 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this fight age. I'm a little slow today, I have to admit. We have this nightclub just outside our condo. It opened last December and it's just, we've got a court against them. We've tried everything to get them ultimately shut down, quiet down, but they've changed tactics. So now they play their music instead of like at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, when we go to sleep. They stop playing their music at midnight, one o'clock, and it keeps going until 4 a.m. They literally didn't shut down until 4 a.m. yesterday, and even then there were still people hanging out around it and cars and everything until 5 a.m. So I didn't sleep much last night at all. It was just a disaster. It's hard to get the police to come and it's hard to get anything done, and it's just a nightmare. Anyway, not your problem, mine. So your plugs, I can't sleep with your plugs, but even with your plugs, I've replaced the windows, the double pane windows, the inch and a 16th thick. And I'm on the 10th floor and that what they call music today, which is basically boom, boom, boom, boom in different variations of boom, boom, boom, boom. It just goes right through whatever barrier you put. It just goes right through in and the basses just kill you. And imagine being inside that club for hours with this boom, boom, boom, boom stuff going on. I mean it is insanity. It is insanity. This is a violation of rights. These guys should be shut down. And anyway, just to start our morning. But more importantly and more frighteningly and more scaringly and more really disturbingly, I'm watching today is the day where there is the Leadership Summit in Iowa where I think eight of the presidential candidates are being interviewed on stage by Ataka Carlson. And it's being broadcast live, I think on the Blaze Media. And on Ataka's show, it's sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, Family Policy Alliance and the Pro-Life, whatever, and so on. And let me tell you, I've just spot checked this. I haven't even listened to all things. I'm going to listen to more of it. I'm particularly interested to see how Nikki Haley handles it. But it's unbelievable where the Republican Party is. It's just unbelievable. I mean, if Ataka Carlson is the Republican Party, if this is the Republican Party, if Ataka Carlson's attitude is the Republican Party, then I cannot vote Republican for anybody. This party is worse than bankrupt. It is despicable and horrific and anti-American and so on. So far, I've heard Ataka ask questions about Ukraine. Of course, he wants all aid to stop immediately to Ukraine. And in immigration, he wants basically to bring all the troops home from everywhere around the world and put them on the US-Mexican border. US-Mexican border to prevent the invasion of the invaders from invading our country and bringing in lethal drugs that are killing Americans. And this is, you once put American war footing to do this. So far, he started out with Tim Scott immediately going after him on Ukraine and really trying to knock him down in Ukraine. And of course, Tim has, is pretty good on this. And yet Ataka just wouldn't accept any argument he made. He just bam, bam, bam. And then Asa Hutchinson, I think this guy is. And he's trying to make an argument about why you can handle the border without putting the entire US military on the border. And Ataka's having none of it. I mean, the way he's describing the issue, the way he formulates this, it's just disgusting beyond belief. And it really is shows that, I mean, the only, right now, there are only three issues that Republicans seem to care about. Three. You know, one of them is a broader issue. But only three issues. One is the one Ukraine to stop it. We're talking about the new right. Well, it's more, some of these are broader. The new right, all they care about is one, no support for Ukraine. They want to see Putin win. They want to see Putin win. And they deny it. They will tell you, no, we don't like Putin. Yes, we're against the invasion. They want to see Putin win because a win for Putin is a win for the right. A win for Putin is a defeat of the left and a defeat of Biden. They want to see Putin win. Two. They want to stop immigration. Again, I'll talk about illegal immigration, but they really want to stop immigration. This is the new right. They don't want people coming into this country, particular people who don't look like most of them, not all of them, but most of them, right? And they will make immigration to be as big of an issue as they need to do in order to scare Americans. Scare Americans, instead of showing the true nature of immigration and the true value of immigration, they will scare Americans as much as they need to and they will lie and they will make up stuff to scare Americans to close our borders from immigrants. And three. And three. They want, it's not even about Christians because the South Americans coming in in some ways more Christians than the Christians in the U.S., although they're Catholics, so maybe they don't like, but many of them are