 the radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Monday, January 16th, Martin Luther King Day. Hopefully everybody's having a fantastic long weekend and enjoying yourself. I guess I forgot to take today off but anyway it makes up for the fact that I didn't do a show on Friday. I apologize but I was not feeling well. All right let's jump right into it. It is Martin Luther King Day and I think we should start with a couple of stories about Martin Luther King. One is we'll start with a negative first and then we'll go to positive. One is over the weekend a sculpture statue was unveiled in Boston commemorating Martin Luther King. It is supposed to be a sculpture of the embrace that Martin Luther King had with his wife in 1964 when he found out that he had won the Nobel Prize for Peace, an exciting and thrilling event. And this is a sculpture that resulted from a competition, 125 artists and architects submitted designs for this thing, for this sculpture. And I want to show you, well one, I mean again you'll also see the scale because this is the sculpture that won. This is the embrace. As you can see it's got features of representational art, hands and arms. Decapitated, no bodies, other than the fingers and hands, hard to tell what the rest is. Some of it's a little obscene, like maybe this angle which is all over the web. It's ugly primarily because it's disjointed, it's disconnected, it doesn't add up to anything and it's not human. And it's just elbows and arms and hands and holding something. And there's no Martin Luther King here, there's no his wife, there's no celebration, there's no joy, there's no excitement. It's just, I mean I think just ugly. The hands are well done, I mean fine, but it's just ugly. And it's, where's the celebration, where's the excitement, where's the elation, he's just won the Nobel Prize. Where's the celebration of this amazing man's life? I mean agree with him or disagree with him, an amazing man. And he had an amazing life and he had a massive impact on the world and he, you know, not that I'm a big fan of the Nobel Prize, he won the Nobel Prize, great, let's celebrate it, let's have an embrace. And you can see that, you know, and you can look it up online, you can find the photograph of the actual embrace and you could have made, you could have made a magnificent, this is grotesque, it's monstrous, it's disgusting, is it art? Maybe, but if it's art it's offensive and just ugly. And it's not doing what it's supposed to do, it's just celebrate. And it's not doing what it's supposed to do, which is Martin Luther King, where's Martin Luther King here? We've got a few hands. It's just horrible. And, you know, you could have made the two busts embracing with the face and bodies and somebody, and you could have done a lot of things with this, you could have made it, but this is modern art. This is the negation of identity, the negation of individuality, the negation of the human body, certainly the negation of the human face and therefore the human mind, it's complete negation of identity. Now, I do want to point out here, self-promoting for a minute, that this is an opportunity for us, you, for you in particular. I have what I think is a really, really good talk on sculpture, a really, really good talk on modern art, on the fact that modern art is a scam in a sense, intellectual scam, that it is, that it has no clothes, that it is an artist has no clothes. This is a great opportunity to link to that, to share that. I've done so on Facebook and YouTube, sorry, on Facebook and Twitter, you know, and linked, put up a photo of this and linked up to my lecture. It's so far garnered about 100 new views, which is not bad, but that's just me putting it up. And a lot of people who follow me have already seen this lecture, but, but you guys can retweet it, please retweet it. I know Rob already has retweeted, please retweet it, try to get it as much visibility as possible. If we can get people to watch my talk on modern art, I think we can attract some new people. I think we can at least open some people's minds about the atrocities that are out there. It is the one in Scotland. And again, I've already put it up on my Facebook page, and I've already put it up on Twitter with the image of this horrific sculpture that doesn't celebrate Martin Luther King at all, and is really a disgrace. So please do your share. This is a good opportunity to go to Twitter, go to Facebook, retweet it, share it. Or if you want to go to the original lecture, it's on YouTube and just share it from there, but include a photograph of this ugly horrific sculpture. So it gives context. And again, we've got to take advantage of newsy items to, you know, to bring attention to the work we do. It's hard to do without linking it to the news, right? All right, let's see. So that is really all I want to say about this monstrosity, but I think it's in, and it's already garnered a bunch of criticisms and people making fun of it and so on, but often without any kind of intellectual substance, I think the intellectual substance for my criticism of this is on, is in that