 Our first speaker is, of course, Dr. Murray Rothbard. Dr. Rothbard is the S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He heads Academic Affairs for the Mises Institute. He's the question, the most important Austrian economist now working, the founder of modern libertarianism, obviously the most important social and philosophical thinker within libertarianism as well as economics. And he's going to talk to us tonight about egalitarianism as a revolt against nature. Dr. Rothbard. Thank you. Well, I'm just going to come up with some. Thanks a lot. It's really a pleasure to be here. I know you have sort of a formal thing to say, but this case is absolutely correct. This is a large topic, so I was trying not to be so cold on my time. The first question I'm going to ask you here is why equality in the first place? This is something I've unfortunately never been able to grasp or understand. The standard approach is the very wordy quality is said caressingly and lovingly. And as if it's self-evidently beautiful and noble, I can't see it. And maybe I'm missing a gene or something. Now, equal means the same. This is very important. So if A and B are equal in height, it means that they have the same height. So therefore, genuine or complete equality, which is what the egalitarians are looking for, is total sameness, totally uniformity. Everybody being exactly the same as everybody else. This means people as identical homogeneous units. Now, it seems to me, well, that question then I asked is what's so great about the idea of uniformity? It seems to me this goal is profoundly anti-human. It violates the nature of man. The glory of humanity is the differentiation of the individuality of each person. And the fact that each individual is unique and irreplaceable, which makes each individual precious. I used to say that ants, this is contrast to ants, with various etymologists, excuse me, smearing ants. They're really different. But anyway, you get the point. So the fact that every person is diverse and individual, therefore, must mean that everybody is unequal. And that's great. I'm concerned. As far as I know, some of you can correct me on this. No important philosopher or writer but favorite equality or anything like it until the 18th century. I found a quote from great 11th century Arab scholastic Al Ghazali who denounced the idea of coercive equality as certainly one of the namesharing of wealth must be voluntary. So obviously there must have been some people who were in favor of coercive equality. But I can't find any important thinkers for it. Adam Smith gets in one of my favorite hobby horses here. And it was an 18th century environmentalist and an egalitarian in the sense that he believed that every individual is equal and uniform blob and has the same interests, the same ability, the same intelligence, et cetera. This contrast to the scholastics, my favorite founders of economics in the French school in the 18th century, who believed, quite the contrary, the specialization and division of labor are based on differences of ability and interest in addition to differences in natural resources. Smith, on the other hand, believing everybody's the same blob has denied that. And therefore he tried to explain exchange as quote, my quote alleged an alleged quote, propensity to truck, barter, and exchange, unquote. In other words, people are simply like lemmings determined in some way to exchange, even though they don't really benefit from it. Smith also held by the way, the differences in wages are therefore different due only to differences in the cost of training with everybody's really equal and equal blob. And this, by the way, is still the ruling theory in neoclassical economics that's including Chicago-wide economics. Gary Becker, for example, much beloved labor Chicago labor economist believes that the differences in wage rights only due to differences in training. So the only reason why architects get more money than ditch diggers for their, you know, have a longer period of training. In contrast to this, San Bernardino of Siena, the 15th century Italian scholastic, Franciscan, said the difference is in wages to do, in addition to the cost of training, differences in the cost of training, I do the differences in ability, energy, and interest. In other words, it's essentially, San Bernardino of Siena is a better labor economist than Gary Becker. So this is one of my themes, the history of economic thought, by the way, is a tremendous loss of knowledge and additional growth in knowledge is also great losses in knowledge through history. Okay, the turning from why equality, the next question is equality in what? What is supposed to be equal? Much specifically, well, one first, one classic item is equality of income. And this was the sort of the traditional, and call it traditionally egalitarian, post-18th century egalitarian, everybody should have equal income. Now, of course, the first thing I have to say as an economist, you can't just talk about money income. So it's meaning, let's talk about real incomes. What does the money buy? There has to be an equality of real income. So when you get to that, you find an additional goal of egalitarianism