1:16 - Opening Exchanges and Context
2:18 - Reflections on Hong Kong's Constitution
3:21 - External Influences on Protests
5:39 - The Dangers of Ideological Resentment
9:19 - The Role of Propaganda
10:11 - Questioning China's Economic Policies
12:09 - Insights on Population and Birth Rates
19:32 - The Efficacy of Peaceful Protests
20:54 - The Morality of Violence in Change
24:09 - Universal Values vs. Cultural Perspectives
29:07 - The Challenge of Universal Truths
31:58 - The Nature of Communism and Property Rights
34:35 - Confronting the Nature of Government Control
38:18 - Strategies Against Violent Ideologies
40:28 - Promoting Freedom in Personal Life
45:31 - The State of Freedom in the U.S.
47:26 - The Dangers of Government Education
51:56 - Historical Context of Government Control
56:05 - Current State of Canadian Politics
57:58 - The Impact of Global Depopulation
1:03:57 - The Future of Freedom and Technology
1:11:16 - Closing Thoughts and Future Conversations
The interview featured an in-depth conversation with a notable documentary filmmaker and philosopher who provided insights into recent social and political events, focusing primarily on the situation in Hong Kong and its broader implications for freedom and governance. The discussion opened with reflections on the current political climate in Hong Kong, highlighting significant figures such as Martin Lee, the author of Hong Kong's constitution, and the impact of censorship and state control on freedom of speech. The filmmaker expressed concern for those who had suffered under the current regime, emphasizing the grave consequences of communist ideologies illustrated through historical atrocities.
A significant portion of the conversation explored the idea of external influence in protests, particularly addressing assertions that movements like those in Hong Kong could be manipulated by foreign entities. The filmmaker recounted personal experiences about how people in regions suffering under oppressive regimes often have a clearer understanding of the stakes involved, citing parallels with his documentary work in Poland. The filmmaker emphasized the urgency of resisting collectivist ideologies that promise "free" benefits while ultimately leading to severe societal harm, drawing attention to the dangers of resentment and coercion within these systems.
The tension between capitalism and socialism was raised when discussing China's economic policies, particularly the shift from strict socialism to integrating capitalist elements. The filmmaker noted the remarkable economic growth during this transition yet pointed out the accompanying existential crisis resulting from policies like the one-child policy, which has led to declining birth rates. He argued that while capitalist elements in China have driven innovation and productivity, the lack of basic freedoms and the looming threat of demographic collapse pose significant challenges.
The discussion then pivoted to the nature of protests and their effectiveness across different countries. The filmmaker shared anecdotes of peaceful protests in various contexts, including the Canadian trucker protests that contributed to the collapse of COVID mandates. He voiced the complex reality of whether meaningful change could result from peaceful demonstrations or if more dramatic actions were sometimes required to instigate lasting change. There was a deep exploration of how governments respond to citizen discontent, often resorting to violence or repression, and the ongoing struggle between freedom and authoritarian control.
A notable exchange addressed the complexities of universal values amid political struggles around the globe. The filmmaker acknowledged that what may be considered universal moral truths can be viewed differently based on cultural contexts. He emphasized the importance of recognizing and deconstructing the ideologies that lead to authoritarianism, suggesting that exposing the moral inconsistencies of oppositional beliefs could help reduce their allure. This segment of the conversation underscored the ongoing battle of ideals, where he articulated the need for consistent philosophical arguments against collectivism.
As the conversation drew to a close, the filmmaker touched on the corrupting influence of government involvement in education, arguing that the control of educational systems is inherently linked to the propagation of dangerous ideologies. He expressed concern over the indoctrination of children under state-run systems, suggesting that only by challenging and decentralizing education could there be a true path toward restoring individual freedoms.
Lastly, the filmmaker offered a diffuse sentiment regarding the current state of the U.S., framing it as a microcosm of global struggles for freedom, amidst calls for accountability and reform. There was a sense of cautious optimism regarding potential avenues for change and a belief in the resilience of individuals advocating for liberty. He concluded by asserting that, regardless of the challenges, documenting history and making philosophical arguments remain crucial to countering authoritarian tendencies—foreshadowing a potential resurgence of freedom movements in the future.Throughout, the exchange highlighted the interconnected nature of global politics, emphasizing the struggle for freedom as universally significant, regardless of geographical or cultural boundaries.
[0:10] Hello hello how you doing yeah all right and yourself uh well thank you well thank you nice to meet you all looks like a very smart crowd i'll have to up my game as high as possible, yeah how's the weather out there uh just the first glimmerings of fall i tried to use my levitation powers to keep the leaves on the trees no luck yet but you know i'm still working on it so it's a little brisk but not too bad how about you yeah uh there was a bit of rain here and wind but it's all cleared up now and it's actually perfect outside it's like uh 20 22 degrees celsius, very nice, uh so i guess i'll start i'm kind of like uh uh helping out with translation although i asked i just asked a number of people here and, most people here do not need a translation so we'll just kind of like uh.
[1:17] Maybe go over the finer points if there's a problem. Question I have immediately, you know, after watching this, is I didn't see any captions of the people that you talked to. And a lot of people that are not insiders don't know these people. So maybe you could explain who these people are, the ones that you had quotes from multiple times, not the people on the street, obviously. Who are these people and where are they now? What's happening with them? Yeah, I mean, it's not great. Martin Lee, of course, was the guy who wrote the Constitution of Hong Kong, you know, as the phrase goes, a gentleman and a scholar and a very honorable and reasonable man who put all of these ideas and arguments about transition and so on across in the late 90s, of course, handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China.
[2:18] And, you know, as the old saying goes, I think it was an ancient Roman general who said to philosophers, why are you quoting words to men with swords?
[2:29] And where the reason the pen or the sword and the fist hold sway, I mean, last I'd heard, he'd been arrested. And free speech is definitely being crippled in Hong Kong as the collectivism and the greed and the resentment flows over in this sort of communist mind virus. So now they're not doing very well. The fellow Puminder, who I did the television show with, he got ousted over the corner, not because directly of his conversation with me, but he got ousted from his TV show and is doing other things. And so, like, it's a sort of snapshot of time when I think some good ideas or powerful ideas came together and people got hit by the hammer blow of censorship and greed, resentment, and coercion.
[3:21] And, you know, that constellation has got just blown apart.