Catholics. No, they don't want, they don't want people. And then three is abortion and you can wrap up with abortion gays and trans and that, but abortion is a big one. So to give you an example of the abortion issue, the House is discussing a defense appropriations bill, a defense appropriation bill that usually is a bipartisan bill funding the military and funding defense spending. And, you know, so Republicans, the Republican leadership has allowed Republicans to offer amendments to this bill that usually passes pretty easily. And it's not, you know, these appropriation bills are not good bills. And again, I'm very critical of defense, of the defense bills for a variety of reasons. So they're offering amendments. What are the amendments about? One, stopping funding for Ukraine, that failed because most Republicans are still against stopping the funding and all Democrats or most Democrats are against that. So that passed, so that didn't pass. But what did pass is, what did pass is, you know, as part of healthcare benefits that military personnel get, preventing them from getting the benefits of abortion and travel expenses to go to where they can get an abortion because, hey, a lot of the military bases that we have in the South, not areas where abortion is legal anymore, so they might have to travel to get an abortion. God forbid that the U.S. government has spent any money on its troops, on its military, when they need an abortion. And by the way, these all women, men can't get abortions. Female soldiers, God forbid that they actually get compensated or get not compensated, get the expenses paid for traveling to get an abortion. This is the most important thing on Republicans' minds. This is what is important to make a point, to have a vote. And all of the Republicans voted for it. Even ones that are relatively moderate on the abortion stuff because they're so afraid of the Tekka Carlson's of the world. They're so afraid of their voters. They're so afraid of primary voters. They're activists within the Republican Party because these are the issues they care about, nothing else. Not liberty, not freedom, not economic liberty of freedom, God forbid. They care about stopping funding from Ukraine, putting the military on the border, which means killing people trying to enter this country and stopping abortion at all costs. And of course add to that, wrap with that all the other social issues that are associated with it. It really is horrific and disgusting. All the interesting things, I would probably try to put in an amendment to stop the Defense Department from using DEI in hiring and that one failed because even DEI is not that good of a deal for Republicans, but this is. It's, yeah. Anyway, some good news from the court, mixed news from the court actually. So there's been this big lawsuit if you're following crypto, this is a big deal. And that is crypto, you have these, they issue these, you know, contracts, they call them coins and they can be traded and they issue them in exchange for compensation for work that people do. They issue them for, in a sense, they sell them to investors who basically purchase, in a sense, a share of the company by buying these coins. They issue them to individuals who want to again contribute to the development of whatever this is. And Ripple is an exchange that funded itself by issuing these kind of tokens, coins, tokens, whatever they happen to be called. And anyway, the SEC sued them with the idea that these tokens are really securities. What you're really buying when you buy a token is you're buying a security, like a share, like a stock, in this new venture called Ripple. And they said this is a violation of securities law because if it's a security, you have to register with SEC and you have to follow all the SEC requirements and you have to do it the way the SEC wants you to. Now, the beauty of crypto is that it's a way of getting around the SEC. It's one of the ways to get around the SEC. Well, as I've always said, the regulators have a gun and they intend to use it. So the regulators use the gun and they sued Ripple and they took them to court. They've also sued other crypto exchanges over this and part of including Coinbase, which is a large exchange with regard to the issuance of tokens and coins and all those securities and if so, do they have a securities license and have they registered the securities and all the rest of it? Of course, what's interesting is the SEC has never given guidance as to how they're going to treat tokens and coins and so on. So it's a large extent the crypto companies are trying stuff out and waiting to be sued or waiting not to be sued because the SEC won't tell them what's legal and what's not. There are no laws guiding this. Anyway, the court came down with this bizarre mixed opinion, which is just weird, but it kind of makes sense, right? So the question is, is the contract, which is the token, is it an investment? Is it part of a common enterprise? And are there reasonable expectations of profit arising from the venture that you would get rewarded through the token? So they're