lecture, and that's why I refer you to the lecture. But it is Martin Luther King day, and I do think Martin Luther King is worthy of a lot better than that sculpture. And the dispatch today, I think, honored Martin Luther King appropriately by putting up a transcript of a talk Martin Luther King gave on, in September 12, 1962, in New York City. And this was at the, was at 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's issuing his preliminary, preliminary emancipation proclamation, right? So this is free the slaves and this is 100th anniversary. And this is in the midst of the civil rights movement. And this is before the Civil Rights Act. And it is, it is a, I think a magnificent speech, agree or disagree with aspects of it, I agree with most of it, almost all of it. This is a magnificent speech and it's a speech that I wish somebody, anybody, left, right center in America today would be able to deliver even a fragment of a speech like this. So I want to read a little bit of it to you because I think, I think this gives you a flavor of Martin Luther King. It also gives you a flavor of the intellectuality of an era long gone, long gone from our shores, unfortunately. So these are, these are segments. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Again, this is Abraham Lincoln issuing his preliminary emancipation proclamation 100 years, September 12, 1962, Martin Luther King. And I'm reading it to you, right? If our nation had nothing more in its whole history than to create just two documents, its contribution to civilization would be imperishable. The first of these documents is the Declaration of Independence. And the other is that, which we are here to honor tonight, the Emancipation Proclamation. All tyrants, past, present and future are powerless to bury the truths in these dark declarations, no matter how extensive their legions, how vast their power and how malignant their evil. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed to the world organized politically and spiritually around the concept of the inequality of man and the dignity of human personality was inherent in man as a living being. The Emancipation Proclamation was the offspring of the Declaration of Independence. It was a constructive use of the force of law to uproot a social order which sought to separate liberty from a segment of humanity. Our pride and our progress would be unqualified if the story ended here. But history reveals that America has been a schizophrenic personality where these two documents are concerned. On the one hand, she has proudly professed the basic principles inherent in these in both documents. On the other hand, she has sadly practiced the antithesis of these principles. The unresolved race question is a pathological infection in our social and political anatomy which has sickened us throughout our history and is still today a largely untreated disease. Now remember, this is 1962. I'm going to skip a section here, but he goes into the social ills and he talks about how they affect not the discrimination, the racism, the institutionalized racism not only affects black Americans but affects the whites as well that affects all aspects of society. I think he does it quite effectively. And he says this sober picture may induce the sober thought that there is nothing to commemorate about the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation. But tragic disappointments and undeserved defeats do not put an end to life. Nor did they wipe out the positive. However submerged, it may have become beneath floods of negative experience. Then he goes on, when ABM Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it was not the act of an opportunistic politician issuing a hollow pronouncement to placate a pressure group. Our true great presidents were tortured deep in their hearts by the race question. Jefferson was keen perception, saw that the festering sore of slavery debilitated white masters as well as the Negro. He feared for the future of white children who were taught a false supremacy. His concern can be summed up in one quotation, quote, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. And finally he ends this. And I'm skipping some stuff which I encourage you to read because it's, first of all, he's a beautiful writer as you know, beautiful speech delivery. But there's a lot of good content here. I'll just end with these two paragraphs. The Negro will never cease a struggle to commemorate the Emancipation Proclamation by making his Emancipation real. If enough Americans in numbers and influence join him, the nation we both labor to build may yet realize its glorious dream. There is too much greatness in our heritage to tolerate the pettiness of race hate. The Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation deserve to live in sacred honor. Many generations of Americans suffered, bled, and died confident. Those who followed them would persevere, sorry, would preserve the purity of our ideals. Negroes have declared that they will die if need be for these freedoms. All Americans must enlist in a crusade finally to make the race