[3:29] Yeah, another thing is I mentioned to a British friend of mine that I'd be watching this film and he brought up an interesting point that the protesters have been manipulated also by outside forces like Soros, uh usa id alphabet soup agencies in the u.s uh what can you tell us about that what what is your take on that well you know the i've done a number of documentaries the two that moved me the most were of course the hong kong documentary and a documentary i did in poland for their anniversary where, gosh, you know, I mean, in the West and particularly in Canada, I've spent my entire adult life battling communism and battling socialism and battling this greed and resentment and ferocity of people who, they look at anybody who has more and they say, well, he only has more because he stole from me and he's an evil guy and we got to steal it back.
[4:44] And to be in Hong Kong where people really got it, the risks, the dangers, the 100 million people that communism slaughtered in the 20th century alone, they get the stakes. And of course, it was the same thing in Poland where people were marching in pride at their culture and their religion and their history. And Poland, of course, was one of the few places, as was the case with Hong Kong, where I could have meetups with people. I could have conversations with people without violence, without threats, without bomb threats, death threats. So those two places were just very powerful for me. And I think, and certainly with regards to, I mean, are they propagandized? I mean, everybody is to some degree, but I would say that they have a clearer view of the dangers of this incredibly toxic and murderous ideology.
[5:40] It puts organized trying to shame because when this kind of ideology gets a hold as you guys know from the holodomor and from the gulag archipelago and all of these slaughters the lives of hundreds of millions of people lie in in the balance as to how well and effectively we can counter this mind poison because you know there's always this thing in in the west in particular, where they say, oh, your beliefs are going to lead to real-world harm. Boy, you know, it's just so dangerous. You have these ideas, these arguments, and what if people somehow misconstrue what you're saying, and they're violent? And it's like, but communism is 100 million. That's two and a half World War II. It's like 100 million people murdered, not even the counting the people that tortured and separated and who had to flee and incarcerated unjustly for decades and so on, like the amount of human misery is beyond calculation, absolutely beyond calculation. And yet, you know, I put out a particular argument and I was like, who could lead to real world harm? So, you know, they do get it because, of course, a lot of them, and I talked to some of them in the documentary, a lot of people still have family in China. A lot of people like the fellow that I talked to on the street who had escaped as a child from communist China, they know what the stakes are.
[7:02] And it is, of course, incredibly frustrating to see that it looks like humanity might have to learn this lesson once more, which is if you allow resentment and rage and the demons of our dark natures to take you over, it's like the devil always offers you something for free and then takes your soul. And communism will always offer you something for free and then take your soul and often quite literally your life itself. They'll say, oh, that guy with all the land, yeah, he cheated and stole from you and he exploited you and we'll take his land and we'll give it to you. Oh, look, we got something for free. And I don't know why it is that people seem to need to keep to learn this lesson. You get something for free. It's not for free. It's usually at the point of a gun to someone else. You get something for free. You won't enjoy it. It won't do you any good. And it will destroy your entire society. And we can see this happening in the West as a whole. We had the money printing, the welfare state, the warfare state, massive national debts. Everybody's been voting for lots of free stuff. And now it's being turned against other people and.
[8:11] Awful, appalling, terrible things are happening because the price of what you consider to be free always gets extracted. And this is, of course, what Satan does and offers you something for free. And you think it's going to be great, it turns into absolute crap, and you're miserable, and there's no turning back. You know, it's the old thing saying about communism, you can vote your way in, but you're going to have to shoot your way out if you're lucky.
[8:34] So yeah, I certainly understand that there's propaganda, you know, looking around the room, I mean, just the white males, for whatever particular reason, whether it's culture or history or philosophy or some peculiar alchemy of the mind, we as white males tend to be the most pro-free speech. We tend to be the most individualistic of the cultures, and we tend to be the most skeptical of collectivism and central planning and so on. So we're just in the way. And this is why you see all of this fomented hatred against, in particular, white males. And we are just that which stands between the demons of collectivism and the prey that they seek.
[9:19] And therefore, we are the most opposed as a whole. So, yeah, I mean, I think there certainly is a lot of propaganda for sure, but not all propaganda is equal, right? I mean, people who get really enthusiastic about property rights and free speech and individualism and so on, maybe they've been propagandized into it, but it's still the right recipe, so to speak. And so I would rather have a doctor who didn't know what he was doing give me the right medicine than a doctor who didn't know what he was doing get me killed. So, yeah, I think there's propaganda on both sides, but the property rights.
[9:57] Self-ownership, individualism, universal morality, these are all philosophically defensible in a way that the demonic nature of communism is not.
[10:12] Yeah, we have a question from the back of the room. It's always the people in the back, isn't it? Yes, always the troublemakers in the back. So essentially, I want to ask you your opinion on the Chinese economic policy. So, as you probably know, China had the very socialist policy until later. And obviously, they adopted some aspects of capitalism afterwards. I wanted to know whether you think that's a good thing, whether it be a force or something else. I will have to repeat that. I mostly got murmurings. Can you hear me? Why don't you use mine? Can you hear me now? Much better, thank you. Okay. So, my question is, China had a socialist economic policy until 1989. Obviously, they adopted some aspects of capitalism afterwards. My question is whether you think it made it better or worse in some kind of way.
[11:21] Yeah, certainly the economic gains in China have been remarkable. I mean, back in the days of Mao, you had $500 a year of the income for people as a whole. And I remember being in China as a businessman in the year 2000. And I remember going to these markets that were flourishing. I remember you had to haggle with a calculator, right, because we didn't speak each other's language. So you just punch in a number in a calculator and they punch in their number. And I remember just being the most immense array of goods and services available. I mean, the Chinese as a whole, the East Asians, remarkably ingenious and intelligent and practical group of people.
[12:10] And they have done amazing things with regards to their productivity in the free market. And there are many ways in which the Chinese market is far more free than the market in the West. China doesn't have to worry as much about diversity quotas and all of these kinds of anti-productivity ideologies so they can get a lot done very efficiently.
[12:35] But the problem of course with china was that they were terrified of overpopulation as you know the sort of one child policy that came in now they loosened it up i think about 20 years ago to two children i think they've removed it completely now but their population um is in freefall as it is of course in a lot of places of poland here in canada of course in the u.s i think the worst of as South Korea, which will basically be non-existent in less than a century if current trends continue. So with China, they have not found any way, and nobody has any particularly good way, of turning around the catastrophic drop in birth rates. Now, I say catastrophic somewhat advisedly because I, of course, in my history of doing my philosophy show, people are constantly saying to me, ah, yes, but there's too many people in the world. And I'm like, well, there aren't too many smart people in the world. We're not overflowing with an abundance of intelligent people. And so the problem is, of course, that intelligent people find a lot of very interesting things to do rather than raise children. And of course, we can see that the bottom quintile tends to have more children than the most intelligent, which I think is a betrayal of humanity that almost can't be over-exaggerated. So they're having trouble turning around their birthright. Now, I personally.
