 Alex asked a Zizik related question, so let me take this. Zizik Chomsky and others seem to be enamored by their own intelligence. How would an intellectual or generally deep thinker get out of the trap of not being too impressed with their own brain? I think Peterson is the same way. I mean, look at Rand. I don't think that's the problem. I don't think the problem is enamored by their own intelligence. I mean, I think that's a symptom of the deeper problem. And the deeper problem is that in some deep sense they're detached from reality. They're all, you know, Kantians in that sense. They've detached themselves from reality and what they're enamored with is the game they're playing inside their head and doesn't make sense to them or doesn't it make sense to them? How do you structure it so it makes sense to them and reality be damned? I mean, not literally, but there's a sense in which that's the way their psychopistemology works, that's the way they think about the world and that comes across as they're enamored with their own intelligence because they're enamored with the game going on inside their head. And you take a genius like Ein Rand because Ein Rand always tied everything to reality because everything had to be in a sense tested by reality. It had to be proven true or not by reality. I mean, this is why she did philosophy in English in my view because English, the language we use, is so tied to reality. It's understandable because reality needs to be understood. We need to understand reality and concepts of the way for us to understand reality and she believed in the clarity of concepts and concepts should be clear. I mean, Zizek and Chomsky and Peterson, one of their characteristic features is ambiguity about concepts. They never define their terms. They never define capitalism. They never define communism. They never define Leninism. They never define anything that they criticize. Maybe political correctness. I mean postmodernism. Maybe they define that. And even that, you know, Jordan Peterson needs somebody heavily influenced by Ein Rand like Stephen Hicks to help him define what postmodernists are and who they are. But no, they can't hold, since it's not defined, they can't hold ideas. So it's all floating. It's all detached from reality. Ein Rand, everything is connected to reality. Her concepts, their meaning is tied to something real that she could point at. She could take you down the chain of thinking that connected a white abstraction with phenomena in the real world that you could observe directly. And that is her real genius. And that's what sets her apart from all these other intellectuals. Why she's understandable, why she doesn't come across as just enamored with herself because she understands that human consciousness, its purpose, its functioning is the identification of reality. It's to be conscious of something. Its primary function was not to be conscious of your own mental processes. That's not the primary function. And the mental processes should never be independent of reality out there, the thing that you're engaging with, the thing that you're survival depends on. I mean, there's a lot more to say about that in particular. But epistemologically, these people are detached from reality completely. And Jordan Peterson is the same way. And that's what gives you that impression that they're enamored with their own intelligence. Well, you see, in fact, reason is man's only faculty for perceiving reality. Reason is the only means by which man can achieve knowledge of reality. And by reason, of course, I mean the faculty which perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. For reason is man's faculty for perceiving reality. But reason does not work automatically. Man have to decide, will to think and to perceive. Man can receive sensory data or integrate sensations into perceptions automatically. But they cannot form conceptions. They cannot form abstractions automatically. That has to be a volitional function of man's consciousness. And since most men, guided by their philosophy, do not wish to think, and they consider thought and reason either dangerous or impotent or too much of an effort. Most human cultures with very rare exceptions have been ruled by what I call witch doctors. And a witch doctor is any man who takes his emotions, not his thinking, but his emotions as his tool of cognition and his guide to reality. He functions by means of faith. He acts on the basis of blind beliefs, which in fact are nothing more than his wishes. He is guided by his wishes, by his wins, which he takes as a guide to reality. No matter on what level of culture you observe him, that type of man is a witch doctor in the sense of his psychopistemology of the way he uses his mind. And since he has to deal with other men, since on the ground of emotions no one can deal with reality nor with people, the natural ally of the witch doctor will always be the type I call Attila. That is the primitive savage tribal chief, the man who acts only on the range of the moment, on his immediate sensory perceptions, who is contemptuous of and refuses to consider ideas, principles or abstractions and whose way of dealing with reality and with other men is by means of brute force. Attila is either the gangster or the dictator or the military conqueror or any man who believes that force is practical. Any man who refuses to think and wishes to loot and slave or force others. All through history, all major cultures with very few exceptions were ruled by an alliance of the man of faith, that is the witch doctor, with the man of force, which is the Attila. The witch doctor provided the gold and the values and the moral sanction for Attila to enforce in the world. And in today's world you see the same phenomenon in allegedly civilized terms, but the essence remains the same as dictated, which is the Attila, a man like Khrushchev and his political theories. The modern, leptist, liberal, socialist intellectuals who are philosophically Attilaists, they in effect provide an allegedly non-mystical moral justification, a philosophical justification for Attila and for the rule of brute force. I call them the neo-mystics because they are as much against the validity of reason as were the original jungle witch doctors. Thank you.