question an ugly relic of a dark past. When that day draws, the Emancipation Proclamation will be commemorated in luminous glory. Not only is he a brilliant orator and just a beautiful writer, you know, he is here commemorating and celebrating the Declaration of Independence, the Lincoln's proclamation in spite of the fact that you know blacks continue to suffer in this country post-slavery. He realizes the necessity of the ideas, the truth, the fundamental truth in the ideas of the Declaration and the ideas of the proclamation. Now granted, Martin Luther King was not consistent in its application of the ideas of the Declaration to all these views, but wow, I mean who speaks this eloquently today? Who speaks of the founding principles today? Who talks about the Declaration of Independence today? Left or right? Who talks about these two, these two documents being the greatest documents in American history? So, you know, I found this particularly beautiful. It's an illustration of I think how impressive Martin Luther King was. If you know, I think we've reached a day in America, at least we are closer to that day that he longs for true emancipation in America because, the logic that because of him, because that he stood up and he fought for these ideas, again, you could find inconsistencies, you can find things that we disagree with him on, but his virtues I think here way outweigh his vices and as compared to civil rights, so-called civil rights leaders today as compared to those fighting against discrimination or racism today, he is a giant, a giant. So, happy Martin Luther King Day. I think he deserves it and it's a good day to remember the dangers of racism, the evil of racism, the legacy of racism, which I think is still with us on all sides of the political spectrum and that we need to continuously fight, we need to continuously be vigilant about whether that racism manifests itself on left or on right, it doesn't matter. It is something we, as the standard bearers of individualism and Americanism, must fight. All right, cool. Jonathan, thank you. Mel, thank you. Volta, thank you. Wes, thank you. We are way behind. So, to the extent you guys want to continue to get us to where we need to be, $250 for these morning shows, we've got a way to go, but hopefully we'll have some people step in and do it. All right, a few more topics today. So, today, I don't know if you know, but today is the beginning of, oops, where did this document go? I'm looking for, yeah, there it is. Okay, so today is the beginning of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Many of the world's leaders are flying over to Davos as are many CEOs, many of the leading intellectuals, professors, public intellectuals, it's the who's who of the global elites, almost everybody who is anybody has been there or is there now or is going to be there in the future, but this is a big deal. It is not, it has nothing to do, so there are a lot of conspiracy theories about World Economic Forum. You know, this is where they conspire to rule the world. They don't have, they don't and they can't and, you know, most of the people, they hate each other and they disagree with one another and there is no governance being imposed from there, they have no power, they have no force other than one power, which is significant. And that is the power of ideas. This is a place in which ideas get spread, this is a place in which ideas get articulated, this is a place in which ideas get sanctioned by important influential people around the world, this is ideas, this is a place where CEOs and politicians learned about the latest, greatest corrupt thinking and then take it back to the organizations and to the countries and try to implement it. This is not a place of governance, turning it into a, turning it into a conspiracy theory weakens the case against it, it makes it impossible to fight it. The only way to fight the World Economic Forum is with better ideas. It is an idea factory, is an idea spreader, it is an idea, you know, this is where kind of the, a certain type of consensus is established that then takes years and years and years, but it ultimately often spreads around the world these ideas. And the ideas are the ideas of statism, the ideas of environmentalism, the ideas of different forms of global governance, but the ideas of global governance not actually implementation of global governance, there is no again, there's no governance that happens in Davos anymore than the elders of Zion control the world. But it is interesting that everybody goes there, everybody goes there, it is like the temple of modern ideas, it is the place where you go to kiss the ring and kiss the feet of those who are promoting and proposing the latest and greatest of the horrific ideas that are coming out of the world. So stay tuned, the last few days will involve a bunch of empty speeches and panels and discussions and debates about all kinds of ridiculous, horrible things that they want to impose on us, that some people want to impose on us, but the real, the real implementation is when they bring them back home and where the