percent. How many of them would provide money or hideouts to the crazy militants? Less than one percent would be my guess. Maybe one percent, maybe less. Let's see. Okay, so no more questions on this topic. So let's just take the rest of the topics. We'll start with the $20 questions and we'll go from the, yeah, let me just deal with this one quickly. James asks, more what's your show now and less super chats? Why? They're actually not less super chats. There are a lot more super chats. They're just not maybe the last few days or maybe they're not distributed equally. But I don't know, this morning we raised over $600 on a morning show. So this month will be by far the best super chat month ever with the exception of last December where if you remember we raised like $14,000 in the, just in one show in New Year's Eve. So if you exclude the New Year's Eve show, this month, November, is by far the best month ever. And last month, even though I traveled quite a bit, was an amazing month super chat wise. Those are very good months, but this month was way better than, again, in terms of super chat, the best month we've ever had. So I can't complain. I wish we hit the target every show, but we often exceed the target and therefore can afford to not hit it every show. And it would be nice if we were hitting the target today. There's still a little bit of time. You guys can still make it happen. But because it's the last day of the month, so it will determine how much money we actually raised for the month. And actually, you know, how much would I need? Yeah, I mean, if we got another $50 to $100. Yeah, I mean, we're going to make the record anyway. This is going to be the best super chat month ever, no matter what happens in the rest of the show today. Okay, before I go on with the questions, there are 164 people watching right now. We've got $345 left to do on the super chat, do a sticker super chat, a super chat value for value, show your support, show you the love, lots of love, I'm getting a lot of loves, you can do $2, you can do a dollar, you can do something small, just to show that love as a trade. Also like the show before you leave, like it, press that like button, whether you're in India or anywhere else, you can press a like button. It doesn't cost you anything right now, the 92 likes, we should be way way way over 100. So please press the like button. Press the like button, you can send as many rupees as you want in the super chat, you can ask a question or you can just do a sticker, which doesn't require you to actually ask a question. So please do that. What else did I want to say? Yeah, like the show. If you're not a subscriber to the Iran book show, please subscribe by subscribing, you'll get an announcement when I go live. And that'd be great. And if you're not a member yet, please become a member of the Iran book show, you can click on the membership down there, join and become a member. And we are going to have a member's only show soon, maybe this Sunday, maybe next Sunday, but we will have a member's only show soon where you can show even more love. All right, James, have you done a show on the West and India? It is interesting to see how many Indians have India and live, leave India and live all over the world and how successful they are all over the world. Do you think they will continue to do so since India is rising in wealth? Not stability, sadly. I have not done a show on India. I don't know that much about India. I've never been to India. It's one of the few countries, one of the few major countries, I'd say major countries that I've never been to. But it would be an interesting topic for me to do a show on to do a little bit of research. I do know a little bit about colonialism, do a little bit of research about India and talk a little bit about it. It's not an area of expertise of mine, but it is definitely an area of interest. And the economic development of India is quite interesting, or the lack of economic development, as the case may be, for a long, long time in India. But India is interesting because it's an ancient civilization. It was colonized. It was socialist. It's now a little bit more market oriented a little bit. It's also very nationalist. It also has an Islamic problem. So it's an interesting country. It's a very interesting country. It's also the largest country in the world in terms of population. Michael says, if the Jewish state were in Uganda instead of Israel, would people still say the Jews are colonizers? They would probably make the other African countries look bad by out-chining them. Well, but it doesn't matter. It may make a difference, right? They would still be colonizers. They wouldn't be native Africans. Right now, Israel makes, you know, other Middle Eastern countries look bad by out-chining them. It does that seem doesn't seem to make any difference. I think if Israel was in Uganda, it wouldn't make any difference. Israel would still be hated. There would still be attacks on it. There would still be, you know, the same kind of problems that Israel has