being monstrous and anti-human. It's also impossible. It's conceptually impossible because how do you equalize everybody's real income? For example, as location. Hungary is living on the banks of the Danube, dining in its wonderful outside cafes. People living in the Bay Area in San Francisco are living in a quasi-paradise. People, on the other hand, living in Union City, New Jersey, not too good a shape, or Northern Minnesota, where they're freezing most of the time. How do you equalize these real income differences? You can't, presumably, you can't bring everybody an equal portion of them every month. You'd fly them in different places. It seems to be impractical. You can bust them. You can, that's right. So then the question is, do you have to find out their psychic, the positive psychic incomes of living in the Bay Area, living in Budapest, and tax them and then subsidize people with negative psychic incomes from living in Union City, New Jersey? I'm yelling, how do you find that out? You can't calculate it. No way you can find that out because you certainly can't ask them because everybody will say, no, I'm suffering here. I have to be paid. Pay me. And there are, of course, some people, some eccentric types, who don't like the Bay Area, prefer living in Union City, New Jersey. What do you do with them? How do you equal, how do you find out what their subjective preferences are? Obviously you can't. So I think that's the quality of real income is in very bad conceptual shape. And by the way, I consider that utopian in the bad sense. I think it's important to differentiate between utopian in the good sense. For example, nobody should commit murder. That's an ideal which probably won't be achieved ever, but at least conceptually possible. You can understand it. It doesn't break down conceptually. But say everybody should have equal real income, it does break down conceptually. It's impossible even. Ponder it. Equality of opportunity is the next ploy here. That sounds more moderate, but it really isn't. It's almost as absurd as the quality of income. It's an ideal. How do you equalize opportunities? First, what you have to do is to make sure that family fortunes are the same. I've worked, it's unjust. For one person to inherit more money than somebody else. Therefore you wipe out. Either wipe out inheritance altogether, equalize inheritance, so that you can do that. But there's still more left. Inheritance is not the first. Monetary inheritance is only a first step. What do you do about the quote unfairness on quote? Of the fact that people come from different families. Some people were born as parents or wise, cultured and intelligent. Other kids grow up in broken, moronic and dysfunctional homes. How do you equalize that? How do you deal with the quote unfairness, which is one of the great notorious egalitarian terms. It's unfair for somebody, some kids grow up in a nice home with good parents. I want other kids to grow up in a home with crazy parents. How do you equalize that? So of course the classic answer to that, the egalitarian answer of many communist theorists, is to force everybody, every kid that we grow up in a state nursery and state home, state school, take them away from their parents and equalize them to state action. Except nationalize old kids from birth, in other words. And we are them in equal and identical state nurseries. But even there, even this monstrous setup, you still can't achieve equality, because first of all there's a pesky problem of location I already mentioned. There's some state nurses being in Bay Area, others being in Union City, New Jersey. How do you equalize that? For a while to Central Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, even the equal and uniform administrators will not be the same. Some nurses and teachers will be pure evil, others will be slightly less evil. There'll be differences in teachers and nurses and all the rest. Even administrators will be different. Even though the state might try its best to make everybody, degrade everybody, debase them and have everybody robotic and brainwashed, there will still be differences. Looking around the facts, some of you have nice nurses or competent others which you won't, there's fletcher types. So that again, equal opportunity can't be achieved either. Then we come to the third category, equality of decision-making power. Another important thing. This is by the way, how much shook in a great book, which I recommend everybody call Envy. There's a German sociologist, he wrote this book in German in the 50s, it was translated into English in 1961. No, 1970 and then was reprinted by Liberty Fund I think a few years ago, great book. He points out that even egalitarian achieved their ends of total economic equality, it will intensify the other differences, the non-economic difference among people and next step will be to try to wipe those out, make those equal. It will intensify, for example, differences in status and prestige and occupation and hierarchy and decision-making power. What do you do about that? What do you do about any qualities of rank? One guy's the president of a corporation or an organization, another guy's a rank and file type. Even