real fight happens. I thought I just bring you up to speed on one of those, one of those ideas. So this is a white paper that has been issued by the World Economic Forum as of January 2023, so brand new. It's part of the Broad Climate Governance Initiative. It is in collaboration with Deloitte Touche, one of the big accounting firms, one of the largest accounting firms out there. And it's called the chairperson's guide to valuing nature. What do you mean by the chairperson? Who is the chairperson here? Well, this is written basically for chairmen's or boards of directors. Boards of directors, private companies, board of directors and non-profits, but this is the document written for the chairman of the board about the value of nature to a business, to a business. So here's, so I'm going to read you some of this. This is the exact opposite of what I just read you for Martin Luther King, which is inspirational and beautifully written. This is the equivalent of the sculpture that we saw. This is a monstrous and horrific and horrible. But this is, again, this is written by the World Economic Forum. And note how they, I'm just going to read you the forward of this thing, or part of the forward, just to give you a flavor of this. And just to see how they, they have no concept of what actually generates economic growth, what actually creates economic prosperity and economic success. And, you know, they are conflating different issues. It's from any kind of objective perspective. This is ludicrous, what they're writing. But this is the kind of language, right? They're always ahead of their time in terms of language. It's the kind of language that then gets inculcated into the culture. Again, it gets inculcated into the culture through the universities, gets inculcated into the culture through CEOs starting to pick up this language. But this is all part of, you know, the grand leftist agenda for the world. And let me see who, yeah. So this is, this is often the climate change initiative. And of course, it includes the chairman of the board of directors of Deloitte Global, Sharon Thorn, is one of the authors of this. So this is, this is your friendly, neighborhood accounting firm. Without question, this is me quoting them. Without question, nature is the foundation of our society's economies and human existence. I mean, that's just a funny way of saying anything, right? Isn't human existence part of nature? Human beings are not some alien species that has dropped onto nature from the outside. Quote, from the bees that pollinate the food we grow to the precious metals within the wires connecting us to the very air we breathe in the water we drink, nature is the source that sustains us and keeps our workplace happy, healthy, and productive. No. Nature's a place that wants to kill us constantly. I mean, you could rephrase this to, from the droughts to the bacteria, to the viruses, to the, you know, to the beasts of nature and its insects. Nature wants to kill every last human being on the planet. What is it that sustains us and keeps our workforce happy, healthy, and healthy? Notice our workforce. Notice the paternalism there. Our workforce, we the elites, we the chairman of the board of directors, you know, nature keeps our workforce happy, but what actually keeps our workforce happy, healthy, and productive? Well, it's the human mind and our ability to change nature to use using a word they don't like. Exploit nature. Quote, despite this reliance, business is historically undervalued and overlooked nature in its interaction with land, ocean, atmosphere, freshwater, and living things leading to its degradation, but to a fantastic quality and standard of living for human beings and notice that our interaction with the land, what the hell, our exploitation of the land, ocean, god. Quote, nature loss is already impacting business and the risks are likely only going to increase. These risks include rising commodity prices. Lost job, rising commodity prices? Really? Really? Does she want to take that bet that Paul Ehrlich lost the Julian Simon a long time ago about the long-term direction of commodity prices? Anyway, including rising commodity job losses, job losses because of nature or because of mismanagement or too much central planning job losses and resource shortages. Which resource are we short? Are we short any resource? I mean curious what resources we should, you know, they just discovered this massive quantity of rare earth materials in Sweden. So, you know, this is how China, you know, has the one thing it kind of, one of the things that it controls in the world is it has a huge number of these rare earth materials that are needed for electronics and other things. And China has a disproportionate number of those and now they've discovered a massive quantity in Sweden so that, you know, it's going to take them a while to mine. These are not easy to mine. But over the next 10 years our reliance on China for these is going to become smaller and smaller. There's also large quantities of this in Greenland. So resource shortages, what shortages? I don't have any resource