The End The End The End The End The End I mean, you're listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm Poo. You were going to say good evening. You're on the air, weren't you? Yeah. Oh boy. Lots of air. And I'm William Cooper. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. English Republicans, who themselves had been deeply influenced by Aristotle, Cicero, and Machiavelli. Jefferson saw to it that Locke and Sidney would be required reading at the University of Virginia for, as he said, as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government, and of Sidney, in his discourses on government, may be considered as those generally approved by your fellow citizens of this and the United States. Relying on Locke to deny any governmental right to be absolutely arbitrary, Samuel Adams related, quote, Like the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, written by George Mason, contains specific phrases from Locke as well as from Cato's letters. The same philosophers appeared in the last will and testament of Josiah Quincy, Jr., who left, quote, To my son, when he shall arrive to the age of fifteen years, Algernon, Sidney's works, John Locke's works, and Cato's letters, may the spirit of liberty rest upon him, end quote. There are no fathers who leave such admonitions in their wills, nor such bequeathments to their sons today. But to sum it up, the two categorical imperatives of the Second Amendment, that a militia of the body of the people is necessary to guarantee a free state, and that all of the people, all of the time, not just when called for organized militia duty, have a right to keep arms. Derived from the classical philosophical texts concerning the experiences of ancient Greece and Rome and 17th century England, Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, and the English Whigs provided an armed populace with the philosophical vindication to counter-oppression, which found expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. In this sense, the people's right to have their own arms was based on the philosophical and political writings of the greatest intellectuals of the past two thousand years. William Jefferson Clinton doesn't hold a candle to such men. Am een eraarnent vol Gl in general, and of the Second Amendment in particular. Furthermore, an understanding of the authoritarian absolutism of Plato, Bowdoin, Hobbes, and Filmer is as necessary as an understanding of classical libertarian republicanism in order to know what America's founders rejected as well as what they accepted. Those who drafted and supported the Bill of Rights followed the libertarian tradition of Aristotle, Cicero, and Sidney, and they rejected soundly the authoritarian, if not totalitarian tradition of Plato, Caesar, and Filmer. These two basic traditions in political philosophy have consistently enunciated opposing approaches to the question of people and arms, with the authoritarians rejecting the idea of an armed populace in favor of a helpless and obedient populace, and the libertarian republicans accepting the armed populace and limiting the government by the consent of that armed populace. Socrates, in the Republic, Plato provided a comprehensive analysis of the social and political consequences of individual ownership of arms versus a state monopoly of arms. To refute the definition of justice as fulfilling promises and paying debts, Socrates suggested, in a counterexample, that one ought not to return a deposit of arms or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses, and yet a deposit cannot be denied to be a debt. Since the return should not be made to one not in his right mind, repayment of a debt was not necessarily justice because, as he put it, and I quote, a friend ought always to do good to a friend and never evil, end quote. By implication, individual possession of weapons by sane individuals was ethically acceptable to Socrates. Yet Socrates' own definition of justice as the fulfillment of one's proper function, at least as propounded by the more conservative Plato, rejected as degenerate the egalitarian democracy that an armed populace would predictably instate. An essential element of Plato's explanation of political transformation in the Republic related to the tendencies of the unjust state to win privilege through armed force and of the armed multitude to abolish the unjust state in question. According to Plato, oligarchy arises when privilege based on wealth is fixed by statute. As he put it, quote, this measure is carried through by armed force unless they have already set up their constitution by terrorism, end quote. The abuse resulting from the state monopoly of violence leads to a disunited state wherein the rich and poor continuously plot against each other. If a war with outside forces arises, the oligarchs are faced with the following dilemma. Either they must call out the common people or not. If they do, they will have more to fear from the armed multitude than from the enemy. And if they do not, in the day of battle, these oligarchs will find themselves only too literally a government of the few. The development of an oligarchy into a democracy requires that the common people be armed. Former members of the ruling class who lose their wealth and power long for a revolution. These drones are armed and can sting. Finally, whether by force of arms or because