 Yeah, I wanted to talk about this excellent article by Barry Weiss, and again, I'm saying excellent now because I agree with all of it, not even I agree with the emphasis of some of it. For example, Barry Weiss is way too accommodating of religion and way too open to religion to giving religious explanations for things, but she's also very pro American in a deep sense and raising the kind of questions that need to be raised and raising the kind of issues that need to be raised. She starts article off and I'm going to read you large segments of the articles because I think it's good and I think she states it as good as anybody could state it, so no point in me, but she asked the question, she starts a quite why is Zelensky, why is he hit such a nerve? Why are people so admiring of him? What is it about Zelensky that is so inspiring and in another hand, why does he scare some people as well? Why are people like Candace Owens so afraid of him, so horrified by him, so disgusted by him? And she says there's a way in which Zelensky hits a real nerve. She says, quote, we live in an era in which acting like sheep has become the norm, in which cowardice is the default, in which ideas of leadership seems like, seems dead and yet here in Zelensky was the real article, a leader showing courage, real courage and in doing so inspiring bravery in others that they did not think themselves capable of. She goes on, Zelensky knows what he is fighting for. She's quoting Zelensky, we are all at war, he said in an address to Ukraine, everywhere people defend themselves, although they do not have weapons, but these are our people. They have courage, dignity and hence the ability to go out and say I'm here, it's mine, talk about private property, I won't give it away. My city, my community, my Ukraine, they're fighting for their home, they're fighting for their values, they're fighting for their family, they're fighting for what is theirs. Zelensky shames us because he exhibits these characteristics that as Barry Weiss talks about. Thank you Apollo, I appreciate it. We don't exhibit anymore, we don't have anymore and we're unsure what would happen. She raises the questions, what would Americans do? Would Americans fight? Would they unite to fight or would they be too busy fighting each other, blaming each other and cowering because I mean if anything Americans proved itself to be a coward, Americans proved themselves to be cowards in our internal debates, in our internal discussions. Now she says some cynics will point out, according to her, that Zelensky is an actor, adept at delivering lines, even applying a president, they'll say that he knows how to tug at our heartstrings and he is doing it purposefully to draw the West into the war and get Ukraine to help with needs. She says maybe, probably, but she goes on, but this isn't a movie. His life really is on the line and that explanation in any case does not account for the millions of ordinary Ukrainians who are taking up arms to defend their land. She says she wants a computer programmer standing in line to get a weapon in Kiev and he said, he says their objective clearly seems to be the occupation of my entire country and the destruction of everything that I love. I am just a regular civilian. I have nothing to do with war or any other thing like it and I wouldn't really want to participate in anything like this, but I don't really have a choice. This is my home. Now that quote there that very wise is quoting this computer scientist, that is the explanation of how fighting a war as a soldier can be in your rational self-interest. I don't really have any choice, he says. This is my home. That's a rational self-interested reason to fight and that, just that is why Ukraine is in the right and Russia is in the wrong. Here are people who have homes, have businesses, have jobs, have lives and this is what they are defending rationally, selfishly, justly. That makes Russia in the wrong right there. The fact that it is attacking individuals who have homes, lives, jobs, did them no harm, nothing, no threat. Maybe they wanted to join NATO because they felt more safe with NATO. Seems like they were right to feel that they needed NATO. That does not do a wrong to Russia. So Barry says, why is witnessing such courage uncomfortable? By the way, subscribe to our substack. It is because I cannot help but notice the gap between them and us, between the bigness of their vision and their mission and the smallness of ours. Now here, you know, this is where she's pushing it a little bit, right? They're at war. We are not. Do we need to go to war to have big missions? No. She's treading on dangerous ground here in the sense of we need a big collective mission to defend ourselves. But we'll see, she redeems herself later. Watching Zelensky and his people, she says, reminds me of what we have lost. Of how uncertain and fragile we have become. How would we act if the guns were on our heads, at our heads? Would we similarly feel no choice but to fight for our home, for everything we love? Would we have the courage to live by the values we profess if our backs were on the war to the wall? Or the sense of national unity? Or have we gotten so comfortable, so carred, so removed from the world of flesh and blood, that we have forgotten how to name those values at all? Do we know what our values? Do we know what results in, quote, national unity? She writes, if we're the home front of the free world, and I believe we are and must be, good for her. What are the principles that should guide us? What are the things worth fighting for? I wanted to suggest three of them, she says. So this is great. Because she goes from, the Ukrainians know what they're fighting for. We don't have an invader on our land, but we are the home of the free world. We are the shining city on the hill, whether we like it or not, maybe we're not so shining anymore. We're on the hill still. What should