today. It just would be from different people in a different geographic location. But there's no fundamental difference. Israel would still be a Western country in a non-Western place. Rob asks, would an ideal government insist on a national language? Ethnic Balkanization is very real in Sydney. It seems exacerbated by the fact that immigrants don't feel any need to learn English. Yes, I do think you would insist on a national language, you know, because you need a language of contracts. You need a language of law. You need to be able to write the law and assume that everybody can read it and understand it and follow it. You can't have, you shouldn't have to translate the law into every culture, every language with all its nuances. There has to be a language of the land, one language of the land, and that everybody is expected to know that language and everybody's expected to know language partially because the legal requirements, signing contracts and everything like that should only be in that language. You know, people can have translators, they can have help and so on. It shouldn't be the law that you have to. But it should be difficult to manage if you don't know the main national language. I know Anne actually writes about this in her essay on Balkanization, the importance of having one language so that you have one set of understandings about the nature of the law, its meaning and how to apply it. Michael asks, please do a show on the benefits of colonialism. All right, we'll do it. Justin says, who will be your guest next week? Next week I've got, I think I've got Gina Golan either next week or the week after that. I don't know. I'm way behind on creating a list of guests and asking Angela to range for them to come. I meant to do it this week, this week. God, I meant to do so many things this week. This week got away from me. So I'm hoping next week, maybe over the weekend, I'll put the list together and we'll start securing guests for the coming weeks. Michael says, I hate when people use the phase anti-social. I'm not anti-social. I'm anti-stupid, which most people are today, unfortunately. Thank you, Michael. Enric says, concerning Israel's settlements, is there an issue of private property religion or something else with the validity of doing settlements? I mean, I did a whole thing about settlements or about private property earlier today. Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, there are three categories of settlements, and they each have a different attitude with regard to property rights. There's no issue of religion, I don't think. Although religion is what motivates many people to go to the settlements, to live in the settlements. One kind of settlement is where land is bought from whoever owns it and developed into neighborhoods, into towns, into agriculture, whatever it happens to be. And there, there should be zero issue with settlements. It's private property. I bought the land, I could do what I want with it. So that's one. Second kind of settlement is where land that was occupied by Israel in its war with Jordan that is not privately owned by anybody and therefore in a sense owned by the state is then used for settlements. That is in a sense the land is privatized. Now I'm fine with that as long as in the bidding for that land, in the auctioning of that land, Arabs can participate as well as Jews. That is often not the case. It's often only Jews who can buy that land, and that's wrong. It should be available for sale to anybody in auction. Third type of settlement is a settlement established on private land clearly owned by Arabs that is being confiscated from them by the state of Israel. And that is morally wrong through and through. And those settlements should be disbanded and the land should be returned to its original owners. I hope that answers the question, Enric. Michael says, I think it's like I ran an Aristotle, a more important humanities development than Einstein and Newton. Yes, because without Aristotle, there is no Einstein and Newton. You only get Einstein and Newton because of the Aristotle's of the world. Right. They make it possible. I ran hasn't yet made possible the future scientists, but she will. They will come around. We can't point to them yet, but they will. So I ran is not a good example here, but Aristotle certainly is. James says, why are Africans look down on in the EU, Asia and other parts of the world that many resources in a large population that is able to work. It appears to be more about classism, not racism. No, I think it's racism, but it's also Africa is relatively poor. It's relatively primitive. Asia, which was poor, is now relatively rich. Africa is still poor. It hasn't changed. It leaves itself open to racism. And there is definitely an attitude that the West used to have, to some extent still has, but that Asia and other parts of the world have adopted, which is blacks are just not as good. And that's why they stay poor. And that's why we don't want them. That is the attitude in much of the world, including Asia. There's a lot of