the other party is terrorized into giving way, the poor majority overcomes and establishes a democracy which grants the people an equal share in civil rights and government. Liberty and free speech are rife everywhere. Anyone is allowed to do what he likes. Plato did not like such a possibility. While Plato attacks democracy for exhibiting characteristics which today would be considered laudable, some of his remarks are nevertheless directed against a social order that retains political inequality that therefore cannot be considered a complete democracy. That's why he called his writing the republic. Thus, after the old oligarchy is replaced by society progressing towards democracy, a strong leader arises who quote, begins stirring up one war after another in order that the people may feel their need of a leader and also be so impoverished by taxation that they will be forced to think of nothing but winning their daily bread instead of plotting against him. End quote. Sound familiar? Finally, the despot wins complete victory by reestablishing the state monopoly of arms. And as mentioned earlier, is usually accomplished through terrorism, political terrorism. And he says, quote, then, to be sure, the people will learn what sort of a creature it has bred and nursed to greatness in its bosom until now the child is too strong for the parent to drive out. Do you mean that the despot will dare to lay hands on this father of his and beat him if he resists? Yes, when once he has disarmed him. End quote. While Plato portrays tyranny as the ultimate degeneration of the state, his ideal state, the reign of the philosopher king, where have you heard that before, actually resembles tyranny. Both despotism and the ideal monarchy involve rule by one person with the only difference being the alleged good intentions of the ideal monarch. a dubious check on despotism. Plato himself suggested that a young educated despot may become the philosopher king. After attacking the democratic ideal, where one man is traitor, legislator, and warrior all in one, Plato devised a normative social structure with ruling philosophers at the top, the soldier auxiliaries in the middle, and the working masses at the very bottom. This pyramid sets the royal elite over the professional warriors and requires the inferior multitude to, quote, mind their own business, end quote. The stage is thereby set for a tyranny, having monopolized the means of force to exploit the majority. Plato's practical proposals for totalitarianism are set forth in the laws, which anticipates a state of just over 5,000 citizens plus numerous slaves, while at one point designating warriors as a specialized class, Plato elsewhere anticipates that the director of children and other instructors will discipline all girls, boys, women, and men with compulsory military exercises. You see, nothing under the sun has ever changed. world. In discussing the phyric war dance pancration, which was fighting with hands and feet, and armed contests, Plato would mandate that the techniques of fighting are skills which all citizens, male and female, must take care to acquire. While the possession by the citizens of martial skills would suggest a mode for some form of popular control, the overwhelming power of the guardians of the laws would provide for state domination over every aspect of life. Unlike Aristotle, Plato nowhere hints that the citizens would have their own arms. Instead, arms seemed to be placed in the citizens' hands only for the temporary purpose of military exercise once per month. So while failing to foresee that martial arts learned by the citizens may contribute to the protection of popular liberty, the laws insist that freedom from control must be uncompromisingly eliminated from the life of all men. Quote, by following the militarist examples of Sparta and Crete rather than the freer civilizations of Athens, Plato hopes that no one, man or woman, must ever be left without someone in charge of him. Nobody must get into the habit of acting above and independently, either in sham fighting or the real thing. And in peace and war alike, we must give our constant attention and obedience to our leader. end quote. So rather than use their arms to protect their interests against the despotism, the people may use their arms solely at the state's command. everyone is to have the same friends and enemies as the state. In some, in the laws, as in the republic, Plato advocates an authoritarian state wherein arms and people function solely as grist for the ruling elite. in the politics, Aristotle critically analyzes the elitist authoritarian regime advocated by Plato. As opposed to the strict division between rulers, warriors, and workers in the Socratic dialogue, Aristotle's concept of polity included a large middle class in which each citizen fulfilled all three functions of self-legislation, arms-bearing, and working. According to Aristotle, who is known as the father of reason, quote, there are many things which Socrates left undetermined. Are farmers and craftsmen to have no share in government? Are they, or are they not to possess arms? End quote. And in accord with his broad philosophical ideal of the golden mean, Aristotle expresses a very keen awareness of the true basis of political equality. Quote, the whole constitutional setup is intended to be neither democracy nor oligarchy, but