shortages out there. In addition to systemic threats to human survival such as global health. Global health? Nature wants to kill us constantly. Peace. What's that got to do with nature? Trade and economic development and equality. Equality, that's a natural thing. Equality exists in nature. We have a window of opportunity before us to stop and reverse the degradation of nature. As stewards of the future business, chairpersons, and board members will be critical to steering the organization towards a future where recognizing the true value of nature is core to business strategy. By embedding the value of nature as core to good governance, board members from every industry, sector, and geography also have opportunities that may have previously been overlooked. Opportunities to oversee the exploration of new products, new markets, new business models, and new revenue streams while mitigating and increasing significant risks that are otherwise associated with natural loss. So they're presenting this as this is a profit opportunity for you guys. You can make money in this. Well, this may seem like a daunting task and potentially in addition to the existing challenge of emission reduction. It is just another step on the same journey. A journey on the same journey, a journey that has already started for most business through environmental social governance, ESG strategies, and net zero targets. Perfection is not the goal here. It is more important to get started. God, makes me sick. Anyway, this is the WAF. I'm sure you guys all saw you're not there. Nobody invited you. I certainly am. I look forward to the opportunity one day to address the world economic forum. And God, I mean, do they not understand anything about the world? And they're so brainwashed. They're so unthinking. They're so God. Anyway, it's happening right now in Davos, in Switzerland. They're probably skiing as well. But who's who of the world are schmoozing right now in Davos? I've known people who've been to the world economic forum. It's one big conference where people just want to be seen and want to schmooze with one another. And where the WEF announces these big projects that then people go, but then a fraction of what they hear, they take back and actually try to implement over time. It really is a disgusting place. All right. And a place of real danger, intellectual danger, and it has to be fought intellectually with ideas, and it has to be combated with ideas, and its ideas need to be rejected. Better ideas need to constantly be proposed. All right. What else did I want to talk about? Yes. Let me just, yes. So you remember we talked about last week, we talked about the Hamlin University, the professor that showed a painting, a painting from the history of Islam of Muhammad, a painting that was painted by a Muslim and commissioned by a Muslim. And this is part of a history of art section on Islamic art. And one of the students was offended. And as a consequence of that offense, the faculty member was dismissed, the contract was now renewed, and she's out of a job. Well, I mean, the backlash of this is being quite impressive. And again, this is where I keep reminding you that I think that this kind of woke nonsense has its limitations. And at some point, the limitations, this hits the fan and people rebel against it. And I'm not even talking about people rebelling on it on the right. This made news headlines everywhere, right and left, but the sources I'm going to give you are not sources on the right. So here's some of the backlash against this. While the university, by the way, is maintaining its position, well, now renew the contract. It's not changing its mind. It's doubled down on it. Fine. But this is the art history faculty. The art history faculty from the University of Minnesota. This is a, you know, art history. These are not right wing crazies. These are the ten year track or the ten year faculty in art history at the University of Minnesota. And they written to address what happened at Hamelin University. And, you know, they are horrified by what the administration did. They write, Dr. Lopez showed a 14th century manuscript painting depicting Prophet Muhammad in her art history survey course, prompting student complaint and a subsequent cancellation of Drs. Spring semester course. This happened without the due process of former investigation, without an opportunity for Dr. Lopez Prada to respond to the administration's ill-informed and unfounded accusations and without good faith institutional investment in open dialogue of the restorative practices of communication and relational repair. The blame for the mishandling falls entirely to Hamelin's administration. In response, we offer this unanimous statement from our position as ten year stream faculty at the only PhD granting institution in art history in the state of Minnesota. We are uniquely positioned to serve and learn from Minnesota's rich... Okay, it is in view of all this that we offer a strong support for Dr. Lopez Prada, an alumni of our graduate program. We view her course at Hamelin to uphold the standards and norms of