though they're making the same monetary incomes and now the difference in prestige becomes aggravated. Of course, one attempt, the original communist Marxian attempts to wipe out all divisions of labor all together. So nobody's an architect or a dish digger or whatever. Everybody's everything. And Marx's famous quote about, everybody will be an artist in the morning and something on an artisan in the afternoon and be your capital in the evening, that sort of thing. So this obviously means everybody, if you put this in effect, everybody dies out pretty fast. There's no division of labor, there's no production, no longer any egalitarian problem. That's one way to handle it, I suppose. Aside from that more extreme view, in my view, this is a natural, a natural law and virtually a natural law. Every organization whatsoever, whether it's a corporation or a volunteer organization or anything ideological organization, they're always, or a bridge club, they'll always be a core of people actually running it. Those who are more able and more interested. They're the ones, there'll be a core that's running at the elite, the natural aristocracy, if you recall that naturally. The other guys would be the rank and files through any organization. Robert Michels discovered this in the famous iron wall of Aligvargy. Michels is a social Democrat in Europe in the late 19th century. And observe the Social Democratic Party in action in Germany and other countries. The fan out here, they were committed to totally quality and abolitionist division of labor here. They have a tight rule by power elite and the rank and file are listening to. I think it came to the conclusion that this is true of social democracy, must be true of everything. They always have an iron wall of Aligvargy. Now I see nothing wrong with this, that Sam seems to me it's a law of nature. There'll always be a core group. I know for example of a small but increasingly successful volunteer music organization in New York Music Society as a governing board, which is elected annually by its members. But for years the group has been governed by the benevolent but absolute autocratic rule of its president. As a lady who was highly intelligent, innovative and though employed full time elsewhere is able and willing to devote an incredible amount of time and energy to this organization. So several years ago some Malcolm Tent challenged her rule and this challenge is easily beaten back as any every rational member realized or is like, excuse me, this without her. Now that's what I consider. I sort of know nothing wrong with it. It's great when something like that pops up. It should be even more of them. Where a person of this sort come to the forum or chosen as the natural elite. This is Jeffersonian natural aristocracy so to speak. By the way as far as I'm concerned democratic voting is at its best when they have shareholders of the corporation who are voting their coastal ownership of the assets of the corporation. If you own one fifth of a corporation you have one fifth of a vote. And it's only secondarily useful in other cases as a method of displacing natural aristocrats or monarchs who go sour from time to time. Aristotelian in terms of change from monarchs to tyrants that this lady sort of went bananas at some point. Useful have a board which will dislodge it. So at best democratic voting is not a primary good. It's a let alone a good of itself. Simply a secondary method of checks on natural aristocrats. I'm doing a period of the mid 1960s the new left before it hives off in the Stalinism and bizarre violence. It's trying to put into effect which I think was a new political theory called participatory democracy. And it sounded great, sounded libertarian to this extent. The idea was not just that everybody should participate equally as one part of it but also that no decisions should ever be made by majority rule, majority rule was tyranny. Every decision should be made by unanimous consent of the members. It sounds very much like Jim Buchanan's unanimity rule and public choice. A friend of mine was teaching which was her main name was Protect the Guilty. I was teaching about history of Vietnam in a new left free university of New York in the mid 60s which is originally a scholarly organization founded by a young sociologist couple. The free university set out to be a total participatory democracy. No majority rule, no rule at all. Everybody's, and the members, the governing board of the free university consists of a staff which is a couple, two people a couple. Any students who are interested in wandering in, they pay a little small tuition and the teachers who were unpaid and then anybody who cared to attend was part of this governing group. They made every decision equally. That was no priority. And all decisions, I mean all decisions from the courses taught to room assignments to should this room need a paint job and what color paint should it be? I mean every possible conceivable petty point and decided you now have to be decided unanimously. Well, I think it's very interesting. I've participated in a couple of these things because I was taking the course in front of my teaching in Vietnam. And it was