 sex beings and the situation is so much more complicated than that. Luke, you're taking what I just brought up. All right. Why should a man not try to have sex with as many women as possible? Yeah, it's bad for society, but we don't really put much emphasis on what's good for society. We have a ruling ethos that the less we have in common with each other, the better. When we praise diversity, we're praising that we have very little in common with each other. So if diversity is a great thing, then why exactly should men restrain themselves from trying to have sex with as many women as possible? I don't know how you make a modern secular argument that is going to successfully keep the penis in check against men having as much sex as possible. It's very hard to do. It's much easier to make the argument if you come from some sort of traditional background where you're not a liberal. All right. The difference between the liberal outlook and the traditional national tribal outlook is that liberals essentially view people as individuals who are born with certain inalienable rights, among them the pursuit of happiness according to the Declaration of Independence. Well, if you believe that everyone is primarily an individual who has an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, then you've got no effective argument against men following their penis wherever it leads. On the other hand, if you're a trad like myself, if you're a nationalist like myself, if you have a tribal and medieval and religious outlook like I do, then you don't look at people primarily as individuals. You look at people primarily as members of a tribe or as a nation or as of an extended family. If you're primarily a member of an extended family, more than you have inalienable rights, you have obligations to other members of your family and your tribe and your community and your nation. If other people can put moral expectations, behavioral expectations on you and you're willing to shoulder that burden to be part of the family, the extended family, the tribe, the community, the organized religion, then there are many benefits to living in community. I could not imagine living life without community. So I don't look at people primarily as individuals. I look at people as primarily members of families, extended families and tribes. And this is a completely different perspective on life from our ruling dominant liberal ethos that believes in the Buffett identity, which is something I've talked about on previous shows, that the Buffett identity holds that what Joseph Cotto does in the sanctity of his own bedroom doesn't affect me. The traditional identity understands that we are connected, that we're part of a tribe or a nation and that what goes on with you affects me and what goes on with me affects you and that we have obligations to each other. The most famous quotation that's attributed to me that I sometimes see on the internet is that everything we do affects other people. There's nothing that we do that does not have an effect on other people. That is not a liberal perspective. That's a trad perspective. If you think that being a passport bro is wrong, if you think that men pursuing sex with as many women as possible is wrong, that's because there's part of you that has a medieval outlook on life. And I don't say that critically. I definitely do have a medieval outlook on life. That means you don't view people as possessing a Buffett identity whereby if my neighbor has the same sex marriage or my neighbor is an adulterer or if my neighbor is cheating in business from a traditional perspective, that affects me. That spreads moral anarchy and moral contagion. If you're traditional, if you're a tribalist, if you're a nationalist, if you're a right wing, if you're conservative, your greatest fear for society is moral anarchy and filth and dirt and contagion and invasion from outside. Those are the threats that you are on the highest alert for and that's what you look for and that's what worries you. If you're a modern secular person, if you're a liberal or a leftist, the greatest threats that you see are ignorance and bigotry and people just need more education because you believe in the Buffett identity so that if people decide to be gay, if people decide to be trans, if people decide to throw a piss orgy in the age of monkeypox, well as long as they do it responsibly. Now, the Buffett identity comes with its own series of disciplines. It's not like a free fraud from the perspective of the modern liberal Buffett identity. You can have an ethical piss orgy. You make sure that everyone gets tested. You require the use of condoms. You make sure that people are very careful where they send out their fluids so it doesn't hit other people in vulnerable places. In the modern liberal leftist Buffett perspective, people can go out and explore and they can let go of traditional folkways and religious expectations that are holding us back and instead recognize that we're all individuals and that we can create meaning for ourselves. If we can create meaning for ourselves, then if we can develop our own moral code, it's very hard to argue against the passport bro sexual adventurer outlook. But if you have a traditional perspective where you don't believe that meaning is primarily something that people can create within their own heads, right? The modern liberal leftist humanist perspective is that meaning and morality is something that we primarily create within our own heads. The traditional communal national tribal religious conservative right wing perspective is that meaning and morality are created outside of us in the community or possibly the community that lives in relationship to some transcendent moral code such as the Bible or the Torah or the God of Mount Sinai. If you think that we as individuals create meaning and morality inside our own heads, it's really hard to argue against the passport bro sexual adventurer.