our discipline and its changing global canon. We also admire Dr. Lopez Prada's thoughtful approach to teaching as demonstrated among other things of clear and sophisticated understanding that historical knowledge always intersects with contemporary circumstances and experiences. And they go on and on and on and on to defend her, to defend her. That's pretty good. After, you know, given what Hamelin University did, this is University of Minnesota. Then from a much greater unlikely source, this is from CARE. CARE, the Council on American Islamic Relations, a really, really horrible institution that has defended Islamists and just horrible. Exposedly, it's the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization. But really, on so many issues, it has been, you know, wrong and again, defending, I think, often terrorist activities. But on this, quite good. They write, although CARE's national headquarters normally does not comment on local issues that arise in states with one of our state chapters, we must sometimes speak up to clarify where our entire organization stands on issues of national concern. This is one of those times. In its statement, CARE reaffirms its longstanding policy of discouraging the display of images of the Prophet, while also noting that the academic study of ancient painting depicted him does not, by itself, constitute Islamophobia. CARE also said that it has seen no evidence that former Hamelin University Professor Erika Lopez Prata had bigoted intent on engaging Islamophobic conduct in the classroom. So now, you know, CARE is a very dubious organization for lots of reasons, but give them credit. What credit is due, they are defending the right of the professor who had academic freedom to display this painting, and it is to their credit that they did that. All right, just thought I'd give you an update on that, and just to show how crazy and out they, this position that the Hamelin University has taken, pretty much they've been condemned by everybody, there is a limit to how far this stuff will be and can be taken. All right. Oops. Why did I do that? I don't know. Okay. No, it didn't mean to do that. All right. So we are $32 short of our goal of $250. Armin, thank you. You guys are going to have to kind of chime in and get to the point where we're not completely dependent on Armin to get to our $250 goal every morning, because he seems to step in, which I very much appreciate. But we've got 124 people watching right now. Suddenly, hopefully we can do $32 in the remaining minutes, but we should be able to do a lot more than that. All right. James, we're going to go to some, oh, I've got the California Storms. Quickly on the California Storms, just the headline, it says everything you need to do. So California Storms, we've got all these rainstorms, we've got all this stuff going on. It's pouring rain, historic numbers of rain, flooding everywhere. And this is a state that's been under extreme drought. So you think the state would want to capture as much water as possible to replenish its reservoirs and to just create new reservoirs to do whatever it can to protect the water supply for future summers, for future years that might be more restrictive in terms of rain where there might be drought. But God forbid, we don't want to get rid of the drought in California. So here's the headline, California Storms. Environmental rules are limiting how much water can be captured for cities and farms. It turns out, and I'll read you a little bit more than the, it turns out there's a snail. There's a snail. Yes, here it is. It's not a snail. Environmental regulations aimed at protecting a two-inch-long fish. The endangered Delta smelt, I don't think it's a danger anymore, have required the massive state and federal pumps near Tracy to reduce pumping rates by nearly half of their full limit, sharply coping the amount of water that can be saved for farms and cities to the south. Now, this is true right now, but it's also true during normal times. I told you last time we talked about this, drought in California is a man-made phenomena because man has overcome droughts. Man has figured out how not to have droughts. And it is only man-made environmental nutty regulations that create droughts in California. We have the equipment, we have the tools, we have the knowledge, we have all that we need in order to eliminate droughts, including pumping water from where it rains to where it doesn't. I mean, imagine if we were in the 19th century now, we would build a canal from Oregon where it rains way too much to California to being water if we needed to. I mean, there is no such thing as a drought in a modern civilization, but they're limiting by half the amount of these pumps run by the federal government can pump to the cities and to the agriculture, all in the name of the most important value one could have, which is the endangered delta smelt. You know, they're going to make human beings endangered in order to defend this smelt. All right, we're nine bucks away, guys, nine bucks. All right, let's see. James, what state did you see the most interracial