racism against blacks in China, for example. Michael says, you mentioned assisted suicide. How does suicide tourism work in Switzerland? I really don't know. When it's relevant for me, I will research it. I don't know how it works in Switzerland. Michael says, Hamas just released an Irish girl. They had held captor for 50 days. The president of Ireland tweeted an innocent girl who was lost as being found, like a lost puppy who wandered randomly. Yeah, I mean, it's disgusting. The tweet of the prime minister or the president of Ireland is disgusting. The Irish are generally very, very anti-Israel. They tend to be super leftist when it comes to this. Super hateful of Israel. Don't know exactly what the source of that is other than Catholicism. Right? Catholicism is anti-Semitic for much of its history. And Catholicism is taking religion Christianity seriously. And even though Ireland has become very secular, I think they still hold on to the Catholic morality very seriously. And again, the Catholic morality is very anti-Israel because Catholic morality is pro the victim always. All right. Just to remind you, you can do a sticker, a super chat to support the show. Just click on that dollar sign at the bottom of your screen and you can do it. Michael says, why can't we all just be objectivist and have flying cars already? You got to be patient, Michael. Your desire does not make anything real. So you just again, I have to be patient and work hard and help to make it happen, which of course you do. So I appreciate all of your support. Michael also says, I was told to expect nothing and appreciate everything. Is this a cynical view of man's capacity to form deep meaningful connections with one another? Yeah, it's definitely cynical. I don't know why you would expect nothing. Expect a lot. Appreciate that which deserves appreciation. And your expectations shouldn't be passive. Your expectations should guide you to action. It should guide you to achieve your values. Michael says, you notice infrastructure is so much cleaner and more modern in red states. Look at houses in Texas versus California or Florida versus New York, the bigger cleaner more modern. Oh, I don't know if that's true. Yeah, I don't think that's true. California homes are very clean, modern. They're not as big because it's more expensive to live there because more people want to live there. So land is more precious in that sense. But I lived in Orange County. Everything was clean, modern, big, comfortable. The plots of land were small because of the cost of housing. But homes weren't any. And I find Texas, I mean, Colorado, the homes are beautiful. Colorado now is a blue state, vast neighborhoods. I find homes in Colorado and in Texas boring. I've talked about this and dull architecturally. New York is old, partially because it's just old. A lot of its infrastructure, a lot of its buildings, a lot of the stuff was built a long time ago. California is relatively new. Texas, most of Texas is relatively new. So a lot of this doesn't have to do with red versus blue states. You know, go to Alabama, go to Mississippi. Go to parts of Tennessee. Parts of Tennessee are beautiful. Parts of Tennessee are dumps. You know, why are you picking and choosing? There are parts of Florida that are awful. Parts of Florida that are real dumps. So I don't buy this. Indeed, blue states are richer than red states. So I don't buy it. Michael says the right hates Rand because she's anti-religious. The left hates Rand because she's pro-capitalism. But what's most devastating is the middle hates Rand because she is an absolutist. Yeah, I think they all hate Rand because she's an absolutist. And I think the right hates Rand also because she's a capitalist, because the right is no longer capitalist. And the left hates Rand because she's a capitalist, but because she's an absolutist. Remember, the left is subjectivist. Yeah, they all hate Rand for multiple reasons. Sadly, not just one thing. Michael says the rabbi you debated met with Mille. Huh, I didn't know that. It's a small world. It is a small world. Interesting. Interesting. Adam, the Crimean Tatars, Aristotle's Muslims, considered heretical by the Ottomans, mostly Muslims in Ukraine and Portland, fought the Ottomans at Vienna. Interesting. I didn't realize that. Yeah. These Aristotelian Muslims in Crimea, they stayed Aristotelian. Interesting. I'll have to research that. That sounds interesting. All right, Michael says almost the entire comment section under these normal Finca-Stain videos are rapidly supporting him. Who are these people? The guys, videos get millions of views. The left. The left. The same people who love Norm Chomsky, the same people who support the left on pretty much everything. This is one of the trolls. He says, why can't you pronounce? Are you retarded? Yep, that's it. That's exactly the reason. And then he says, talk about Jewish power control over Europe. Not much to talk about because they don't have any power and control over Europe. And then it's just nonsense. Okay, critical thinker. Do you