interesting sociological experiment for Steve Goldberg, any sociologist here. First of all of course, very few decisions were reached. I'm not pretty obvious. And second of all, the board meeting stretched out to become life itself. Endless. And this friend of mine would go home, they're sort of like a start to a no exit situation. If you left, the friend of mine for example, would go home every day at five or six o'clock to eat and live and separate. He was attacked for abandoning the meeting, for betraying the collective by leaving, by having a private life after five or one. Do you see what happens? It's maybe the current leftist political theorist keep talking about public life and civic virtue have in mind. No private life anymore. Everything gets wrapped up and tied up and mixed up in participatory collective, virtue is civically virtuous collective meeting, a lifelong permanent floating meeting. Well, it shouldn't come as no surprise that the University of New York is not last very long. As a matter of fact, what first happened is the scholarship is a very good scholarly group for the first year or so. And it quickly shifts to become to teach, to teach quote unquote, new left astrology, tarot cards, channeling your rhythm makes whatever other nonsense would be taught at the time. The scholar's all left and sociological Russians law was in work. And that was about it. The founding couple by the way, for those who are interested in that, female wound up in jail for unsuccessfully, of course, trying to blow up a bank. And while a male getting increasingly glassy eyed and a billion feet of sociological, let your domain or precedent agitation took themselves into the notion of the only moral occupation for a revolutionary sociologist is that a radio repair man. I don't know what happened with some babies in DJ radio repair work. Who knows? This reminds me, a new left educational theory was rampant at that time. Unfortunately, I was teaching in a very conservative engineering school, which only got parts of this in our little social science department, but the only part was touched by it. The doctrine then was not so much to be politically correct. The doctrine then was that the teacher student relation was intrinsically evil because it's inherently unequal and hierarchical because the teacher knows more than the student. You have to do something, you have to wipe that out. The way you wipe that out to make it truly democratic and egalitarian is not to have any content in the courses to sit around rapping about the student's feelings. Since the student, there's no student's feelings in any superior or whatever, in any greater value than any other student's feelings, or the teacher's feelings, that matter. That becomes the only relevant topic to students. They sit around all the time talking about the student's feelings. One problem with this, of course, was that why should the students, the question which I raised immediately in our little discussion department meeting, why should the students, or more correctly, they're no longer suffering parents, pay faculty who are qualified in other content. They are qualified in economics, sociology, whatever. Why should parents pay them sit around rapping about the student's feelings of the students? Anyway, that didn't seem to last too long. That way, I don't have the other politically corrects of that stuff. Okay, and then Shook points out that even if you somehow equalize income, wealth, opportunity, decision-making power, you've still got other things. Other inequalities don't become rampant. Namely, personal attributes. You have to eradicate them. And he mentions two works that I talk about in this essay that we distributed to you. Two fascinating books, the fictional works of, this still being fiction, one by a British writer, L.P. Hartley, called Facial Justice, written in 1961. And also he doesn't mention this as a short story that came across by Kurt Vonnegut, Carl Harrison Bergeron, also published in 1961. Later published in his essay, book of essays called Welcome to the Monkey House. What the sensitive view is, in the case of Hartley, he says, after World War II, he's looking at British life after World War II. And he says, after the Third World War, he says justice doesn't make great strides. Economic justice, social justice, and other forms of justice has been achieved. There were still other areas of life that are concurrently facial justice. Some women are prettier than others. That has to be stamped out. So there were, women were, or women's faces were looked at as three categories, alpha, pretty women, beta, pleasantly attractive, as you put it, and gamma ugly. And then the idea is to have compulsory operations, plastic surgery operations to reduce the pretty women that are pleasantly attractive and possibly increase the ugly women. And the emphasis is more on reducing the face of the alphas, the lebatas. And the operation is undergone by the Equalization Faces Center, Equalization Faces Paranthosis Center. At the same time, Kurt Vonnegut published, Harrison Bergeron's even pittier, even more bitterly, bitterly is a terrible story, short story about a comprehensive egalitarian society which had