midway between the two, what is sometimes called polity, the members of which are those who bear arms. End quote. The members of which are those who bear arms. Aristotle proceeded to attack again the constitution of Plato's laws because despite its suffrage, it was oligarchical and one of its salient features was a disarmed populace. Aristotle found the monopolization of arms bearing in the hands of one class to be an objectionable feature of the best state advocated by Hippodamus. Quote, Hippodamus planned a city with a population of 10,000 divided into three parts, one of skilled workers, one of agriculturalists and a third to bear arms and secure defense. End quote. The legal restriction of arms bearing to a given class entrusted with defense would lead to oppression by that class. And he said, quote, the farmers have no arms. The workers have neither land nor arms. This makes them virtually the servants of those who do possess arms. In these circumstances, the equal sharing of offices and honors become an impossibility end quote. The possession of arms, according to Aristotle, is a requisite for true citizenship and participation in the polity. But since those who possess arms must be superior in power to both of the other sections, the constitution proposed by Hippodamus would breed inequality and discontent. In analyzing the elucid concept of the constitutional kingship, Aristotle commented on its opposite, tyranny, which was founded on a professional standing army. Thus, a king's bodyguard is composed of citizens carrying arms, a tyrant of foreign mercenaries, an all-volunteer force, paid and promised a handsome retirement. The citizens protect the king, but they need protection from the tyrant. Even the armed force of the monarch must not be strong enough to overpower the whole population. Aristotle was a very smart man. Since all true citizens possess arms, the arms bearers are not limited to those who defend the state in war. Just after referring to the class which will defend in time of war, Aristotle declares that it is quite normal for the same persons to be found bearing arms and tilling the soil. By contrast, oligarchical devices exist in regulations made about carrying arms to the effect that it is lawful for the poor not to possess arms. The rich are fine if they do not have them. Since arms were essential to the polity for full participation in principal citizenship ought to be reserved for those who can afford to carry arms, rights. Yet, Aristotle immediately went on to recognize the ill treatment of the poor that would result from such a property qualification. You see, the poor do not have the requisite wealth in order to always be able to afford to bear arms. in a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms which are not supplied or owned by the state. As Plato had perceived in the Republic, Aristotle also saw that a prerequisite to the transition from an oligarchy to a popular constitution is the arming of the people who would overpower the oligarch's troops. Furthermore, tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people. Hence, they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny. War, taxation, and public works keep the people poor and preoccupied, perpetuating the power of the tyrant. It is also in the interest of a tyrant to keep his subjects poor so that they may not be able to afford the cost of protecting themselves by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no time for rebellion. While recognizing the political implications of material factors, including territory and military technology, Aristotle contended that conditions promoting the use of cavalry and hoplites would result in oligarchy because of the high costs of horses and heavy armor. But the light-armed infantry and service in ships are democratic, and so in practice, wherever these form a large proportion of the population, the oligarchs, if there is a struggle, fight at a disadvantage. The possession of light-arms by the people allows them to overcome oligarchy. Quote, it is by the use of light infantry in civil wars that the masses get the better of the rich. Their mobility and light equipment give them an advantage over cavalry and the heavy-armed. End quote.非常 stable en Um, UCSD, далее, radio, number 1, Sandy &isiónOWN hiding The End The End The End The End The priests of the hidden mystery religion of ancient Babylon Rome Assyria etc. They are in control today and many of you have been looking for many years to find the enemy that is destroying this country because what is happening here makes no sense. It must be being brought about from something from without. Isn't that the way the thought usually arises? But you should by now be discovering that you are wrong. All that is happening is coming from within. It is a concerted effort to build a new order, a new world order, if you will, upon the ashes of the old. And the only thing really standing in their way at this point is the fact that American citizens still keep and bear arms and adamantly refuse to surrender them. There is only one avenue left for those who would bring about their new totalitarian socialist order, and that is to create a state of utter chaos so that most people unsuspecting in their naivet and in their ignorance will get up on their knees and beg, beg for order. Ordo ab cao. Out of chaos comes order. They will accept