[14:00] I don't particularly care about a falling birth rate because that self-corrects. It should. In a free market, it will self-correct because a falling birth rate means that everything gets cheaper. Housing gets cheaper because the demand for houses goes down. Land gets cheaper because there's fewer people who are bidding on that land. So as the price of everything goes down, then the birth rate will simply go back up. The problem is, of course, when you have a falling birth rate with mass immigration, then you have a problem because the price of everything is insane.
[14:32] It's truly demented how much everything costs in these situations. So when you don't have a free market, in other words, when mass immigration is largely inflicted on the domestic population, the price of everything remains high and the incentives to have children remain low. So when it comes to AI and automation and so on, we just don't need as many people. I mean, in America, 120 years ago, 90% of people were involved in farming. Now it's 2%. So if you look at the population needed to run the farms and produce food, we produce more food or America produces more food with 2% of the people that it used to have. And so with AI, with robots, with all of these things that enhance people's productivity, we just don't need as many people. I don't particularly care about the falling birth rate, but it is tough in particular because, and we can see this in Japan enormously, and in China to some degree, although Japan much more so, is that all the people who didn't have kids, well, they still want their pensions, and they still want their healthcare, and they still want their subsidized housing, and they still want their dental care. And so they just haven't had enough kids, neither have they saved enough money to take care of themselves.
[15:51] In their old age. So governments have really turned to mass immigration to prop up the value of the housing that the boomers have. And so that they believe that they become wealthy because their houses have increased in value, although relative to Bitcoin and gold, they haven't really. So China is fairly doomed as far as that goes. And this is, I think, why they're putting so much into automation and so on. So in many ways, it's free. You say, oh, well, there's no particular free speech in China. Well, I mean, I don't know that there's any particular free speech in the West anyway. I mean, you have the American government colluding with social media companies to suppress people. You have Obama opened up, I think, around 2013, he opened up the right for the government to propagandize its local citizens. So there's so many topics, as I found out, that there's so many topics that you can't talk about in the West without massive reprisals, some governmental, some government-adjacent, and some non-governmental, but heavily propagandized.
[16:55] So although the government is called communist and so on, in many ways, there is significant aspects of the free market that are available in China that aren't particularly available in the West. And yeah, there's things you can't talk about in China, but there's also things you can't practically talk about. Because there's the rights you have in theory, and then there's the rights you have in practice. And although in America, there's a First Amendment, which guarantees the right of free speech, it tends to get circumvented in many different ways, including from the softer aspects of deplatforming to the media whipping up a frenzy against you so that people attack your public speech venues to all kinds of problems that people have. Even though you, quote, have the legal right, your practical rights or heavily circumscribed. And I think that the rest of the world is learning from the examples of the West that if you let the woke stuff go completely crazy, which generally comes in through government schools, then that is the result. So we are like that uncle who just smokes and eats too badly and never exercises and then coughs out his lungs at the age of 60. It's like, oh, let's not do that. And I think that other people or other cultures are learning from the rather tragic example, which, of course, Eastern Europe is also learning from with regards to what's happening in Western Europe as well. So I hope that's somewhat of an answer to the question. It was a fairly broad...
[18:25] Excuse me, so you can see me.
[18:30] First of all, thank you for your work. That was a great insight into the history of protests of Hong Kong. What caught my mind was how you stressed that protests being peaceful and everything like that. And coming from Eastern Europe, as you mentioned, I've been watching those that there was a lot of protest uh there were also protests uh which were peaceful especially probably you've seen the situation belarus where the protest like immense amount of people went into the streets to protest the government they will they've been so moral so peaceful, uh not harming anyone and so many stories like that and i've seen that none of them worked actually. And do you have any takeaway from this story? Do you still believe that the protest, that it's so important, so protest should be peaceful? And so I hope I just explained the question good.
[19:32] No, it is the very big question of how change is enacted.
[19:39] So So there has been an example of a peaceful protest here in Canada that did some enormous good, which was the truckers' convoy protest against the restrictions of supposedly constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in Canada. And the trucker protest was, I mean, the Emergencies Act was invoked, and people lost their bank accounts, and there was a lot of what I would consider not ideal legal responses. However, the COVID mandates collapsed very quickly after that. There is a significant show of noncompliance that can be quite important. The question is, of course, does it reverse things or does it just slow them down?
[20:22] And that is something for history to look at. Of course, some change has been violent throughout human history. Of course, the establishment of America was the result of a brutal uprising by British subjects against the British crown. and, of course, exceedingly violent and a lot of repression. And, you know, some of the founding fathers had to go hide in the woods for a year or two just to make it through alive. A lot of them were martyred and killed. And there was, of course, a lot of musket fire and cannon fire to gain liberties.
[20:54] If you look at something like the collapse of the Soviet Union, that was not a violent revolution. My particular goal as a philosopher is to work... Because, you know, the problem with the violent revolution is that people who are the best at violence end up running the show.
[21:12] And that's not necessarily the best people that you want to have in charge of society, the people who are really good at being violent. My goal, of course, is to work on long-term strategies, right? Violence is a short-term strategy that is often morally questionable. But the long-term strategy for me of promoting peaceful parenting, of promoting reason as a means of discourse, and also promoting the potential ostracism of people who are committed to violence. So the people who say the government should be a solution to everything, and we should pass the law. And if you don't agree with the way that I think the poor should be helped through the welfare state, I support you being dragged off to jail by armed people. So I personally wouldn't have anyone like that in my life. I don't like people in my life. I don't want people in my life who counsel violence against me for disagreeing with them, just as, you know, if they think that, you know, Bob, the politician, is the very best guy to handle poverty, they can absolutely send all their money to him by voluntary means, and I would never oppose them for that. But if I have a different idea about how to help the poor, and they think that I should be dragged off to jail for having different ideas or opinions, that form of ostracism is very powerful. And, of course, we saw that prove quite well in the COVID.