trying to decide is this a security or isn't it? But what they decided was that for most part it's not. Like, if you can give this to employees, this compensation, you can sell this to individuals, but if you sell your tokens to venture capitalists or institutional investors, then it's an investment. So it's a very confusing, I mean either the token is a security or isn't a security. It comes as a security based on who buys it. It's determined whether it's a security based on who buys it. How can that be right? So it's a confusion that the court has and a lot of it is because there is no established law on this. There are no definitions. The SEC, of course, is again not providing any guidance, is not passed any laws or explicit regulations. Nobody knows what all this means and how all this functions and it continues to be a mess. So while initial response to the ruling was, hey, this is great. They ruled that the token is not a security. Once you dig deeper, it's a lot more confusing and it's going to be really interesting how A, the regulators respond and B, the other lawsuits that are very related to this. The other courts deal with it and how this all ultimately, what legal authority ultimately resolves this? Does this go to Supreme Court ultimately? Is it resolved in the lower courts? Is it resolved just by the SEC regulating it? Is it resolved by Congress passing a law? I don't think that would have ever happened just because Congress is so bad at passing any laws, any laws, period, unless they, particularly over controversial stuff because they can't make up their mind about anything. Demon says, thanks for the support, Demon. Demon says, here is to the mostly winning moment for Ripple against SEC. Yes, it is mostly. I hope we get more and more rational decisions in court and government thanks to covering it. It is a huge overstep that the government does. It is, but it isn't really. I mean, this is the problem. The real overstep is the regulation and control over finance, over raising capital, over stock, over ownership shares, over all these things. The question regarding tokens for crypto is relatively minor as compared to the evil of the SEC does by regulating every other single type of financial transaction. And of course, by giving kind of a split decision, it doesn't ultimately solve the issue. And on top of that, it opens up the door for the SEC to explicitly regulate this or for Congress to step in and pass laws. I mean, the reality is that over the medium term, or the short term, medium term, the government is not going to allow these exchanges and these pseudo securities to exist free of regulation. They're going to come in and they're going to acquire this one way or another. So while this is a small win, I think it's still a small win for crypto in the Ripple case. I think it's still a losing proposition. The government's just not going to allow it. Not going to allow it, all right. It cuts away, you know, so demon is saying it takes away a certain avenue of attack. Well, we'll see because you still got the Coinbase issue lawsuit, which is this very similar lawsuit wrapped up in a whole other stuff. So I'm not sure this is going to take away this particular angle against the SEC, against the regulations. We will see, but the SEC has easy ways to remedy this basically by passing regulations that clearly and unequivocally define tokens of securities and then it's over. And the SEC has the power to do that and it's somewhat surprising they haven't done it yet, but I expect them to do it ultimately. All right, let's see. So any time we can beat the SEC on something, that's cool. Be careful of being overly optimistic that this ruling represents some big shift and major shift. All right, a few other quick stories. Poland is heavily investing in nuclear power plants. You know, they're proving new small nuclear reactors, larger nuclear reactors. I think there was just an approval for one nuclear reactor in Poland, but there's a plan to build several of them over the next 10 years and to deploy small nuclear reactors by 2030. Poland, which is heavily coal-based and has a lot of coal mines, coal mines that it uses to export coal to Germany who is shutting down nuclear and uses coal as its backup when solar and wind don't work, which is often. Poland, which has all this coal mine, sees the future, knows what the future holds and is shifting dramatically, shifting to nuclear and investing heavily in it. And yesterday we talked about Poland's defense policy and their investment in the military and this is fantastic. It's great to see Poland in Eastern European country with a lot of problems, I think, from a liberty and freedom perspective. But on the issue of Russia, on the issue of Ukraine, Poland has been the best country in Europe by far. And when I traveled to Poland, what was amazing was it didn't matter who you talked to, Libertarians, conservatives, you know, people on the relative left, everybody supported Ukraine in the war against Russia. It was unequivocal. They all know, understand in a way that the American right evades the true