relationship and which countries did you notice them in? Since you have traveled the world, it will be great to see your perspective on where race matters least. I mean, in terms of interracial relationships, I think probably just the numbers suggest that the country which has the most of it is Brazil. Brazil has more mixed and it always has. There was a lot more interracial relationships going on in Brazil, going back to the 19th century and certainly today and in Brazil, there's a mixture of of the Spaniard, of the Portuguese, but also the Italians and Germans and vast European migrants in there, but they also brought in a lot of slaves and on top of slavery, there was also a vast Indian native community and you see in Brazil a mixture of all of them. In terms of states in the United States, I really don't know. You see it everywhere, certainly places like California, New York, but even in I think even in place like Atlanta, so you see interracial relationships I think everywhere. I think in Europe, you see more of it, although there's a lot of racism in Europe. Yeah, I mean, I think over time you'll see it as racism goes away, I think you'll see more and more of it, which I think is fantastic and a good thing, but I don't really have just as a most racially diversity in America, I didn't know that. I'm not surprised because it has a large Black community and a large Hispanic community, but also Asians, it's got a vast, Houston has a lot of Vietnamese who came, the boat people, a lot of boat people landed up living in Houston and in California. You know, I don't know, it's not something, I don't know if anybody, if there's statistics, in Brazil it's very evident, almost everybody's mixed, or a lot of people are mixed, not almost everybody, but a lot of people are mixed, but I don't know about particular states in the United States and I don't know what other countries would be good examples. Fenn Harper says, I forgot whose book reported this, but the shell life in the ocean was hoarding the shell life and the ocean was hoarding CO2 in the shells, which was starving the planet, the plant life on land, that's really nasty of the shells. Likely the cause of the deserts, nature almost ended life on earth before humans. Well, nature doesn't care about life, it doesn't care about any of that, it's, nature just is, it just functions by loads of physics and biology, that's it. Shazbot, I was at the Met Art Museum yesterday, if Michelangelo's David is a 10 or 11, how would you rate the statue of Perseus holding the head of Medusa? I mean, that's up there, that's an eight or a nine, I mean that's a, I'm trying to think of the one in the Met, it's probably a nine, that's a magnificent sculpture, very powerful, very heroic, but it's an eight or nine, eight and a half, let's give it eight and a half, you know, I'd have to actually have it in front of me to analyze it, and I fear that there's more than one of them, so I'm not sure I have the one at the Met differentiated, it's from the Renaissance, I can't remember the sculptor, but, and I think there's a version, there's a copy of it in, in, in Florence, is there one from the 19th century, there might also be one from the 19th century, anyway, I'll have to, I'll have to, you know, check it out and get back to you with more detail, but all right, there it is, so this is, okay, so it's a different one that was thinking, this is a Canova, okay, so, you know, Canova is magnificent, so this, this is neoclassical, and it's, you know, in my book, it's, it's also what it does for me, it's an eight, not a nine, there is another one, which is in Florence, which is a Renaissance one, you can look it up, which I actually like better, Canova is, is neoclassical, which means he's, he's trying to take the principles by which he perceives the classicists had sculpted and, and imitate them, and, and I think what happens with this sculpture, even though it is, it's truly beautiful and, you know, an eight in my book is high praise, it's a little stilted, it's a little frozen, it's, it's not as animated as alive as Renaissance sculpture and as the post neoclassical sculpture was, so, all right, we're gonna do, we're gonna do this on the fly, we're gonna show you this sculpture, just because for those of you who are not, I guess not for those of you who are, you know, we're gonna get rid of this and we're going to do this and we're gonna put that there and we're gonna move it there. All right, so there's the sculpture, that's at the Met and it's magnificent and it's beautiful and, you know, compare that to the modern trash that we saw earlier. Are you guys seeing this? I guess, hopefully, this is really beautiful but notice that it's, it's, I don't know, stilted in some significant way, it's, it doesn't give you the sense of real movement, even though he's got, he's got the pose of movement, he's got that, you know, it, it, it looks frozen and, and it doesn't look alive as compared to, I don't know if I can pull this off, let's see if we can pull this off. Here's the same theme, here's the same theme, let's see, I think, here's the same thing, you