whatever order is instituted if that will return security faults, though it may be, to their lives. Only those who are thoroughly prepared will be able to fight the coming battle, persevere, and prevail. And one of the methods of being prepared and persevering and prevailing is to go back to constitutional money, real money, lawful money, the only money that throughout the history of the world has never, ever failed. The only way to protect the sweat of your brow, the assets that you have labored so long and so hard to acquire, is through the use, through the acquisition, and through the preservation and storage of real money. Swiss America Trading can provide that for you. 1-800-289-2646 1-800-BUY-COIN Do it now, folks. You'll be so glad that you did. A great weight will come off of your shoulders. Look around at your loved ones. If you cannot right now absolutely assure them that you have taken care of any possibility of an economic collapse, and you have taken the necessary steps to protect what you have, then you must make this call. If you have not taken those steps, you must make this call. 1-800-BUY-COIN If you do not make this call, then truly, you do not love them. work you like, with your fork. You must take care or who can create a issue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I quote Aristotle, For those who possess and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the Constitution is to continue or not. End quote. Pretty heavy, isn't it? But if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll see that our founding fathers said exactly the same thing. And that's the way that they intended it. So that if government became oppressive or became a tyrant, that people could dissolve such government and institute a government of their choosing. Because no free man submits to a tyrant, and since rule without consent is neither rightful nor legal, Aristotle deemed arms possession a requisite to obtain or to maintain the status of being a free man and citizen. Without arms. In tyranny, Pisastratus hired soldiers and returned. And Aristotle describes it thusly, quote, Winning the battle of Polinus, he seized the government and disarmed the people. And now he held the tyranny firmly. And he took Noxos, an appointed Lajdamas ruler. The way in which he disarmed the people was this. He held an armed muster at the temple of Theseus and began to hold an assembly. But he lowered his voice a little, and when they said they could not hear him, he told them to come up to the forecourt of the Acropolis, in order that his voice might carry better. And while he used up time making a speech, the men told off for this purpose, gathered up the arms, locked them up in the neighboring buildings of the temple of Theseus, and came and informed Pisastratus. End quote. Pisastratus then told the people that henceforth only he would manage public affairs. Pisastratus was tyrant for almost two decades and was succeeded by his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. After Hipparchus was killed in a procession, Hippias resorted to torture and execution. Aristotle says, and I quote, But the current story that Hippias made the people in the procession fall out away from their arms and searched for those that retained their daggers is not true. For in those days, they did not walk in the procession armed. But this custom was instituted later by the democracy. End quote. In short, the Athenians were disarmed under tyranny and armed under democracy. Aristotle also described the similar methods resorted to by the 30 tyrants to perpetuate their power. Under their rule, only 3,000 persons who favored the tyranny qualified for citizenship. Opposition naturally arose from the majority of the people derived of citizenship. I should say deprived of citizenship. The multitude found an able spokesman and there are menses who the 30 feared would lead the people to destroy the oligarchy. After losing an expedition against armed exiles, the 30 decided to arm the others and to destroy there are minis, in part by giving themselves absolute powers to execute any citizens, not members, of the role of 3,000. Their minis having been put out of the way, they disarmed everybody except the 3,000, and then the rest of their proceedings went much further in the direction of cruelty and rascality. The 30 eventually met a violent end due to the success of the armed refugees. To add it all up, in the theory and praxis of Athenian politics, as expounded by Plato and Aristotle, an armed populace means polity and direct democracy, while a disarmed populace is the essential element of oligarchy and tyranny. Moreover, Aristotle's concept of individual autonomy, through personal arms and a polity may be viewed in light of the nature which impels mankind to develop and possess defensive weapons. This natural tendency, according to his account in Parts of Animals, which is the title of a book, stems from the human's anatomy. Now it must be wrong to say, as some do, that the structure of men is not good. In fact, that it is worse than that of any other animal. Their grounds are that men is barefoot, unclothed, and void of any weapon of force. Against this we may say that all the other animals have just one method of defense and cannot change it for another. They are forced to sleep and perform all their actions with their shoes on the whole time. As