think the Ukraine war will end with a clear and unequivocal victory, Ukrainian victory? And that reestablishes the pre-2014 borders within the next one to two years or is Ukraine another Israel of endless war? I think it fundamentally depends on the West. It depends on the extent to which NATO is willing to help Ukraine. If the United States and NATO willing to arm Ukraine to the teeth, they're willing to give them the weapons, they're willing to give them the tanks, the artillery, the missiles they need in order to win the war, then I think Ukraine can win it within the next year or two and push the Russians to the 2014 borders. I don't think it would be that difficult. I think Ukraine needs that support. It needs the kind of weapons systems that would allow them to overcome the massive mining that the Russians have done. I mean, that's what's slowed them down and have really made it impossible for the Ukrainians to advance are the trenches, but primarily the mines that they have laid down over all of southern and eastern Ukraine, which makes advancing with tanks and with armored vehicles almost impossible. It is not that the Russians have suddenly discovered the world to fight and the ability to fight. It's that they have discovered the power of playing defense and throwing great numbers at that defense. There are ways to eliminate that. One of them would be giving Ukraine's F-16s would make a big difference, would give them maybe not air superiority over the whole district because the Russians do have pretty effective ground to air missiles, but it would give them a much better shot at controlling the air and being able to inflict significant pain on the Russians from the air, and that will give them a huge step forward, a huge advantage. Falguni Patel, thank you, first super chat ever, really appreciate that. But if the West is not willing and not willing to provide the kind of aid that Ukraine needs in order to win, then it's kind of a war of attrition. It's brutal. It's not good for Ukraine. It's not good for the Russian people. It's not good for anybody. It's not good for Europe. It's not good for the U.S. It becomes a money pit. You could even see Russia winning or becoming like a guerrilla warfare for years and years and years if the West really capitulates and falls apart. The biggest mistake was that the Biden administration in Europe didn't go all in on day one with Ukraine. They didn't start providing them with the tanks and with the missile systems and artillery that they needed day one, that they didn't give them the F-16s day one. If they had done that in March, April, May of 2022, then Ukraine would be much closer today to evicting the Russians from Ukraine completely. Hector, thank you, really appreciate that. Critical thinker also. If Trump got reelected, could or would Biden just use the presidential drawdown authority to finally end the Ukraine war quickly for his legacy? No, I don't think so. I don't think he'd do anything like that. No. I mean, I'm not sure how he would do it. He couldn't just stop supporting the Ukrainians. That would be counter to his legacy. He couldn't negotiate a deal with Putin quickly. The Ukrainians and the Europeans wouldn't go along with it. And he couldn't beat Russia because that would risk a nuclear confrontation, which he won't do. Boss, as Europeans, get some Bitcoin to ensure your freedom. Good luck with that. Critical thinker, will any of the court cases get rid of Trump and clear the way for Nikki Haley, for president? Why is someone as boring as DeSantis still so far ahead? DeSantis is far ahead. He's way behind. I think I don't know is my answer. I think that Trump is not in a good position vis-à-vis the cases. I think he's going to lose one or more of them, maybe all of them. He is in a very precarious position with regard to every single legal case that he is facing. I think all the prosecutors, with exception maybe of the one in New York regarding the porn star, all of them have very, very solid cases against him. So he could lose. Could he cut a deal at that point to get a pardon for Biden if he doesn't run for president? Maybe, would the fact that he's in jail cause him not to run or cause Republicans not to vote for him? Maybe there'd be a real constitutional crisis if that were the case, if he was in jail. I don't know. I don't know. But if Trump appeals to Supreme Court, he will lose. I think the Supreme Court, unless there's some real travesty of justice, I think will uphold most of the lower court's decisions with regard to Trump. There's nothing unconstitutional, violation of rights involved in any of these court cases. They're all legit. You might say they're overly, I don't know, diligent, they're overly eager to prosecute. But none of them are make-belief. None of them are made up. None of them are crazy. They're all legit. You violated the law in every single one of them. Critical thinker, do you think the new world's largest single train air refinery, dengue refinery in Nigeria will actually go productive this year a game changer? I don't