[22:34] Mandates and so on, that in very few places where the vaccines, say, or masking and so on, social distancing, they were not usually enforced through law, particularly vaccines, but they were enforced through ostracism. People said, well, if you don't get vaccinated, you can't come to the family dinner and you can't go visit grandma in the old age home and you can't do this and you can't do that. And people kind of fell in line for that. And if that can be used for something as fairly tyrannical as that, maybe those same social mechanisms can be used to promote peace and reason and liberty. But so, yeah, I mean, I'm not a violence guy. I don't advocate for it, except, you know, if you're an extremity of self-defense, absolutely. But I'm not a violence guy. And so I will do everything I can to try and have the change that's needed in the world be as peaceful as possible. If that turns out to be impossible, then obviously it would go to other people who are in that realm and I would be very regretful but it's not my realm any more than a boxer is good at necessarily philosopher and philosophy I'm not necessarily the best at boxing.
[23:42] Stephen, are you ready to the sharp opinions not only questions but the opinions do you? I'm happy to roll with whatever you can I believe that what you were talking in the end of your film, in the last many minutes from the rooftop.
[24:09] It was like you were talking about from the standpoint of universal values, which you believe are universal. But the fact, as I understand, is that for politicians in different countries, such like China, such like Russia, the values are different. And when you address with this speech that you made for this imagined court.
[24:49] It was the appeal to these universal values. But the values are not universal. For that people in that country, everything is different. And, you know, when you were representing all this story of protests in Hong Kong, most people in this room were remembering the protests in their native country in Russia, where we had the same demonstrations with much less people, but still some of the people here participated in it, but we didn't succeed.
[25:42] And now we had to leave our country, And we have our country started the horrible war against its neighbor. And you know this...
[26:01] Shows us the approach that you proposed. You said in the first half of your film that Hong Kong is the example of the case when you can apply the Western social technologies and social institutions, and you will see how it will succeed. But after we had the end of the Soviet Union, and you know, you are talking about communism in theory. You didn't live in a communist country, but I lived 20 years of my life in the communist Soviet Union. And it was really exciting to live through this moment when it was broken, but then we couldn't do anything.
[27:07] We tried to change the country, but we received what we received. And I think that the problem is that you in the West, the Western thinkers, both from right and left, you believe that there are universal values and you apply this approach to the whole world. But this is a mistake. That's my opinion why things happen so badly in many parts of the world.
[27:47] That's a big question. First of all, I just wanted to compliment everyone on their English. I'm very glad that we don't have to switch to my Russian. I did have a roommate in college who taught me one phrase in Russian. I can't remember it now, but it was, bring me a beer, my friend will pay. That was the phrase that he learned. So I appreciate that because I'm terrible at foreign languages. So the question of universal values is a huge one. So you're absolutely right, of course, and it's almost a truism to say that many people believe different things. That's fine. Many people are bad at math. That doesn't mean that math is not objective. Many people are bad at science. Many people reject the scientific method and would rather cut open a goat to figure out the truth about the universe and tea leaves and mysticism and all kinds of foolish things. So the fact that people reject universal truths does not invalidate those universal truths. It just means that people are wrong. You know, there are some people, I'm sure there's, you know, probably not in this room, but there are some people who believe that the world is banana-shaped. Actually, just hands up if you, no, I don't think anyone here would do the Earth is banana-shaped. Oh, there's one. Okay, good, good. Excellent. You should curve your hand when you do that, like a banana.
[29:03] There you go. Beautiful. There's your screenshot. So people are mistaken.
[29:08] Now, the reason that I did that speech at the end of the documentary, was that even if people are wrong about their basic moral suppositions, they still can be called on their own consistencies. So the reason why I made that case on the roof of Hong Kong was because the communists said to the British, you have to uphold your contract.
[29:37] To which the British would say, if they had any gumption or balls, frankly, the British would say, well, your entire society was founded on tearing up contracts. Who on earth are you to demand that anybody else keep their contract? It's like the thief saying, well, you have to respect property rights, damn it. It's like, but everything you have is stolen. Why on earth would you claim that anybody else should respect property rights when you got everything you got by stealing? It's as silly as the man saying to his wife, yes, sir, you wanted to say? Sir, yes, you believe that they stole this property, but they don't believe that. They believe that this property was stolen from people some time ago. So this is your problem because you put your estimation on the facts, but they perceive these facts differently. They believe that they took this property from people who stole it before.
[30:42] I absolutely understand that. And then you would say, is the forcible transfer of property theft? Now, they say, of course, that all the hands who have touched the land are the ones who actually own the land, right? That all the people who work on the land are the ones who own the land. The capitalists stole it from them and we're stealing it back right to which the british would say well the people in hong kong have worked that land and they own those properties they built those buildings so even by your own communist logic there are the workers there and they should get to keep uh their land now of course i understand the the communists say everyone who's accumulated any capital is a thief to which you would say okay so anybody.
[31:28] Who takes property away from the control of the workers is a thief, in which case we would say that the communist governments all around the world have taken property out of control of the workers and centralized it in the government, in which case it's far worse than capitalism because at least the workers have a chance to be capitalists and can move into management, but you can't go and become the head of the communist party if you're an average worker. So we would simply, it's a judo style. Is it perfect?
[31:58] No, but what it does is it reduces the legitimacy of the belief. So I did a debate with a number of communists some years ago, and in the debate, you know, they said, well, we're for the working class and so on. And they also cheered on my de-platforming from various social media platforms and so on. And I said, I won't swear here, but I said, you're the worst effing communists I've ever heard of because you are literally siding with multinational giant corporations against me, a working class guy who got his way to the top of the intellectual field. So you're siding with the corporations against a working class guy. And what that does is it means that they're not interested in anything but power, right? Because I'm anti-communist, they support multinational corporations harming my sort of homesteaded property rights with regards to my various channels on social media. So it simply means that they're not interested in the working class.
[32:55] They're interested in power. And to delegitimize the ideology is very important. So the communists say, we don't believe in property rights. It's like, well, then why are you as communists exercising property rights over the capital that you've seized? So you basically say that private ownership of property is bad, but public stealing and control through coercion of property is good, right? So they don't eliminate property rights by having the government seize the means of production.
[33:26] They centralize it even more than private corporations could. Because if, you know, three private corporations have a producing oil, they're in competition with each other. Therefore, there's some goal for efficiency and to be productive. But of course, if you have the government that seizes all of the oil production, they have no interest in being productive. They have no interest in serving the needs of the workers. So they can't say centralized control of the means of production is bad because they have centralized control of the means of production. Now, this doesn't wave a wand and move one bullet or one gun or one law or politician. But what it does is it delegitimizes the moral aspect of the argument. And if people see it as a naked grab for power, they are more skeptical of that. Whereas if they see it as the just redistribution of resources from the poor workers to the noble government, I mean, that's what gets people is the moral argument. If you can deflate the moral argument, right? And if they say, well, but the capitalists stole the means of production, it's like, so now you're stealing the means of production.