we fight for? What is worth fighting for? And this is shocking to many of you, because Barry Weiss is not, and the article shows us, she's no objectivist, she's no free marketer, she's a center, center right, center left, hard to tell. I think these days center right mostly, but no radical here. But what is the first principle she believes we should fight for? What is the first principle she believes we should fight for? She says the first is individual liberty. Individual liberty is worth fighting for. Yeah. That should be the first. This is what America is all about. I've said it, the funny father said it. It's nice to see somebody like Barry Weiss say it. Individualism, the value of the individual, the sanctity of the individual, the individual's freedom, his liberty. Brian, thank you. She then points out how many Americans have punished Russians in America for being Russian, for being of Russian heritage. How many Americans have dealt with fellow Americans who happen to have come from Russia as if they belong to a tribe, as if they cannot be American if they were born in Russia? How much? All of us, everywhere, voluntarily, a penalizing Russia, Russians here, not over there, here, not the government, individuals here. She says, and this is where she gets really good, and I quote, but this mob mentality, presenting itself now as anti-Russian bigotry, presenting itself now as Russian, anti-Russian bigotry, that is something entirely different a week or two from now, can never, ever be made normal. It cuts against the most fundamental foundational principle of liberal democracy, individual liberty. And when she says it's going to be entirely different a week or two from now, she's talking about anti-black, anti-white, anti-gay, anti-heterosexual, the tribalization of American society that has stopped treating people as individuals, that has stopped focusing on individual liberty, and has focused completely on the collective, the tribe. She continues to write, as my friend Jacob Siegel put it in the tablet, the notion that individuals should have their employment conditioned on the actions of a foreign government, or their willingness to denounce those actions is frankly gross in authoritarian, the kind of thing I was raised to believe happened in Russia, not the United States. That is the idea of treating people based on their both, or nationality, or even their views about this issue, but making it a condition of a job you have to support the American government against the Russians. I mean, there are calls on the left to prosecute Tucker Carlson and Candace Owen for treason. Now I don't like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owen, and I disagree with them fundamentally about Russia and Ukraine, but to try them for treason, where is the First Amendment? Where is the Constitution? Where is the principle of allowing people to speak, debating them, arguing with them, disagreeing with them and walking away. Now we have to put them in jail because you disagree with them because they support Putin. If they are Russian agents, what are they, are they giving away secrets? Are they undermining the US government, the undermining freedom in America? No, it's undermining freedom in America. But people who want to prosecute people who disagree with them for treason, that's undermining America. That's treasonous. So while, as you know, I fundamentally disagree with Candace Owen, Tucker Carlson and the rest of the new right on the issue of Russia, they have every right to hold that opinion. And their right should be protected. And people like me should be speaking up, even though we disagree with them, about their right to disagree. Their right to support Putin, they have a right to support Putin. Now if they start arming, sending money, arming the Russians to invade the United States, that's treason. If they start selling them secrets, giving them secrets, that's treason. If they start being paid by the Russian government to spread propaganda in anticipation of a Russian takeover of the United States, that's treason. But you have to be very careful. It is very wise again, and I think three paragraphs that are excellent, and God, if we had this kind of thinking in the world today, if we had more of this kind of thinking, we would win hands down quite easily. Abbotin says, Tucker criticized the invasion. I know Tucker criticized the invasion, but Tucker's pro-Russia, he criticized the invasion and continues to support Russia. He continues to be a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. He has every right to do that, but it's despicable, and I dislike him for it. All right, let's talk about the good stuff rather than the bad guys. Quote from Barry Weis's article, in free and just societies, we judge people as individuals, not as members of a group. We judge them based on their deeds, not based on the deeds of their parents or people of the same gender or zip code or skin color. Now, that's a great paragraph, and that's completely consistent with my view, and I'm on board 100% with Barry Weis when it comes to this. We are complete allies, and these are fundamental core issues that are crucial, crucial to the future. They're free and just societies. We judge people as individuals, not as members of a group. We judge them based on their deeds, not based on the deeds of their parents or people of the same gender or zip code or skin color. The fetishization of group identity, whether by religion or race or gender or whatever, is poison. It leads to a zero-sum war within groups and to the subjugation and ultimately the dehumanization of the individual, yay to Barry Weis. I mean, he and she's criticizing not on the alt-right, but much of the left, much of CRT, the whole identitarian ideology of the left. She is crushing here, or at least dismissing here, dismissing dismissal of in succinct bold language. I love it. We need many more Barry Weisers on our side.