been achieved by the year 2021. He's writing some quoting, just a couple of sentences from Vonnegut. The year was 2021, everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God in the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, the 2012, the 230th Amendments of the Constitution. And so the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States, handicapper general. And the handicapping work partly as follows, quote, Hazel and a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, well, his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by the Lord to wear it at all times. It was tuned on government transmitter. Every 20 minutes or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains. So the interesting thing about this is we feel, I think it's a particular horror at these examples of the Heartland and Vonnegut example. The reason is because these qualities are so intimately connected with each person. So it's only wrapped up with each person. On the other hand, we have people like the famous egalitarian philosopher John Rawls who claims that people don't deserve their personal quality. They didn't create them, like looks, intelligence, et cetera. And therefore, of course, they have to be compulsory egalitarianized. He doesn't quite go the root of the facial justice and the handicap. I don't see why not. One counter to this I would tend to make is, of course, that each person uses his or her free will energy and focus and concentration to apply these given qualities to the world. But Rawls says, well, that too is determined. All this energy and applications is also determined, therefore, you can't attribute any credit to that either. Well, my reply is basically, so what? See, these attributes are mine or yours and wrapped up for this intimately. And what right does anyone else have than to fear with them? It means far less right, much less dessert, and the rest of us will have these qualities. Okay, we go on from there to the next step, which is equality for whom. We're talking about different types of equality. What we might call now classical old fashioned egalitarianism says that each individual should be made equal. But now we have a new thing, which is even more bizarre. It's like on the previous one, even crazier. This is group equality. That's the current status, the current phrase. Groups that are made equal to each other. Particularly there seem to be two categories of groups. Those who are designated as oppressed and those who are designated as the oppressors. The purpose of social policies to subsidize the privilege of the oppressed while culminating and burdening the oppressors. The oppressors are supposed to supply a seemingly endless flow of money, prestige, status, and other hands of the oppressed all the time feeling enormous guilt for the centuries of oppression. And by the way, there seems to be no stopping point of this and no end point to say, okay, here's how much you have to pay to the oppressed. It goes on, apparently it goes on and on forever. Who are the oppressed groups? Actually, nobody knows, it seems to me, thank you. It almost makes me long to the nostalgia for the old days of classical Marxism. The Marxism is pretty clear. The oppressed are the proletariat. The oppressors are the bourgeoisie and the feudal landlords if any happen to exist. And there's a little bit of ambiguity about the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen. But that's about it. It's sort of, yeah, it's a fairly good shake. But nowadays, you can find new oppressed every day. There's no way of stopping it. And it takes a lot of pressure for lobbying and media attention and approval to get to the oppressed status. Make yourself, yeah, designated and recognized to the oppressed, and Joe Stillbrand writes, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim. So we find, for example, among the recently oppressed, we find that Smith College, distinguished college in Massachusetts, handed out from the Office of Student Affairs a list of 10 different kinds of oppression, allegedly inflicted by making judgments about people, making judgments itself of apparently oppression. These include heterosexism, defined as oppression of those with non-heterosexual orientations, which includes, by the way, not acknowledging their existence as part of oppression. And ableism, which is defined as oppression that differently abled. Apparently, in the old days, we used to say disabled or handicapped. That's a no-no, but that makes them feel oppressed. Oppression was differently abled by the temporarily able, the rest of us were temporarily able, right? Also, particularly relevant to the Hartley and Bonnigot is ageism, oppression of the young and the old by youngish and middle-aged adults. And lookism, or looksism, defined as the construction of a standard of beauty or attractiveness. And oppression, by the way, also consists of noticing the difference. In this case, noticing the difference about oppression. Perhaps the most chilling, recently created category, low gizm or logo-centric, the tyranny of the knowledgeable and the articulate over the ignorant and the dumb. I said, a so-called feminist scholarship guidelines. I found