 So I wanted to quickly pause and just take a detour because I know you mentioned an idea right now where you said the the famous word socialism, which has been kind of in the news recently as we see down south of the border. But I want to reflect because I think sometimes we misunderstand history. And by misunderstanding history, it's often that I believe it was Plato that said those who control stories, control society, the idea that you have to be a good storyteller or the idea that stories are the ones that control the narrative by which we function in everyday life. So I know that collectively we all agreed in school or I guess if you don't then maybe you're part of a very marginal case. But we agreed that after the events of 1945, we understood that Nazi Germany like never again we understood as a collective as a consensus of the world after we saw those photographs of the concentration camps and never again this will never happen again. But it seems as though even though it's been like 30 almost three decades since it collapsed with the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall and how we've understood that sort of communism is unlike the ashes of history, there is still this flirtation with the bigger umbrella term of socialism. The idea that well pure capitalism in its innate form is as you mentioned that from the altruistic perspective, oh it's unequal therefore it causes division from an elite to a bourgeoisie to proletariat. Do you see, I know you've mentioned in previous podcasts and appearances, can you describe the similarities because I think you've juxtaposed both Nazism and communism in the same way in the sense that you would, I presume and I believe the same way particularly from our family history considering that our parents came from a part of Africa whereby socialism was rampant, however it wasn't branded as Marxism like oh we're not the Marxist guys, we're socialists but we're like in an African sense, like this idea of why it's still there and particularly in Western circles. Yeah I mean there's no question, for example the communism and Nazism are the same, there's no fundamental difference, there's certainly no difference in morality, they're both evil ideologies, evil ideologies that lead to death and destruction on a massive scale and indeed communism has killed more people than fascism in its history. But socialism, which is just kind of a toned down moderate version of communism, has and indeed communism itself all have much better public relations than fascism, right, nobody wants to be a Nazi, nobody wants, nobody wants to associate with Nazis, nobody, everybody walks out of a room if a Nazi walks in but if somebody walks into a room and said I'm a communist everybody goes oh hi you know that's kind of interesting and the reason is that socialism and Nazism, socialism and communism are very consistent with the prevailing moral code and the prevailing moral code is a morality of altruism, of sacrifice, of self-sacrifice, of collectivism but a kind of collectivism that's different than the fascist collectivism and more similar than the communist collectivism. The thing that people hate about the fascist collectivism is not the collectivism, what they hate about it is that it was racist, what they hate about it is that it established some people as opposed to be better genetically than other people, that's what they hate about it. The collectivism in and of itself they don't mind, they hate, they share the anti-individualism of the fascists, they just don't like the some groups are better than others. Now in a sense that exists in communism too because if you read Karl Marx the the the proletarians get rid of all the other classes and even some peoples who are not who don't fit or not fit to be proletarian you get rid of. So communism has built into it the same kind of conflict as Nazism and fascism does but people ignore that. People view communism and socialism as egalitarian, egalitarian is treating everybody the same based on race and other issues and ultimately leading to some kind of equality of outcome or equality of opportunity and a reduction in inequality of outcome. But they all disregard the individual, they're all anti-individualist, what matters is the group, what matters is society, what matters is the whatever, however you want to create this association, this group that you created whether it's the proletarian, whether it's society, whether it's your country, whatever it happens to be, they all should be equal and the job of the individual in such a society is to sacrifice for the sake of the collective. Now if you think about it that's consistent with Christianity, it's consistent with almost every moral code that exists in the West. There's no opposition to that idea, nobody stands up and says no we don't think that's right, that's just, that's moral. People might say we don't think that works, we think you'll all be poor, you think it hasn't worked in history but nobody says the idea is immoral, the idea is evil. Indeed, you see the opposite, you see a lot of conservatives, a lot of people on the right say, you know, even Jordan Peterson, right, University of Toronto you mentioned, so Jordan Peterson says things like, no, no, you know, socialism and communism, wonderful ideas, beautiful ideas, it's just not practical. People want to be inspired, people want to have an ideal. So they're much more interested in the ideal than in the practicality and that's why generation after generation, young people who are idealistic, who want to believe in something become socialist because it's all this presented to them and people, the people who oppose socialism, what they need to do is rally around an alternative ideal. I believe that ideal is individualism, that ideal is objectivism, that ideal is an ideal of individual happiness and the ideal is making the most of your life, living a great life, living a fantastic life but for whatever reason, because of education and because of religion and because of everything else, we're conditioned to be in a group, we're conditioned to be in a collective and most people are much more attracted, unfortunately the ideal of collectivism and therefore socialism, then they are to the ideal of individualism and therefore capitalism. But and they, as you said, a lot of people have never heard of it, right, because who stood for the ideal of individualism and a morality of individualism? I ran and pretty much nobody else. I want to segue quickly into capitalism, but also I want to relate what you just mentioned with regards to this ideal of young people being idealistic. As someone who's during this whole crisis that we've been in, kind of taken an interest in how the modern shaped world is today, I can think back to studying counterculture in the 60s and how much of a role today is progressive. So for example, people that espouse certain similar things as you're mentioning, like I think of like AOC, I think of left-leaning parties here in Canada like the NDP, these ideas in the whether they were formed in the academy in the university systems, how much did the 60s and counterculture have to do with it? Was this was it? Which I'm sort of on the edge of in terms of my observation and my hypothesis