[34:35] Well, we represent the workers. Well, no, you don't. The workers.
[34:38] Didn't choose you as a violent uh overthrow of the prior government and you've torn up all the contracts that the workers had with the capitalists and you've torn up all the contracts that the workers had with each other about their plots of land and so on so you are perfectly willing to seize the means of production away from the workers because the workers had more influence in a capitalist society than they ever did in a communist society because the capitalists can't put them in gulags and can't you know kill them or starve them and the capitalists can't draft them in a war they don't have that that power so it's simply a way of saying that the communists of course don't care one bit about who controls the means of production they just want to grab control of social resources in order to impose their will get stuff for free and dominate and brutalize people so you know yeah go ahead you know um we we know uh very well what communists do and we know what this kind of regimes do and they just shift the facts and they do propaganda which doesn't deal with truth and you are trying to resonate to make arguments but you don't have to make arguments with the bandit and my final words will be Just give more weapons to Ukraine.
[36:06] That's what you can do now.
[36:09] And all of American politicians would better do this. This is my personal opinion and opinion of many Russians.
[36:22] Thank you. So, listen, I completely agree with you that there's no reasoning with a man committed to violence. You can't reason with a man committed to violence. You can either flee the situation or you can use coercion and self-defense. Perfectly legitimate.
[36:38] But the man who's committed to violence only gains power as a whole, If people believe that he's not just a violent, predatory dictator, right? So if he can infuse his lust for power and violence with a moral glow.
[36:58] Then, you know, like I'm not just seizing the means of production because I'm a power-hungry sociopath who wants to murder people, but if he's like, well, I'm taking it back on behalf of the poor workers that have been exploited. So, people, like, I guess morality is the lubrication for this kind of machinery. And if you take out the lubrication, the machinery will often grind to a halt. And so, when I debate communists, what is that? You know, was it a Finnish sniper who shot all the Soviets communists? And he said, well, gosh, how did you feel about shooting so many human beings? He's like, I didn't shoot human beings, I shot communists.
[37:39] And so you don't reason with the people dedicated to violence, but what you're trying to do, at least for me, is you're trying to get the audience to that debate. Like, I would never debate a communist in private. But if it's a public debate, what I'm aiming to do is to peel the mask of benevolence off the communist and show the communist as the raw seeker of brutal coercive power over others. And that has people less tempted. You know, the devil usually appears as something kind of nice and sweet. And if you rip the mask off and people see like the smoky eyes, the horns, they smell the sulfur, they will recoil as best they can.
[38:18] I think it's the only chance to do it outside of violence, which I said is not my specialty, unless we're playing Fortnite. Anyway, that's a different story.
[38:28] Thank you. And I wonder if you know if there's any practical way of helping people in Hong Kong, and specifically, is there a way to invite some of those freedom fighters here in Montenegro or the free state of New Hampshire, or are they already locked in China for good?
[38:50] So, I want to make sure, Andy, how to help people who are fighting particularly for freedom? Yeah, it looks like they're kind of losing at least short term and they're in a dangerous situation. Can we bring them to our places with more libertarian-minded societies? Yeah i mean so i don't want to give you guys a whole resume here but before i did sort of this 20 years of the philosophy show that i've been doing i was involved in the software fields i did coding and i was director of marketing so this is going to sound all kinds of goofy but it's it's actually quite serious like if i were to sell you uh my miracle hair growth formula.
[39:37] You might be somewhat skeptical because you know there's quite a lot of shine up here right so if you want to sell something you have to manifest it first if you want to sell your exercise regime you have to be fit you have to be slender you maybe a couple of abs wouldn't hurt right if you want to um show people how you know your miracle cure means that you don't need to wear glasses, then you can't be wearing glasses. Like, you have to manifest in yourself whatever it is you're trying to sell to other people. So if you want to transmit the values of liberty, you have to be as free as possible in your own life first. Everybody wants to work on everybody else. Everybody wants to make the arguments and the PowerPoints and the presentations and so on, right?
[40:29] But you have to work on yourself first. You have to have something. Because, you know, we live in a fairly non-rational social environment, right? And so how is it that you get people to listen to you? Well, you have to have something that they want before they will listen to you. And if you don't have what people want, they won't listen to you. You can have all of the great arguments in the world. In the same way that if there's a fat guy trying to sell a diet book, he might have the best diet in the world, but no one's going to listen.
[41:00] And so what I've sort of aimed to do and what I've aimed to talk about is be as free as possible in your own life. Don't have corrupt people in your own life. Don't have people in your life who want you thrown in jail for disagreeing with them. Don't have abusive people in your life. Don't have, I don't know, even like relentlessly depressed people. Have the freedom in your own associations, have a life full of quality people who are enthusiastic about life and who are energetic and committed and be committed. You know, this is an old objectivist argument that in any conflict between two opposing belief systems, the most consistent tends to win.
[41:43] Now, I, for instance, and I made this argument many, many years ago, is that, as I mentioned, if people want you thrown in jail for disagreeing with them, what are they doing in your life? Why would you have people who want you thrown in jail where you might get raped or killed? Why would you want people like that in your life? So when people have a belief in truly freedom-based ideologies, it has to manifest in your own life. You have to be free in your own life. If you're saying to people, well, the welfare state is bad, okay? I think morally it's bad in terms of its effects, it's bad. Okay, so there are people who are going to want you thrown in jail for disagreeing with them, and why would you have them in your life? They're committed to their beliefs to the point where they want you thrown in jail.
[42:34] And you're not committed to your beliefs to the point where you won't have them in your life. So they just look more committed. And they are more committed.
[42:41] So now, of course, if you disagree with a certain government policy, I mean, you saw in the documentary when the tanks, in a sense, came along, I was out of there. I'm not going to run up again. I'm not a tank man, right?