cost of Russia winning, the true cost of appeasing Putin, the true evil that Russia here represents. They get it. They understand it. And on top of that, they also understand that if they're going to, you know, that they better be investing in the future of power, of energy, and the future of energy is not windmills and solar panels, particularly not in Poland and not in Germany, where the sun doesn't shine that often. And so Poland's heavily investing in nuclear and it's great to see countries do that. It's tragic and sad to see the United States not doing it. It's tragic and sad to see Germany doing the opposite. But at least, at least there are a few bright spots in Europe. And the beauty of this is even if the opposition wins in Poland, you know, because the current government is very conservative on social issues, even the opposition wins and Poland is a very split country over these issues, they will not retract either the military buildup or the nuclear power buildup. They are committed, the opposition is as committed to both of these as the main political party. This is kind of an interesting story that I don't know exactly what to make of, but it suggests, it's very suggestive of, I think, a reality that exists out there. And this is the case with Johnson & Johnson and I know it's kind of big pharma, big consumer products, big pharma, they do medications and stuff like that. Johnson & Johnson, one of those evil big pharma companies is suing doctors over studies that link Johnson & Johnson's products with cancer. And they're claiming that their studies are flawed, that the doctors know the studies are flawed, that the doctors are basically perpetuating this, testifying against Johnson & Johnson in lawsuits against them and that they are basically doing this in a fraudulent manner, that the published studies that they produced are just not true. This relates to talc powder, baby powder, and shower to shower products, right, all talc. And the claim is these products have asbestos in it and this asbestos is causing cancer. And Johnson & Johnson must be pretty confident in this because it is literally suing the doctors, saying that the findings in these medical studies are flawed, are wrong, that they cite each other, they haven't been willing to reveal the full data set, they haven't been willing to let other investigators look at the patients that they studied to figure out what exactly is going on. For example, Johnson & Johnson claimed that some of these patients that developed cancer had real exposure to asbestos, that is not linked to the powder that they're using. So there is a real battle here. On the one hand, you've got people saying, this is Johnson & Johnson trying to discredit the quote, science, and Johnson & Johnson saying, this isn't science, this is motivated by, I don't know who knows, the doctors wanting to make money off of expert opinion, the doctors antagonism towards the products of industrial society, it's hard to tell. But this one is going to be worth really watching because it's really interesting. It will be really interesting to see if some of these companies start fighting against and pushing back against some of the lawsuits against them for carcinogens or other stuff or all companies pushing back against the idea that they're causing global warming and should be penalized as a consequence and actually challenging the science in court actually saying, no, what they're using is not science, it's a distortion, they're in the wrong here. We're going to take them to court for fraud. So we will see an issue and a lawsuit, I think, worth following. Just a quick reminder, we do fund these shows with Super Chat and I don't know, maybe it's because I'm doing these earlier. Anyway, let me encourage you all to use the Super Chat to ask questions. But you can also use the Super Chat to just support the show. $5 from everybody who's watching right now would get us way over the top and that would help a lot to keep these shows going and to sustain these shows. So please consider using it. You can also ask a question for $2, $10, $20, $100, $50, whatever and that sustains the show. Thank you, David, for chipping in $5 on the stickers. Thank you, Volta, for doing two euros, I think. Finally, a story, well, not finally, I've got one other story after this. It's a carbon capture company in California. It's just raised $80 million. I mean, this carbon capture business is kind of cool for two things. One, the science is kind of cool. But secondly, it's kind of a scam in a sense that what the carbon capture people are basically building their revenue model on for the future is the idea that if they can sell carbon credits to companies who continue to emit carbon and offset the emission of carbon by buying credits from these companies. So you set up a company that sucks up CO2 from the atmosphere. It doesn't produce anything. It doesn't actually create anything. But companies that actually use, first of all, fuels get to pay you to keep functioning and they get credit for the fact that you've sucked the carbon out of there. It's quite a