see why not. I mean, it's got foreign investors. It's foreign supplies built by foreigners. Why not? I guess it's the best I have. I don't know any specific details. And I don't know enough about it to say it's a game changer. But it sounds pretty cool. James Shee, does Nikki Haley have a real chance of winning? Paul Ryan just gave her a shout out as well. What will it take for the USA to elect a decent president again? Do you see it happening in our lifetime? Sure. I think if Trump got out of the way, there's several Republicans that could be decent presidents. So I think it's quite possible. Does Nikki Haley have a chance? Yeah, I think she has a chance. She first has to basically beat the Santas to be the alternative to Trump. And then she's going to have to start attacking Trump. And we will see. I mean, a coalition is significantly bigger than Jebs. That's why I think she has a much better chance. But yeah, I think she has a shot. Now, she might not. This might be a blimp. The Santas might rally. He's got the debates in 15 minutes with the governor of California. He might come out of it looking like a brilliant debater and a brilliant potential president. And he might romp her and defeat a thoroughly in Iowa and go on to right now. These polls are showing in fourth in New Hampshire. He might go on to come in second in New Hampshire and maybe beat her in North Carolina, unlikely as that may be. All of that could happen. I just don't think I just don't. I think right now she looks like the favorite to be standing opposite Trump in a two person race versus I just don't see the Santas doing it. The Santas is popular. Somebody asked before, which I didn't answer. He's boring, but he's popular. He's popular because he's done a decent job in Florida. And the other thing he's done is he's played the world card. He's basically, for everything I've heard about him. He doesn't care that much about the whole cultural issues, but he realized that that's the way to win the hearts and minds of Republicans. And he's played that well in Florida and on the campaign. That's his stick. His stick is the anti-world guy. And people want that. The problem he has is that people who really hate the left, that that's their primary motivation in life, vote for Trump. They're not going to vote for him. And Haley, at least, is trying to carve out a different position, trying to carve out all the anti-Trump votes. And then she'll have to try to chip away at the Trump voters. And for that, she'll have to attack Trump, or at least argue that Trump is not electable. Something she'll have to do. Critical thinker says, did Einranz say that hippies love cleaning garbage? Love cleaning garbage. I don't remember that. What would be behind that? Is it related to the mentality that keeps India dragging on with poverty, with lots of labor, with a little productivity? You know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't remember who's saying that. I don't remember what context she would say that. And yeah, I don't know. I mean, the thing is, back to the election, the difference between Nikki Haley and DeSantis in a general election would be that Nikki Haley would get independence. And she would get some Democrats. Like, Jamie Dimon, I think, would vote for Nikki Haley over Biden. I think a lot of Democrats would vote for Nikki Haley over Biden. And I don't think they would vote for DeSantis over Biden. And I don't think they would vote for Trump over Biden. But they're so horrified by Biden that they would vote for a Republican candidate. And I think they consider Nikki Haley a reasonable Republican candidate. All right. Thank you guys. It is the end of November. I can, without any doubt, without any doubt, I'll just say that Romney and McCain were not running against Biden. An 80-year-old demented nothing. And I'd also say McCain was a nothing. So you'd compare him to Nikki Haley as a joke. And Romney ran a particularly bad campaign. Romney could have beaten Obama. Obama was super vulnerable. And he ran an unbelievably weak campaign. And if he had run a good campaign, he would have beaten Obama. And again, life would be very different. Because I mean, it's funny because the only Republican I've ever voted for is Romney. And the only other time I voted, I voted for Democrat. So I vote for one Democrat and one Republican since I've been allowed to vote in the United States the rest of time I set the elections out. That's how pathetic the choices have been that Romney is the one Republican I voted for. And Bush is the one Republican I voted against in 2004. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thanks to all the superchats. Thank to all the superchats in November. Wow. We had a fantastic November, best month ever for superchat with the exception of December of last year by a like over 10% margin or probably 15%. So it's been amazing. Thank you all really, really appreciate it. And I will see you tomorrow morning. Well, not morning, but early afternoon in Puerto Rico, I think it's it'll be one o'clock East Coast time. Bye.