 See, many in the pre-pro lockdown crowd have ideas which cause them to want to control other people's lives. What's the difference between referring to ideas to analyze concrete events and conspiracy thinking? I know many people in the pro lockdown movement who consider themselves objectivists, not movement. People who are pro lockdown who are objectivists. Most of the, a lot of the objectivist doctors are pro lockdown because their orientation is save lives. That's what they're trained for that. And it's hard sometimes to broaden your context. But the orientation is to save lives. And when your orientation is to save lives, lockdown is the way to do it. So I don't view the pro lockdown as uniform or completely nutty irrational. I think they're rational people that are pro lockdown. I think they're wrong. I think they don't see the full context. I think they don't see the alternatives that they've been captured by this notion that there are only two ways to think about things. But I don't consider everybody's pro lockdown irrational or leftist or a conspiracist who want to control people. Now, a lot of people are pro lockdown wanna control other people's lives. But yeah, everybody wants to control other people's lives. Who doesn't? I mean, the conservatives want to prevent a woman from having an abortion. That's controlling other people's lives. They don't want gay people to get married. That's controlling other people's lives. They don't want lots of things. They want us to sacrifice for the nation and for the state. That's controlling other people's lives. So everybody out there wants to control other people's lives. This idea that the left wants to do and the right doesn't is plain false. Trump would love to control other people's lives and the internet and Amazon. And he'd love to do all that. So would many Republicans. So would many Democrats. It's some people wanna control every aspect of our lives. Those are authoritarian. You really have to watch for them. But they're on the right and on the left. Now, how do you differentiate between actual movements that want to impose themselves on us and conspiracy theories? Well, conspiracy theories tend not to have any real evidence supporting them. They tend to rely on marginal people with kooky ideas and who tend to be anti-scientific. I mean, I wish I had, I can't think right now about, I mean, I can think of the 9-11 conspiracy theories. If you look at the 9-11 conspiracy theories, I mean, it tended to be people who don't trust anything the government does, anything that it's all trying to control every aspect of their lives. They tended to be, many of them tended to be anti-Semitic. It was the Jews, it was Israel. All the Jews left the building before the towers collapsed, things like that. And so you sense racism, anti-Semitism, you know there's something weird going on here. And then they did no engineering. No, metal can't melt because of oil fuel, when jet fuel burns and stuff like that. And you go, are you a civil engineer? Do you know this? And so you listen to two civil engineers that claim this and these two civil engineers also happen to have a bunch of ideas about other things that are wacky and crazy. Why would I trust them on this when they have wacky ideas? So it's not difficult to peel away a few layers and discover when something is a conspiracy theory. It is just not grounded in reality. It's grounded in people's subjective views. And usually the people who are deemed as experts on this are not credible people. And you can identify them as not credible by tracking down their careers, by seeing what's happened to them, by what they've done. And by looking at what people say about them, by trying to evaluate who here seems more rational. What's really going on? So conspiracy theory at the end of the day is detached from reality. It has no evidence to support it. And that the evidence is all cooked up and distorted and perverted. The evidence they supposedly prevent. But it's not real. It's again, not connected to reality. 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 the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist, Brutes. Using the super chat. And I noticed yesterday, when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com, uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...