scam. I mean, it's a neat little project. Now, this company, interestingly enough, who do you think invested the $80 million? Well, the companies that are ultimately going to buy carbon credit from them. So the modern-day indulgences, I like that, Adam. Carbon credits are modern-day indulgences, Adam says, and he's absolutely right. So who's invested in them? All companies. And JetBlue. And JetBlue know that the day is coming where they're going to have to buy carbon credits in order to offset all that fuel that they use and all their carbon they emit in flying us around. And so they are investing in a company that they can then buy credits from, probably at the discount or whatever. The cool thing about this particular technology is one of the byproducts of, supposedly, and I wonder if the technology actually works, but one of the byproducts of this is water. So you can imagine setting one of these up in a desert. And the first one, I think, is going to be set up in Bakersfield, California. And for every x tons of CO2, they suck up the air, they produce y tons of water. So you can imagine putting this in a bunch of towns and cities in desert environments and this being in these companies selling water as a revenue source in addition to selling indulgences. So it's kind of cool. You're going to see a lot more of these kind of companies being created, being invested in as companies realize that they're going to have to buy indulgences in order to survive in the future and companies realizing that they can create business models on making a profit off of these indulgences. Okay, finally, I just want to encourage you to read an article. I'll probably talk about this in a future show, but it just came out, I think, it came out yesterday in The Economist. I mean, this is the kind of article that we need to see more of and I wish there was some political energy around this, but of course there isn't. This is just economists and people talking about this. The title of the article is, the world is in the grip of a manufacturing delusion subtitle how to waste trillions of dollars. And it's basically about industrial planning and it's basically about the fact that the United States is committed now about $1 trillion, 5% of US GDP to industrial planning, that China is investing heavily in, quote, made in China. India is investing heavily in made in India. European Union is investing heavily in combating the subsidies that US has established with the $1 trillion that they're investing heavily. And basically we're getting trillions and trillions of dollars dedicated to a failed strategy, basically the whole West and this has been a theme of mine certainly since COVID, but even before COVID. The entire West wants to be, wants to be China. And we want to embrace Chinese methods and want to embrace Chinese governance, I think, ultimately. And even though the Chinese industrial planning model is a failure, everybody's convinced themselves that it is a success and everybody wants to be China and trying to mimic China. The reality is, the reality is that the United States is not rich because of manufacturing, will not become rich because of manufacturing and indeed is sucking, is reducing its wealth, is going to, you know, what do you call it, NICAP, it's actual growth engines in order to pretend, in order to virtue signal that, oh, we love manufacturing and manufacturing is important and we're going to subsidize manufacturing. And those subsidies are going to NICAP what actually makes America rich, which is, you know, service industries like chip design and other sophisticated industries that are considered, that are actually services and not manufacturing. All right, let's see. Thank you, David. Thank you, John. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Vadim. Really, really appreciate it. We're getting close to halfway to our target. So we've got a couple of $20 questions here. Lewis says, how do you respond to people that say Ukraine entering NATO is the same as Russia and Cuba and also that the U.S. is just as bad as Russia because of their conflicts in the Middle East? Well, I mean, the second question is more important than the first question, because the second question is the basis for the first. It's ridiculous. The United States is a free country. As corrupt and as bad and as horrible as American politics, as corrupt as as bad as our politicians are and the system of government that we have is as far removed as we are from capitalism, we are still, we still basically a free speech in this country. Russia does not. We basically have, you know, elections in this country that are fair and free, counted to what Donald Trump says. Russia does not. We have an independent media. Russia does not. We have entrepreneurs that don't need permission. Russia does not. Russia is an authoritarian, totalitarian country, autocratic country and therefore has no rights. Period. Has no legitimacy. Period. And there is no comparison, therefore, between the United States and Russia. Yes, in order to defend freedom, you can do a lot of things. In order to defend authoritarianism, you