[42:54] And so be as free in your personal life as possible. That gives you a certain energy and positivity. And people are like, wow, you know, like, wow, that guy really did lose weight. I wonder what he's doing, right? That guy really does have some happiness and energy and so on. I wonder what he's doing, you know? Like, I mean, just as a minor example, I talked about this parenting paradigm in conformance with the non-aggression principle. And so, you know, every now and then my daughter will come on the show and we'll make jokes and chat and answer questions and so on, because it's one thing to have the theory, but it's another thing to see the theory in practice. And so if you aim for maximum freedom in your own life, you're showing the value of what it is to be free and people will be interested in the same way that when my people see my relationship with my daughter, they're, you know, wow, that's really great. You know, she's in the, she's going to be 16 in a couple of months. So she's supposed to be in her big surly teenage years. And, you know, we still have a lot of fun and a lot of great times and all of that. So people say, wow, that's what I want.
[43:59] How did you get? And so in terms of helping people spread freedom, you have to maximize freedom in your own life and you have to take your beliefs really seriously, which if you're into individual freedom and other people want you thrown in jail for disagreeing with them, I wouldn't have them in my life because that's just saying I don't believe in my values particularly. I'm willing to still hang out with people who want violence used against me for disagreement. Like that's, you know, that's, that's not the way to go for sure.
[44:31] Anyone else i can't translate great questions by the way i'm sweating but mostly on the inside of my mouth so that's all right um during this movie you made uh you mentioned a few times the us in this situation and i don't remember exactly what you said but something maybe about indoctrination in schools and universities and other institutions and stuff uh i really would like to hear about the...
[45:06] Yeah, that's fine, I think. like to hear from you what are your thoughts about the US and the situation in the US. Because I think globally in the world, this is probably the most important country since it was the example for most of the nations, which actually incentivized many people into changing their lives completely.
[45:31] Moving to the US, for example, so many people from Russia who ran away from the totalitarian regimes, they manifested, they've been so successful on the US soil, thanks to the institutions and stuff. And sometimes it's painful to see the situation and the events going on in the US. And so then it feels more and more that we have nowhere else to run away from the totalitarian governments and stuff. And the situation is changing to the worst. This is my opinion. I would really like to hear your opinion on that. It would be really interesting insight from the knowledgeable person like you are.
[46:14] Yeah, I mean, it was chilly for a little while, I suppose. America for a while. Maybe now it's Argentina and the Millais. I mean, the thing is that when the totalitarian news begins to choke off free countries, a massive demand is created for the most intelligent creative and able people to find a haven and a country and again it could be any number of countries that are in the offing a country will open that up and and will give haven as a whole because you know intelligent productive creative people are such a lifeblood of the economy that we become very valuable commodities and countries will be in competition so i i genuinely believe that a place will open up Hopefully it won't be Mars because that's a long way to go, but a place will open up for people to be free as a whole. And whatever we can do to encourage that is, I think, a very positive aspect. Sorry, there was one, the first part of your question, if you could just give me a sentence on that again, it stuck my mind. Uh...
[47:15] I wanted you to elaborate or express your feeling on the situation, political situation in the U.S. Oh, the education. Yeah, education. Right, right.
[47:27] Yeah, so one of the most corrupting powers in the known universe is the universal education of children or miseducation of children.
[47:37] There is no human being who can handle the power of having a giant lever to change the minds, the evolving and developing minds of children. It is too great a power because children are defenseless. I mean, we adults, we can be skeptical. We can go to alternate sources. We can learn about history. We can say, bullshit, every time a politician opens his mouth. But children can't do that. children are, they imprint upon the ideas that are put in front of them, which is why every bad ideology in the known universe wants to imprint itself on children before they reach the age of critical reason and skepticism.
[48:17] So unfortunately, America was doomed in the mid to late 19th century when the government took over education. Because once the government is taking over education, then all the people with the worst ideas, they bypass debate with critical thinkers, and they go straight to the indoctrination of children. There's no escape from that. And the moment that you give the government the power to indoctrinate children, you create an incredibly fertile petri dish for bad ideas to replicate through imprinting on helpless and dependent children. And you know, it's actually interesting because one of the things that happened, it was sort of an unexpected side benefit of the COVID disasters, was that parents had children who had to stay home, and parents got to see.
[49:07] All of the crazy, crazy, crazy stuff that was being inflicted on their children. And parents were kind of horrified. You know, the kids are on Zoom, I guess, or they're doing, they're hearing, people are like, wait, then what? You know, you're white, you're bad for being white and all this kind of crazy stuff. And so parents were really, I think, quite shocked by this. And there's been quite a lot of pushback against this. But, you know.
[49:35] This is one of the reasons why education always needs to be decentralized, because parents are going to put their own perspectives on their children. They're going to put their own religions. They're going to put their own ideologies, perhaps, on their children. But then there's going to be competition for these different ideologies and philosophies and approaches to life in adulthood. But when you have a way to stamp on the tender and developing minds of children, the craziest stuff known to man, the craziest people will always want to do that. And they will, again, they'll sidestep and stay away from adults, and they will always be drawn towards indoctrinating children. And so there's only a certain amount that we can do while the government is still controlling education because, you know, they're making crazy people far quicker than we can make them sane. It's this conveyor belt, you know, constantly coming off the government school system. It's this conveyor belt of people who are fairly mentally shattered and, you know, in the Erie Besman of demoralized, right? They're demoralized, you know.
[50:45] And repairing all of those people is is a it's easier to break things and fix them as we all know right you can break a ming vase just by doing this but to make one is very complicated and you'd need a time machine i think at this point so once we understand that giving government the power to indoctrinate children will automatically make the worst ideologies be the most aggressive in getting access to children, and the children are helpless in the face of that. I mean, this is one of the things that Trump wants to get rid of the Department of Education. It was actually originally called the Department of Public Education until DOPE became recognized as not the best piece of marketing. But he wants to get rid of that because if the states are allowed to experiment with educational approaches, there's some level of competition for excellence. Whereas if there's just one central curriculum that everyone has to follow, it is a giant magnet for the worst thinkers known to man to get in and push that ideology or whatever crazy stuff they have going on, which is why communism tends to flourish in the least liberty, in the least free educational systems.
[51:57] Recently, I read a book by Frank Hodorov, which the name is The Root of Evil Taxes, and he bragged about it a lot. Basically, the whole book is about the 16th Amendment and the right the government took to actually tax everyone in the state. He says that that was actually the starting point for the whole situation with the government actually taking complete control when they've been able actually to finance whatever they want. The enforcement, the educational system, and so on and so forth. And after that, they've just been growing in power. So maybe when you're pointing out during some opposition rallies or something like that, that they're controlling the educational system and stuff like that, maybe Hodorov was right, and the root of the evil is the 16th Amendment. Maybe you can revert that and restore the order or something, I don't know, freedom. Well, I mean, in terms of practical consequences, yes, but the government took over education a generation or two before income tax came in, for the most part.