know, sorry for the clutter but here's the same theme from the Renaissance, this is Giam, Giam, I can't pronounce his name, but this is, this is a Renaissance sculpture and you can see that I think he's much more alive, he's, he's, he's, I think it's, I think it's much better, this is a nine, I mean it's, it's much more alive, this is actually out in the open, you know, in the Palazza, which I forget its name, but you can see it there, so it's not just at the muscles, it's, the muscles are there, it's, you can see that he's moving, you can see, if you, if we could focus on the face, you would see a real expression, you know, here's a, here's another angle, you know, you can see the, an expression, you can see the, the muscles, the detail in the muscles, you know, everything is a little too abstracted and therefore a little too frozen in the other one and you can see the, the tension, the action, anyway, I prefer Renaissance to Neoclassical, although, you know, Neoclassical is and can be and often is just, just beautiful and Canova, don't, don't have me turn you away from Canova, if, if you get an opportunity to go see Canova exhibit or Thorvaldsen, who is another, those are the two, two of my favorite Neoclassical sculptors, Thorvaldsen has a beautiful museum dedicated to him in Copenhagen, he was a Danish, Danish sculptor and Canova was Italian, but a lot of his sculptures in France, but they're also in Italian, anyway, I've seen lots of their sculpture and much of it is gorgeous and beautiful and pretty, but it, it just lacks a certain being alive and that's why it doesn't quite rise to my pinnacle of favorite sculptures. All right, you got to add, add a benefits there. Demon, I hope everyone enjoyed this weekend and here's to you, you're on into a good start of the week. Thanks for the work you put in. I know we all appreciate it. Appreciate it, Demon. Thank you. Bashman again, how can Republicans appear to tolerate George Santos? I don't know. They cut a deal, they keep cutting deals with devils. This is what you get, but remember, politics today is about power. Nothing else matters, not virtues, not vice, not virtues, not values, not, not, not anything, anything, values out, character. Remember Republicans used to stand for character supposedly when Bill Clinton was president. Characters out, all of that's out. The only thing that matters today is raw power, raw power. That's all they care about. Republicans and Democrats, all of them. Friend Harper, when these places report drought, do they mean a lack of available water or lack of rainwater? Lack of available water is inexhaustible, but what they can do about lack of rain? Well, first, you can do something about lack of rain, you can seed clouds, and there's maybe there's even more advanced ecology today, but it's primarily lack of water that they're talking about because at the end of the day, that's what matters. What matters is ability to, now, for most people, the two are equivalent because they perceive it as water drops. We accumulate that water and we use it in the summer when it doesn't rain. But the only place we can get the water from is either the rivers, lakes, or the skies. And if it doesn't rain, the rivers don't have water, the lakes don't have water, and the sky doesn't have water, and we don't have water from the sky. So that's the limit of their thinking, so desalination. They don't think about capturing the water when it rains a lot so that we can use it later. They don't think about pumping the water when it overflows to the regions that need it. They don't think about building canals and building all kinds of ways in which we can increase the amount of water. Orange County has the largest recycling plant in the world for water, where they recycle water and that has reduced the dependency on Orange County and California on things like rainfall. So I think drought is the availability of water, but it's interpreted as, because they can only see it as the availability of rain from water, from rain or from rivers or from lakes. All right, thank you everybody. I will see you again tomorrow morning for another one of these shows. There are going to be few of these this week because I'm traveling, but we'll try to do as many as we can. Have a great rest of your week, and hopefully you'll join me in the morning. Don't forget to share my lecture on modern art together with monstrosity of embrace, and don't forget to visit the Einwand University, university. Einwand.org to learn more about Objectivism. It is the place, the place in the world today where you can have, where you can study Objectivism like professors and in-depth way. So check it out. Oh, we have one more question from AXA, who says, first time listening live, you essentially introduced me to Einwand and Objectivism. Thanks for that. How is Dr. Peacock doing? As far as I know, he's doing fine. I have neglected to call him recently, so I have not talked to him in quite a while. My fault, but as far as I can tell from people who have seen him, he's doing fine. So thank you, AXA. Thank you all, and I will see you again tomorrow.