one might say, they can never take off this defensive equipment of theirs, nor can they change their weapon, whatever it may be. For man, on the other hand, many means of defense are available, and he can change them at any time, and above all he can choose what weapon he will have and where. Take the hand. This is as good as a talon, or a claw, or a horn, or a ginn, a spear, or a sword, or any other weapon or tool. It can be all of these because it can seize and hold them all, and nature has admirably contrived the actual shape of the hand so as to fit in with this arrangement. End quote. Roman philosophy and history embodied significant lessons concerning the social and political characteristics of armed and disarmed populaces. On the one hand, Roman citizenship, particularly during the Republican epoch, included a right to keep and bear arms for individual or collective self-defense. On the other hand, aggression against both barbarians and Roman citizens by Roman tyrants and empire builders was coupled with the policy of disarming and then eliminating their opponents. The use of deception to disarm the populace to be conquered was a technique that early Roman aggressors learned well from Greek tyrants. Talus, Hostilius, the third Roman king, entered Alba under false pretenses with the intention of raising the city to its foundations. According to Dionysius of Halicarnasus, he ordered all the Alban troops to come to an assembly after first laying aside their arms. Roman troops, swords concealed under their garments, surrounded the Albans, who were informed by Tullus that the city would be destroyed. Upon this, a tumult arose in the assembly, and some of them rushing to arms, those who surrounded the multitude, upon a given signal, held up their swords. Opponents were then slain, and the city was razed. The institution of an armed populace, whose members would provide and keep their own arms, was initiated by Servius Tullius, the sixth Roman king. Formerly, the right to bear arms had belonged solely to the patricians. Now plebeians were given a place in the army, which was to be reclassified according to every man's property. In effect, his ability to provide himself a more or less complete equipment for the field. According to Livy, all the citizens capable of bearing arms registered in a census, and these men were required to provide their own swords, spears, and other armor. In De Re Publica, Cicero relates that Servius organized a large group of knights from the main body of the people, and that the rest of the population was divided into centuries, or groups of one hundred. Thus, even before the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the republic, the right to keep and bear arms belonged to patrician and plebeian alike. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great philosopher, senator, and lawyer, set forth the most complete discussion in the Roman republican tradition of the natural right to have and use arms for public defense against tyranny and for private defense against attack. And this is extremely unusual. For in his quest for power, Cicero was always raising the specter of treason from within, of armed revolts against the republic, of men who would take up arms against the senate. And in his constant raising of this bugaboo enemy, Cicero stepped up to power. If he could not make the enemy believable or forceful enough, he would set his thugs to beat and rob Roman citizens. And if he needed a rousing political cry, he would raise and burn a government building or a temple. Yet, just as today, just as those in government cry the defense of the constitutional republic and of the right to keep and bear arms, they work behind the scenes to subvert that right, to subvert that republic, and to disarm the people. Cicero set the stage for this, and those who are doing it today learned from Cicero, and many others, I might add. But Cicero, Cicero was a master at propaganda and terrorism, and raising the specter of armed patriots who would destroy the country. Unbelievable that the same man is quoted now, many centuries and millennia later, as being a great defender of the natural right to have and use arms for public defense against tyranny, and for private defense against attack. And by contrast, the connection between standing armies, the disarmament of peoples, and foreign and domestic tyranny is well exemplified in the writings of Julius Caesar. Cicero, analysis in a chronological context of the orations and philosophical writings of Cicero, and secondarily, of Caesar's account of the Gaelic and civil wars, demonstrates the identification of the armed citizen with the Roman Republic, and of the standing army with the empire. Cicero delivered two orations involving arms in the turbulent year 63 B.C. First, he defended Gaius Rabirius, who was prosecuted for the murder of Lucius Apolletius Saturninus. Saturninus was an ally of Gaius Marius, who replaced Rome's citizen army with mercenaries, and was an uncle and political teacher of Caesar. Saturninus was killed in 100 B.C. for attempting a coup d'etat to destroy the Roman constitution. Now, 40 years later, Caesar instigated the prosecution of Rabirius for murder, and Cicero acted as the defense counsel. All of this you should read about in the newest book, out entitled Julius Caesar, and I will attempt to give you the author's name sometime