 Broadening the conversation out a little bit, how does the contemporary hard, ultra-left in America groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter and those kind of groups, how do they relate to mainstream democratic party politics? Because it does sort of seem to me extraordinary that the party of JFK, Franklin Delano, Roosevelt and what have you, now has people like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and these kind of people who are sort of ill-defined, but ultra-left, sort of verging on Marxism, but not in a very specific or intellectually persuasive way. How are they becoming sort of concertinaed into each other? It doesn't really surprise me, so the new left, the AOCs of the world are coming to become more and more important and more and more dominant within the democratic party. And the democratic party has taken a shift to kind of these new left positions, which doesn't really surprise me. It's something that I think I never predicted in the 1960s will ultimately happen. The JFKs, the LBJs, Johnson, even the FDRs, whatever they represent, they don't represent anything principled. They present some mushy, welfare state, mixed economy position that doesn't really have any principles and every really guiding light. I mean, John F. Kennedy was a known pragmatist who didn't really stand for anything substantive. When you have an environment where the consensus is kind of wishy-washy, neither here nor there, that is incredibly vulnerable for people who actually believe in something, even something really bad, to start tilting people in that direction. Long-term ideas are what matters. Long-term it is the radical positions, the more consistent positions, the win-out. The mixed economy is not sustainable. The mixture will either move towards more authoritarianism or towards more freedom. And I think what we've seen at the Democratic Party is this mixture of some freedom, but a lot of constraints and certainly in the economic sphere, a lot of regulations and controls and redistribution of wealth and so on, this mixture. And the Democratic Party has led to those advocating for more controls and more consistent controls to dominate and to dominate and to move the Democratic Party towards a more kind of authoritarian positioning. I think they've done the same thing on the right, the party of Richard Nixon and certainly the Bushes, which stood for nothing, stood for vaguely free markets, but not too seriously. Cutting taxes, the one thing the Republicans have always been good at is cutting taxes, but not in the name of liberty or freedom or anything like that because they never cut spending and they never really deregulate. And of course that mishmash, that inconsistency, that unprincipled position opens Republicans up to the kind of, I'd say, new right, which is much more nationalistic and much more fascistic and much more authoritarian. So I think both left and right are moving towards authoritarianism, different brands of authoritarianism, as a consistent application of the underlying ideas that are behind each one of the left and the right. In that sense, I don't like that spectrum anymore because what we're seeing is collectivism with the left and collectivism with the right and people like us don't belong anywhere near there. We're like in a different dimension and the political dimension I like is collectivism versus individualism with much of the collectivism on the left and right and the collectivist side and the few of us who are still staying for individualism on the other side. So in a way what you're describing is very much what Hayek was writing about in the context of the Germanic world when he wrote his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, where he argued that actually fascism and hardline socialism, which were generally seen as being polar opposites. In fact, he saw fascism as being the logical outcome of a very heavily regulated socialist economy and society in that the real continuum is between liberals at one end and various forms of collectivist at the other. Absolutely. So I agree with that completely and more than that, I think Hayek was also right in the sense that he kind of talks about the slippy slope in The Road to Serfdom. That is once you give in a little bit, once you concede some of the collectivist's agenda, once you concede to them, then you concede more and more and more because there's a more consistent party, again, which are a little bit of collectivism versus a lot of collectivism. There's a lot of collectivism. The fascists and the socialists are more consistent about the collectivism than this Mishiwashi middle ground of a mixed economy. And so there's a slippy slope that once you go to the JFK route or once you go to the Richard Nixon route, the left is going to become more collectivist and the right is going to become more collectivist because neither the Nixon, the Republican Bush or the Kennedy, neither one of them are stand for individualism, stand for liberalism in its proper conception. Yeah. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.