out, by the way, that the recent ones today, Heritage Foundation's now come out in favor of feminism being conservative. I don't know if I've accepted this yet. A set of feminist scholarship guidelines sponsored by the state of New Jersey for its college campuses, that's right here. Attacks knowledge and scientific inquiry per se as being as a male, quote, rape of nature, unquote. It charges, quote, mine was male, nature was female. Knowledge was created by an act of aggression. A passive nature had to be interrogated, unclothed, penetrated and compelled by man to reveal her secrets, unquote. And then we have oppression of forces, also broadly defined as any, as acknowledging this as many possible superiority in any area, because that's an occasion for envy. How much shook points that? Well, we've done with egalitarianism, institutionalization of envy or maximization of envy avoidance. But whether the highest value in life is trying to make sure that all envy is always avoided. Dominated literary theory of deconstructionism fiercely argues there can be no standards to judge one literary text superior to another one. At a recent conference, one political science professor referred directly to Cheslaw Miloge's book, The Captive Mind, as a classic. Another female professor declared the very word classic, quote, makes me feel oppressed, unquote. So the focus now of a little scholarship and criticism is supposed to be to avoid but to cater to any possible feelings of oppression, which means that nobody ever can be considered superior or classic or anything else. Okay, the really, but see the really almost infinite number of classes of groups that could be oppressed. I'm a member, every one of you is a member of almost a different number of groups, okay? High group, weight group, where you live, all the rest of it, all minorities and the world could be oppressed. I, for example, are some luckless graduate student that can coerce into it and do a study showing that all people have lower incomes than the haired. Okay, who knows? Because make us define athletes and say, aha, multiple oppressed, they're boldness. And then you have a group of age-old oppression of low people and why both people should have 10,000 years of haired oppression. They should be compensated for all the rest of them. Okay, to go through the, quickly, through some of the various allegedly oppressed groups. The women are supposed to be an oppressed minority. By the way, minorities are supposed to be oppressed or are they a minority, of course. And women, of course, are actually a majority. So, compared to the kind of peculiarity of women and minority. Also, I find it very difficult to figure out in what sense Jackie Kennedy on NASA's has been oppressed. That is, the Hispanics, I find it very difficult to figure out why, in what sense we have been oppressing Hispanics. And the only thing I can think of is that if they refuse to learn English, I don't consider that oppression. I mean, it's not sufficient criterion for being oppressed. There was, of course, a lot of bizarre happenings in this whole thing, including Hispanic, in particular. And San Francisco recently, there's a Hispanic quota in the fire department in San Francisco. So for people trying to get into the Hispanic quota, I should say, by the way, that the whole point here, of course, is to try to get out of the burdened category of the oppressor and trying to join, desperately trying to join the, happy category of the oppressed. You can get in on the mood or the goodies. So, as an Hispanic quota, now you have to hire a certain number of Hispanics. Who's an Hispanic? Well, it turns out, one guy was hired and was kicked out because he wasn't really Hispanic. He was Italian. Kick out, boo, evil. Kick him out. Another one, another fire department person, was not really Hispanic because he was Spanish. That doesn't count. The Spanish can't be Hispanic. I don't know what you're saying, of course. Linda Chavez is not considered Hispanic because she's not an authentic Barrio Hispanic. So you have to be an authentic Barrio first. There was also a question, case in Queens, New York, was an Hispanic quota, I think, for teachers and somebody changed his name from Robbins in the Lopez claiming he was Hispanic. I mean, it was an intricate genealogical analysis. Well, we have not, by the way, genealogies now at a high point in American life. I figure he's not really Hispanic. He's really, you know, whatever. And then the question is, the first thing is they didn't look Hispanic. Interesting question is how to define who looks Hispanic who doesn't. That kind of worms right there. And then, of course, it's a black question. The black question, who's black? The whole term, by the way, is a lot of peculiar because when I was growing up, the elderly people I was growing up called them the colored. That was sort of the genteel way of going. And then that was considered racist. Then everybody changed a negro. That was considered racist. Then it changed to black. And now it's supposed to be African-American. I don't think it's gonna go over the American masses because they're not too long a word for people to say African-American. At any rate, if you talk about black then, if I'm gonna stop there, I'm too old to learn another name now, at this point. Who's black and who isn't? What does black mean anyway? In what sense, for example, is Governor Douglas Weiler of Virginia black? It doesn't look black to me. I know several friends of mine are Italian-Americans. Much blacker than he is. Skin is much darker. So what is this supposed to mean? Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., one of my favorite rogue congressmen in the old days, was a black minister and black leader. Apparently he wasn't black at all. It was an article in the Newsweeks, sort of a bemused article in the Newsweeks, saying, well, jeez, a quarter of Cherokee or something. Not black at all. They decided they made a career, a conscious career decision early on. He's gonna be a black leader. What's that like? And how do you deny that? That's a really black. How do you prove this? It's a very strange situation. But just the other day was an interesting article in the New York Times off-bed page, right? Light, skin, black, literally attacking a new movie about Thurgood Marshall. But Sidney Plattier is playing Thurgood Marshall. And he's attacking this terrible thing. Whites are insensitive to the real problem here because Sidney Plattier is an ebony colored black where Thurgood Marshall lights beige colored black. That's terrible things. Racists have a dark skin, black, play a light skin, black. So we can see this now. The next step is coming up with a very carefully calibrated colorometrics. What degree of tint is the person allowed by the other person? So we're into a lovely period here. But we have now, genealogical research, we'd say it's maximum, probably as great as Apex's Hitler because trying to figure out the genealogical reference of all these people. Probably the most, the best example of this is the distinguished Neocon journalist, Joshua Moranczyk wrote an article on commentary magazine trying to demonstrate the path you can as anti-Semitic. And he, and it's basically major proof was this. Ah-ha, he engaged in genealogical, brilliant genealogical research. He found out a path you can as masquerading as Irish, not really Irish at all. He's only one quarter Irish. He's half German, that's for through why he's anti-Semitic. He would have done very well with a slightly different ethnic background. It was done beautifully in Germany in the 30s. So the, then there's of course a question of compensation of blacks for slavery. That's a new thing coming up. Bill's already being introduced to the Congress for compensation, it's kind of an interesting concept. Who's, first of all, why am I supposed to compete? I mean, the various criticisms you can make of this. One is, why am I supposed to compensate blacks for slavery? Am I, I was not involved in slavery as a slave master, my ancestors were not slave masters. Why are we supposed to kick into this? Oh, one. Number two, even if you, even for, you have a, well, first and foremost, I should say, the idea of collective guilt is monstrous. The only guilt for anything should be the person himself and not his fifth generation descendants. There's no way which enforce another set of people to pay for somebody else's previous crimes. The, and even if I, even if my ancestors were slave masters, I wasn't a slave master. There are very few slave masters left in the United States, I think at this point. I have to be about a hundred and 10 years old in South Carolina, probably not left. And this person will not be able to pay the full, full path. So it seems to me that that, that itself would, but who should pay it? Obviously, nobody seems to me, nobody should pay it. The second question, who should get it? It's another interesting area. Who was, who gets the allocation of the $100 billion, whatever the total compensation is supposed to be for slavery? Because Governor Wilder gets it, he only got, he's only got 100th black, Marshall White, when he gets very little. Who gets what? Who's the authentic slave, slave descendant who isn't? Guess we're to get very dicey, it seems to me. Also, see who should pay the, I don't see why the Southern slave who should pay any compensation, compensation to be paid by people who did the actual original enslavement, which happened to be African tribal chiefs. And the Americans simply bought them from the slave, from the transport of them, from Africa. So the compensation to be the whoever the descendant is of King Walla Walla Walla, whatever. And try to get him to pay the $200 billion. It'd be interesting to see that too. Submit the bill. Also, of course, if you're looking at collective guilt, the collective punishment, there's another side of the coin too. Shouldn't blacks pay the following, for example? Pay the victims a little of muggings and the armed robberies and all the rest of it. And rapes, shouldn't they pay all the welfare payments back? Shouldn't they pay the costable privileges and quotas and set aside and that separate set and on and on? Shouldn't they pay transportation costs for bringing them from Africa? Plus, of course, interest. So, okay, I think I'll end this discord by final, final statement. I apologize for being personal now, but