during this broadcast. And you will see the true machinations of what really happened and how Cicero attempted, truly, to destroy the republic and institute an oligarchy through the use of that old boogaboo. Traitors with weapons are dangerous, and traitors are patriots and militia and armed populace. These are plotting to overthrow the Senate, was his standard line. While he had not killed Saturninus, like many other citizens, Rabirius took up arms with the intention of killing Saturninus, yet neither the attempt, nor the fatal act against the would-be tyrant, was unlawful. And I quote, For there is surely no difference between the man who kills and the man who takes up arms for the purpose of killing. If it was a crime to kill Saturninus, then to take up arms against him could not fail to be a crime as well. But if you agree that the taking up of arms was lawful, then you are obliged to agree that the killing was lawful as well. End quote. To counter the forces of Saturninus, the consuls, headed by Julius Caesar, said, and I quote, Ordered every citizen who had the welfare of the state at heart to take up arms and follow their lead. Everyone obeyed. Weapons were taken from the temples and the public arsenals, and Gaius Marius distributed them among the populace. End quote. Interestingly, Saturninus had originally depended on the backing of Gaius Marius and his mercenaries. After Saturninus had seized the capital, every single other Roman citizen who existed proceeded to take up arms in the same cause. Many noteworthy individuals armed themselves to protect our country in its pearl. And men of all ranks took up arms to defend the freedom of every one of us. End quote. The prosecution of Rabirius was eventually stopped, but Cicero applied similar principles in another oration. During the same year, against Lucius Sergius Catalina. Catalina had also sought to abolish the Republic. Cicero personally had assembled forces and bodyguards to protect the people and himself from Catalina. For Cicero, having and using arms to protect the Republic was honorable. Thus he praises the courage to strike down a dangerous Roman citizen, more fiercely even, than they struck down the bitterest of foreign foes. But having arms specifically to be used for assassination was criminal. Quote, You were illegally carrying arms. You had got together a group determined to strike down the leading men of the state. End quote. Cicero, in fact, created the circumstances, ladies and gentlemen, to label his political enemies as terrorists moving to destroy the Republic. And this is clear in the history of Rome. There is no mistaking any of it. Cicero was eventually unmasked and driven from power. He went into exile. Where he continued his machinations. Eventually, he was brought back to Rome. A more subdued, more docile patriarch. Forgiven. But Cicero never ever stopped. Many books today claim Cicero to be a great hero, a great proponent of republicanism, of democracy, of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is sad how history can be twisted by historians who have an agenda by doing such things. for it was Cicero for it was Cicero himself who created the situation that resulted in the laws against the citizens of Rome bearing arms within the gates of Rome. that is indeed sad. Sad. Ladies and gentlemen, we're coming up to the top of the hour. and while we're at that top of the hour and doing our network break, I'm going to put on some music so that I can get Julius Caesar here and give you the information you need to read it. You need to read the book because it describes the situations in ancient Rome that are parallel to situations that exist today. And you can see the machinations of the senators and the powerful families of Rome as they compete for power and as they attempt to undermine each other and as they attempt to take the reins of control away from the people the citizens of Rome and create an oligarchy which eventually leads of course to a dictatorship in the form of an emperor and an empire. You'll see that Julius Caesar begins as a great man in defense of the rights of the people of the citizens and of the constitution of the republic. But as throughout history power corrupts and it corrupts absolutely. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And you can see through the history of Julius Caesar and those who surround him that as they gain power they become more corrupt. And no matter their good intentions the result is the same. The fostering the gathering of all power into the hands of the very few and into the hands of one ultimately resulting in the fall of the Roman Empire. The complete destruction of Rome was not due to any influence of some ragtag scattered body of a new religion called Christians. On the contrary it was due to the decadence the degradation the descent into tyranny and despotism of those who ruled Rome and the attempts of the populace and the people who were crushed under the thumb of the empire of the legions of Rome to regain their freedom and exercise it. The collapse of the moral structure the collapse of the family unit the collapse of the religions of Rome all of these things led to the ultimate complete downfall. Christians really had very little if anything to do with any of it. And that ladies and gentlemen is the truth. Let's begin with peace. Come on, semifix. Thank you. Thank you.