can't do anything legitimately. Nothing you do to defend authoritarianism is legitimate. It's not the case that every sovereign country is legit and every sovereign country is okay to do whatever is necessary to defend itself. It's not. Reality is it's not. Russia is a backward, authoritarian, anti-Western, anti-freedom, anti-liberty country. And therefore nothing it does is right. We have independent media. I mean, the very fact that I can be on here talking to you suggests that we have independent media. We have massive independent media. Even when the government tries to influence Twitter, we have 100 other sources of media that are not being influenced by the government at any given point in time. I mean, the lack of appreciation for what we have in this country is stunning, particularly in the right admiration for Orban's Hungary where there's zero independent media or Putin's Russia where there's zero independent media is truly stunning. So that's one. So that's why Russia Cuba is not the same thing. The other issue is that even when the United States invades countries illegitimately from the United States self-interest perspective, it invades authoritarian countries in order to bring them all freedom. And I don't think they should. Operation Iraqi freedom was illegitimate because it sacrificed the lives of Americans for the sake of Iraqi freedom. And Iraqi freedom just doesn't justify that. So Russia invades countries in order to make them totalitarian and authoritarian. Russia invaded Ukraine not to liberate it, not to free it, but to enslave it. America did not enslave Iraq. It didn't even impose its will on Iraq, sadly. And it certainly didn't steal Iraq's oil. America basically sacrificed its kids for the sake of some mythology around Iraqi democracy, which is tragic and horrific and disgusting and should have never happened. But to compare, you know, and look, Ayn Rand talked about this when she talked about Vietnam. She said, you know, the war in Vietnam is a horrific war. We should bring the, you know, we should end it and bring the troops home. We should have never gone. By the way, if we're there, we should win it first and then come home. But she never equated the United States with North Vietnam. She said the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese are evil. They're trying to impose communism on the rest of Vietnam. That is an evil goal. We shouldn't be there to sacrifice to prevent it from happening. But there's no moral equivalency between us fighting a war to prevent communism and them fighting a war to induce communism, which is exactly the position Ma Yulat Ba took. Ma Yulat Ba took, no, North Korea is in the right. America is in the wrong. North Korea are the good guys because they want communism and it's their country. No, they're still in the wrong even if it's their country. Anyway, it's a whole topic to discuss, but the bad guys, the central evil country, does not have any legitimate rights. It can pretend it does, but then it needs to be dealt with and Russia needs to be dealt with and invaded a free country. We don't have to go to war luckily for that country, but helping it arm itself so that they can go to war to defend themselves. Absolutely. Jennifer says, everything causes cancer now. It seems I find myself falling into crime wolf syndrome. It's so difficult to know what is correct regarding these issues. I agree. I agree completely. I do encourage everybody to read that book by Peter Atia that I recommended, Outlived, I think, something like that. It's very good in the way, and I'll do a book review of it, in the way it deals with this kind of science and the way it approaches it and the way it reviews it. So it has a certain level of objectivity that is really good. God, I suddenly feel sick, so bear with me because my stomach is suddenly not right. Michael says, why do you say Tom Woods is un-American? This is actually from yesterday and I delayed answering. You know what? So the reason I say it is for the reason I just gave, Tom Woods and that whole part of the libertarian movement basically think that America is as bad as Russia, that America is as bad as Iran, that America is no more Marvelous country than those countries are. And they also believe in a sense that we're worse than them. Every foreign policy problem out there in the world, every one of them, is ultimately America's fault. It is ultimately we caused it in one way or another and they have all kinds of convoluted, they go back to history. Iran's theocracy is our fault. Russia autocracy is our fault. Russia invading Ukraine is America's fault. Ukraine throwing out a Russian president and bringing in somebody more pro-Western. America did it. Everything that happens out there in the world is America's doing. I mean, the American government is unbelievably effective in manipulating the world, even though it's so ineffective inside the United States. They are dishonest, they are vaders and what it boils down to is they're fundamentally anti-American. I think Marie Wathbot was and this crop of kind of paleo-anarchist libertarians