of just studying this, but is it the collapse of the importance of the church and the importance of the religious institutions in the 60s kind of that people, young people began to look towards idealistic, they looked for somewhere else for that ideal. And so they thought that the Marxist or the collective principles of me fighting for something greater than myself in the same realm of the Christian, Judeo-Christian value system, do you think that contributed? And then the university professors were just like pumping all the way along the fire basically. Well, I think all of that is true, but I think that the issue really is that the 1960s were a new phenomena, what I then called the new left, and you're seeing that today, but that the shift was happening for decades before that. So the shift away from capitalism really started in the 1880s and 90s with the progressive movement, and the progressive movement was already taking Marxist ideas, taking Hegel's ideas, undermining American individualism, bringing out the ideas of collectivism. But they still had this respect for ideas, respect for reason, respect for science. They were Marxists, much more fundamentally Marxists, but there was clearly undercutting American capitalism. And of course, American capitalism didn't die 10 years ago, it didn't die in the financial crisis. American capitalism died in 1890 when antitrust laws were passed for the first time, and in 1914 when income tax and the Federal Reserve was established in the 1930s with the great New Deal, so with the New Deal, so capitalism was dying, being murdered really slowly for a long, long time. But what happened in the 1960s is a new generation came about who was reading the existentialist, who was reading the postmodernist, who was writing their own ideas, and they were now rejecting what's called the old left. They rejected Marx to a large extent. They rejected the old philosophers. They didn't know they were channeling them in some ways, but their view is reason is impotent, science is impotent. Remember, Marx argues for scientific socialism. The 60s are anti-scientific socialism, right? They don't want science in socialism. They just want their feelings. Go to Woodstock is not about Marx. It's about hedonism, emotion, self-expression without a self, if you will, right? So they want a kind of collectivism that's tribal and emotionalist and postmodern. So what you see from the 60s to today is the intellectual, and so their professors were these Marxists, who were trying to tell them, oh, no, no, no, we still need the structure. We still need reason. We still need thought. We still need ideas. We still need evidence. And these kids are saying, no, we don't need any of that. We just need our emotions. Reality is meaningless. Reality is unknowable. It's all in our head. You're determined by your race. You're determined by your genes, whatever. All of this is nonsense. And then they become the professors. So what you get over the last 40 years is that the new left, the 60s counterrevolution, are the dominant intellectuals in our culture. And what are they teaching? They're teaching critical race theory, which says that you're determined by your race and it's inherent in you. And therefore, as a white person, you should feel guilty. As a black person, you should feel victim as a victim. And as a brown person, I get somewhere in the middle. And there's this whole categorization of victimhood, which is this, what do they call it now? They have this whole hierarchy of who's bigger victim. They have question hierarchy. What's that? They have question hierarchy. There's a term, which is a slip through on mine. But intersectionality, right? The whole intersectionality movement is about this hierarchy of oppression. And it has to do with your sexuality. And it has to do with your, they've discovered 92 sexes. And it has to do with your race. And they've discovered lots of different races. And all of this is completely devout of science. It's completely, I mean, Marx would be shocked by it. Economics, which is Marx's hallmark, right? Economic class. Is only one of the many, many, many categories of oppression. And what they have done is they, they've completely made emotions as a, as the most important thing in the world. That's why they view speeches violence, because if you offend them, you hurt your emotions, that's like them being punched in the nose. They don't see a difference in that. And they have destroyed, they are the anti-enlightenment forces today. Now, I think they're pretty impotent because they don't have a theory. They don't have anything to stand on. They don't really have ideas. Their ideas are meaningless because at the end of the day, it's all grounded in emotion. But they dominate the intellectual world today. And you hear their voices constantly. And this is what people like Jordan Pete's Peter son are speaking up against. But again, the challenge there is, you know, do you have a, do you have a set of ideas to replace theirs? And that's where Peterson and others, I think fail. They don't have something coherent, idealistic to replace these, what, what these intellectuals and note, these intellectuals are not idealists. What's the idealism of critical race theory? It's not color blindness. They don't believe in color blindness. That was Martin Luther King. That's the old left. And you left doesn't believe in color blindness. They want us all to be color, you know, conscious, right? Constantly think about color. Is it socialism? Is there some socialist utopia? Not really. The postmodernist critical race theory people, they just want control. It's not about even socialism. It's about control. They want to run your life. They want to run your life based on some ridiculous hierarchy, but their system falls apart. There's no coherent ideology. Even AOC and to some extent, Bernie Sanders are still to some extent remnants of the old left. They still believe in socialism, right? But the real, the people behind BLM and Tifa, people like that, they don't believe in socialism. They believe in mayhem. They believe in destruction. They believe in hate. They believe in nothing. Iron Man called it, what they really worship is the zero, is nothingness. And it's true that religion plays some role in here in two ways. One, the rejection of religion and the idea of what now, where the values come from. But also I would argue, and Iron Man would argue that religion conditions them towards emotionalism. Because what is religion? How do we know God exists? Because we feel it. There is no logical explanation. There's no rational explanation. So what, what religion conditions people is to feel, to have faith, to believe in revelation, and to be collectivist. And then these intellectuals capitalize on the fact that these kids are being raised religious to move them towards this nihilistic, you know, anarchistic point of view. But they're not even fighting for an ideal anymore. There's some socialist out there believing something. But the people in the streets, they don't believe in anything other than hatred. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But, but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this and you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.