[53:16] And so, I mean, the income tax in general in the West came in to be able to extend the First World War so that more white Christians could kill each other. So the problem is, if you say, or if people as a whole say, the government is really by far the best way to educate our tender and helpless little children.
[53:39] Right the government that's the that's absolutely great i mean what what else are you going to say that the government is not good at are you going to say well the government is hugely responsible and wonderful and moral and ethical and great with the minds of our children but they're really bad at building roads or they're really bad at the welfare state or they're really bad at foreign policy or they're really bad at money printing or they're really bad at controlling the economy because you've already given your children to the government. Once you've given your children to the government, what can you say that the government does that is immoral?
[54:15] So once you've given kids over and you've said, well, you know, if we want kids to be educated, we've got to give them to the government because parents won't do it and private schools won't do it and people don't care. So the government is absolutely necessary for the education of our children. What are you supposed to say after that that the government is bad at? Because if the government is evil at other stuff, surely it will be evil in the education of children. So once that bridge is crossed, it's very hard to go back. And what are you going to say? Well, the government's really immoral here. It's like, but they're already educating the children. If the government is evil here, why wouldn't they be evil there? That's where evil would go first, is the education of children. So once you hand over your kids to the state, how is any parent, and this is a psychological thing, right? How is any parent going to say, well, there's deep moral questions regarding the state? It's like, you already gave them your kids.
[55:06] You already let them shape your children's entire world view are you really going to say well you know i've got some moral problems with this uh violation of the non- i mean it so once that bridge and that's that's the bridge after that bridge gets crossed and in every sort of fall of empire stuff i've ever studied it's you know within a couple of you know five seven generations of the government getting control of the education of kids well you can't go to parents and say well no, you see, the government is really immoral about this and the other. And they're like, but if that's true, it's sort of like if you have a babysitter who turns out to be a totally evil person, can you accept that? Like you gave your kids to the babysitter, like you're going to resist that as a whole and say, well, but the government can do good in this because I already gave my kids over. So yeah, it's in a sense the fallacy of Suncastle just being unable to look back and say, maybe I didn't do the right thing as a whole.
[56:05] Look at that. We've answered every conceivable question. This is magnificent. We've come to the very end, the very end of all questions. No, just kidding. Listen, I really appreciate you guys watching the documentary. I'm not saying I'm done, but you had something you wanted to mention, but I really do appreciate you guys digging up and watching the documentary. Go ahead. Yeah. What I'd like to hear more about is about what's going on in your country, Canada. You mentioned the trucker protest as a kind of a bright spot.
[56:35] Is there a light at the end of the tunnel, or is it looking like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better? Yeah, I mean, the momentum generally is things are not getting much better. I mean, they've had a snap election recently, and the medium-left, hard-left coalition is showing signs of weakness, but that's really just like an infighting in a crime gang or something like that. I don't view that as any particular progress. Yeah i mean i think in general you know my goal and i think the goal of all of us here is to try and get people to learn by sweet sweet reason you know here's the facts here's the evidence i can be an example here's the data here's you know the undeniable reality but you know a lot of people who are addicts don't learn by reason they only learn by hitting rock bottom they only learn through bitter experience and so you say all these things oh it's gonna end badly it's gonna end badly. And then maybe the addict who, you know, wakes up with a, you know, a dead book or in a ditch in Vegas, uh, he says, Oh yeah, you, you, you were right. And then maybe you have some credibility. So, I mean, certainly the goal as a whole is to get people to listen to reason. Uh, it doesn't like people, uh, it doesn't look like people are very keen to listen to reason.
[57:50] And, uh, therefore they're just going to have to learn according to, um, uh, bitter experience. And I wish it were different, but it's a free will thing.
[57:58] People can choose to listen to reason, or they're going to have to learn by experience.
[58:12] Anyone else have a question? Hi, Stefan. I have another question for you. What do you think how global depopulation will affect human rights around the world in many countries what vectors of development, in different countries will be what do you think about that sorry there was something about I didn't catch that the population and its effects on rights.
[58:48] Depopulation. Oh, depopulation. Yeah, population decreases and countries would have incentive to not let people exit the country, attract them in, but not let them out. What do you think about that? I mean, that's already a reality. A lot of countries have exit taxes, so that it's very hard to leave the country. So yeah, that certainly is an issue. Depopulation, again, you have to differentiate it, right? So South Korea, of course, has a very low replacement rate, but of course, the fertility rates in Africa are enormously high. You've got some places with sort of four and five kids per family and so on. So there is depopulation, sometimes in the most skilled areas and significant population growth and sometimes the least skilled areas as a whole you know the the big overview for me is that historically governments bribe citizens into compliance by printing and borrowing money right this is all the way back to the the corruption of the currency in ancient rome and ancient greece and of course before the french revolution the currency was corrupted so in general governments pretend to add value by borrowing and printing money.
[1:00:10] And then we all know what happens when governments run out of money. They go to war. Because people won't accept austerity in a time of peace, but they will accept austerity in a time of war. So in general, historically.
[1:00:24] Countries have gone to war when they run out of money. And they seem to be quite hell-bent on provoking internal conflict within their own countries at the moment when they are starting to run out of money. So the depopulation thing, normally when governments have what the communists cynically refer to as sort of the useless eaters, when governments have an excess population that they can't afford, they will bleed it off in terms of war.
[1:00:51] And other times it happens more naturally, or I guess recently not so naturally with pandemics and so on. But yeah, my concern is that governments seem to be quite keen on provoking conflicts within various factions within their own countries in order to deal with the fact that they can't pay their bills, right? You know the old thing that some guy who can't pay his bills just burns down his store and collects insurance, you know, this sort of very amoral way of gathering resources. So yeah, I think the concern is that it's a very dangerous thing to want things for, quote, free from the government because people tend to pay for that with their lives and not a small number of people. So it seems to be that governments seem to be quite keen on, and the media is doing a lot of this, provoking a lot of racial and gender-based and other forms of faction-based hostility and dehumanization of the other. And I guess my particular concern is that the provocation of internal conflicts can lead to some very bad things as a whole. And then governments get to say, well, of course, we can't pay the bills because of all of this conflict, and we're going to have to clamp down even more, and so on. So, I mean, in the long run, we were down to 10,000 people in the last ice age as a species. I'm not saying we should go back to that, but I don't view the population levels as particularly important, other than.