that's a weird combination, are definitely anti-American. Jacob says, send every last Ukrainian man-woman child to the front. You know, if that's what it takes to defend themselves? I mean, I come from Israel. We're during the war of independence in Israel. Every man, woman, and child basically went to the front to the extent that they could. They got a weapon, whatever weapon they could and they fought. As somebody who was a child during two wars and so his father go to war during those two wars and saw him fight on the front. Yeah, anybody who has self-esteem is going to stand up and fight for what they believe in. In justice and against a violent oppressor an initiator of force who wants to crush you and is not afraid and not worried about slaughtering men, women, and children who pose no threat to them. So I'm not, you know, Ukraine should defend itself any way it can. But absolutely it needs to defend itself against a horrific Russian invasion and to claim otherwise is what? We should just roll over every time a bully confronts us. We should just pretend to be dead. We should just let them rape and pillage our country. This is the kind of nonsense that some of you stand for? I mean, an ounce of self-esteem. Somebody, please, where is that self-esteem? Somewhere, out there. Michael says, why is courage is a much rarer attribute than intelligence? I don't know that that's true. I think courage requires integrity and integrity is a virtue that requires rationality and requires you understand your virtues and your values and why you have those values. It requires a lot of you. No one says, I missed the last few shows. It's good to catch up with this one live. Thank you, Noah. Thank you for the support, 20 euros. That helps a lot. Appreciate it. Lewis says, are we assisting a real nuclear renaissance? I think we're going to see a real nuclear renaissance because I think the more rational people in our culture and the more rational governments in our culture realize that it's the only way to move forward is through nuclear power. By the way, we're about $100 short of our goal, so I don't know, $2 from everybody, $3 from everybody, as a sticker would get us very close to that goal or actually surpass it. So yes, I think there's a lot of people interested in investing in nuclear, a lot of governments like the Polish government that are willing to invest in this or at least willing to allow private enterprise to go for boat ahead. The U.S. makes sounds as if it's pro-nuclear, but it doesn't look like the regulatory agencies are actually doing anything to actually promote this and actually move it forward. William says, cheers, you're on. Thank you for being the person who introduced me to Objectivism. My pleasure. It's why I do this. Part of why I do this is to introduce you guys to the life-giving, life-enhancing, life-flavishing ideas of Iron Man. Bois says, your AMA shows need new guests. Yeah, well, where are you? I mean, I have a lot of people who provide the shows $25 or more and who don't show up for the AMAs, for the video on the AMAs. So please, make an effort to show up, ask questions, participate. I have more $100, $250, $500 a month supporters. Almost none of them show up for the AMAs. So it really is for you to come and show up for those and ask questions and make an effort to come to the live shows. I think it's fun to be able to interact live, so hopefully we'll get some more new people doing it. All right. Thank you, everybody. Really, really appreciate it. Appreciate the support. You can still do a few stickers before we leave. Thank you, Antonio. I will be doing a show tomorrow at 3 p.m. We will see what the topic will be. It might be a roll-up of a few topics. I have to finish the Alex Epstein topics around free market environmentalism and I'll also do some other housekeeping topics that I need to wrap up. And then, of course, we'll have a full set of shows next week. The week after that, I travel again, but next week we should have a full set of shows, both morning shows and evening shows. So stay tuned. Stay tuned. Tomorrow, 3 p.m. East Coast time for Iran Book Show, free market environmentalism, part two, plus more. In the meantime, thank you, Kenny. Thank you, Catherine. And you can keep doing it even after I stop streaming. I really, really appreciate it. And nothing's happened with Fox News. They kind of keep telling me, yeah, yeah, we're interested. Yeah, yeah, we want to do a story. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We want to do stuff on Iron Man and then nothing happens. So I need to bug them again next week. It is kind of weirdly irresponsible of them. So maybe there's some conflict internally about doing this or not. I don't know. I don't know, but it is kind of strange. And I will be watching a lot of Tucker Carlson as he interviews these candidates because I'm learning a lot about the modern Republican Party, both the candidates and Tucker and his supporters from doing so. All right. Thanks, everybody. Don't forget to support the show. You want to bookshop.com slash support and Patreon. See you all tomorrow.