the new left tells me the personal is the political so I will, I might as well fuse it and take advantage of this. I come before you, my friends, as at least the quadruply oppressed person. At least, it means I deserve, at least four times I did whatever goodies anybody's getting, I deserve millions. Aside from my being oppressed as a libertarian and the state who's more libertarian than at least a couple of trillion. Aside from that, okay, all my life, my name began with R, all right? I've been down at the end of the alphabet as the goodies being passed out with names of being called in school or whatever. I'm at the end, I'm an R. I'm an alphabetically deprived, lexical graphically oppressed. I need big compensation for all the A's, B's and C's. Secondly, I am spectacle or differently eyed. All my life I've been called fluoride by two-eyed types over there. There are lots of, you know, hundreds of millions for that and represented my spectacle comrades. Third, I've suffered all my life as a bowtie wearer. I owe you foreign hand types. A few years ago, there was some monster, some evil person that got on television, I'll get his name. He was talking about how to dress for success, how to dress as an executive. You know what he said? I can quote your verbatim. He said, don't wear a bowtie because people don't trust people who wear a bowtie. They don't trust them. I deserve millions from that guy alone. Bowtie massive. Why I asked you, by the way, to Senator Paul Simon do so badly when he ran for president in 1988. It's not because of ideology. Well, the ideology is the same. Two reasons. One, he had big ears. He was differently eyed. Smeared an attack for that reason. And two, he wore bowtie and therefore wasn't trusted because of the propaganda of the foreign handers. And fourth and finally, and this thing, one of my favorite topics about press law in my life is a shorty of the tall types in the world. This is the evil, this is the evil oppression of heightism. A friend of my recently saying, he was trying to be parody of this whole thing about it. I think, well, how about heightism? And somebody else said, yeah, it's already there. That sure is. I mean, give me sociologists a bad time tonight. But 20 years ago, there's an article written by Professor Saul Feldman, a sociologist at Case Western Reserve University has distinguished short himself. Talking about the impression of the shorts by the tolls. He bought together, he bought sociological, sociological science in this investigation. He reported that a recent University of Pittsburgh graduating seniors, those six foot taller received an average starting salary, 12.4% higher than graduates under six feet. In the marketing, Professor Eastern Michigan University at Quinn, 140 business recruiters about their preferences between two hypothetical equally qualified applicants for the job of salesman. One of the hypothetical sales was to be six foot one and the other five foot five. The recruiters answered as follows. 27% expressed the politically correct no preference. 1% would hire the shorty and no less than 72% would hire the toly. Also, he points out, Professor Feldman, that women notoriously refer to over short men. Obviously, terrible impression right there. He could have pointed out, he failed to point out Alan Ladd could only play the romantic lead in the old movies by standing on a box. Because the big of the Hollywood moguls who themselves were short, betraying their short comrades and pandering to the tall culture, made him do it. He also, Feldman also points out the language. Our language is filled with anti-short prejudice and such phrases of people being quote short-sighted, short-changed, short-circuited and short in cash. He also adds that among two major party candidates President of the Tall was almost invariably elected. And of course, he could have pointed out that the 1988 campaign were not only to push tower over Dukakis, but representative Charles Wilson, Democrat of Texas, was able to express the tallest bigotry of his region, quote, no Greek dwarf can carry East Texas. And he said this without calling forth any protest or marches by organized short-dumber. So the, and it also might be instructive to study whether the savage treatment accord of the martyred Senator John Power, and his confirmation hearings to do it was alleged, whatever, in fact, the order of the fact he was extremely short, should be investigated too. Now we have, so I raised the time, I think I will repeat that the, we don't, most of us don't hate tall people. We don't, most of us don't hate tall people. Recognize the systematic systemic. We shorts welcome progressive guilt-ridden tolls as pro-short sympathizers and auxiliaries in the shorty moment. Of course, we need 10,000 years of oppression, you know, lots of several, you know, whatever compensation. I must point out however, that some of our younger, more militant shorts, organizations such as Short Nation and Short Up do hate the talls and really be very militant about it. So I urge you, give us more responsible shorts, lots and lots of money, and we will, we will, you know, vamp on the radical short before they really tear it all up. Thank you very much.