[1:02:14] When the governments can't pay their bills, they try to eliminate people. It's, you know, once we understand that to most of the people in charge of the world, we are just livestock and farmers call their livestock all the time. And, uh, you know, I guess you could say that the farmers care for their livestock, but only in terms of profitability, not in terms of, you know, actual rights in humanity. So once then I did this video many years ago called the story of your enslavement about like, you still look around the world, you don't see countries, you just see tax farms. And once we get that, we are mostly livestock to those in charge.
[1:02:50] What happens when there are too many sheep? Well, they culled in one form or another. And the traditional aspect was war. I think that the fifth generation warfare is to attack the birth rate, which is much more civilized. It's much more civilized to try to convince women to have careers, not children, than it is to mow people down with machine guns and mustard gas. So um the sort of fifth generation warfare of attack the womb rather than shoot the flesh of the adults uh is much more civilized brutal emotionally but much more civilized from a coercion standpoint so um yeah i i guess the provocation of internal conflict seems to be the business of many governments these days and it's uh it's quite tragic you know and we saw this under covid how people were very easily trained to uh hate uh people who made different choices regarding some pretty dicey medical interventions. And unfortunately, that was proven very well. And so they'll just keep ratcheting up the conflict. I mean, there's some people who just love sowing the seeds of conflict. They're kind of sadistic and enjoy watching the resulting infighting, sort of like cockfighting with people.
[1:03:57] So yeah, I don't view population as foundational. It's just a matter of whether people are willing to hate their fellow man if the rulers point at someone and say they're bad.
[1:04:15] Yes, it could possibly be a long question. In the 90s, when the Eastern Bloc falls, and democracies rise in ex-Soviet, ex-socialistic countries, in the world we have a lot of hopes about a new free world. No interruption, no communism, no socialism. And in the 90s, We have a growth of the internet and a lot of talks about new freedom of speech without you can have your own opinion and anything and anything else. At this moment of human history, we have restoration of some regimes in Russia, for example, economical successes of authoritarian countries like China, Arabic countries, or even Singapore, which has.
[1:05:17] A lot of economic freedoms, but not human rights. So, meanwhile, in the West, we have a decrease of freedom for the glory of freedoms for right people. For people who laugh. You know, you have your own little communist comeback with funny socks and cute faces in your country and also new laws against freedom of speech like we have in Russia for 10 years. So at this point, we can.
[1:06:03] We can conclude that there are some negative trends. Yes, governments can use the internet and it's not an instrument of freedom of speech. Now it's an instrument for propaganda via big corps like Facebook or via state media or influencers like in Russia. And so, So what can break this trend, in your opinion? For example, if maybe in 50 years, so 50 in the world, we can achieve something like the spring of nations in the middle of the 19th century in Europe. Or maybe it's a start of a new history with strong governments who manipulate people via internet, control services via digitalization and control. So do you think it's a start of a long trend? Or maybe it's...
[1:07:12] Me too much pessimistic yeah i have to make this my last answer but i really do appreciate the questions great great questions so i'm not going to give you the entirely annoying answer that i'm a free will guy so i can't really predict the future uh but i am i'm free will guy so the best we can do is make the best arguments in the most engaging way that we can and you know cross your fingers that people will listen and i don't obviously i don't think anyone here would be particularly historical determinants. So that it's just a bunch of dominoes. People do have free will, although not everybody exercises it, of course. So for me, rather than try and figure out what are the inevitable trends, I'm like, it's sort of like saying, what are the inevitable trends of my weight gain? It's like, well, I just try and eat well and exercise and I'm sure it'll be mostly okay, right? So we do our very best to be honorable, to be decent, to be honest, to be courageous and to spread virtue as best we can. After that, really, it's out of our hands. You can say it's in God's hands, it's in people's free will, which is the mysterious alchemy of the mind. So it's out of our hands. With regards to the internet, it's huge net positive. I was incredibly fortunate to be around from 2005 when I started my show until 2016 when the platforming really began after, of course, Trump's election and after Brexit.
[1:08:38] So, you know, 11 years, which was the maximum free speech that human beings have ever experienced in the world ever. And what an amazing place to be. And we still are able to have these kinds of conversations, which is a huge plus. The amazing thing about the internet is this is a permanent inoculation for this ever happening again, ever.
[1:08:59] Because when people say, well, let's try this crazy thing, there'll be six million videos on the internet that have been preserved in pristine quality for people saying, no, no, no, no, we tried that. No, no, we did that. That's been done before. And so the internet now is storing and recording all of the batshit crazy things that people are saying, all of the results of bad policy. It's all being, shown and it's all being recorded and it's all perfectly going to manifest in the future not in like old timey chorts chorsa language or weird paintings from the 14th century but like in vivid like right there in your room vivid detail and it's not even going to need to be interpreted, it would be like if if you had video of all the deliberations of all the world leaders that led up to the first world war it'd be like okay well we know where this goes let's not do this again right and so when i view the internet right now they're like either we could save things that's not up to me or you it's up to the best we do the best we can and hopefully people will listen but what we can be sure of no matter what happens is that whatever trough we go into this ain't going to happen again it's not going to happen again because it's way too clear.
[1:10:12] The causes the manifestations the effects and it'd be like somebody saying hey let's bring back slavery. That's a done debate. I mean, obviously, it's manifested in different ways with taxes and so on, but people don't say, let's bring back slavery. People don't say, let's bring back Zeus and Hephaestus and Jupiter. These things are done and dusted. And all of the crazy stuff that's going on, the anti-rational, immoral, corrupt, and evil stuff that's going on is perfectly recorded, I guess like these videos, perfectly recorded for all time so people in the future if anybody says let's try this they'll be like you know here's 10 000 hours of video exactly why this is a bad idea and exactly how it turns out and um for for that it's it's worth it uh if this just has to be either this is the time that saves or it's a time that inoculates either way the value of the technology i think is beyond compare and without precedent in in history.
[1:11:16] Thank you very much. Thank you very much, guys. A real pleasure to meet you, and I really do appreciate. Your questions are just fantastic. It's a real honor to have the conversation, and I hope we can talk again sometime. Maybe we'll see you in Montenegro sometime. I would absolutely die to go to Eastern Europe. I had such a great time there last time, so I'm sure we'll be back. And you guys should check out the documentary on Poland. I think it was pretty good. Will do. Thanks, Imel, guys. Take care.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
