 Hello. It's been a while. That Austin or Chicago? I'm in Chicago. You got to be an Austin. He took me away from my beloved White Sox game, so. Sorry, well you can't see them, you can't see them in person anyway, so. No, it's all television. So I wanted to challenge this concept that we have an orgy of altruism in the US today. Okay. You know, I see these political self-described political leaders and elected officials as mouthing the words of altruism, but I suspect their motives are significantly different. I mean, not unlike kind of the Wesley Mouch and the Orrin Boyle, you know, they know how to say the right words for public consumption, but when it comes down to it, they're out for themselves to maximize their personal gain. And, you know, here in Illinois, four of the last seven governors we've had have ended up in jail for corruption and you listened to any of their speeches at the time and it was all about the public welfare and the public good and doing the best for the common man. So is this really an orgy of altruism? Or is this a self-interest on the part of maybe incompetent, talentless people who could do nothing else but feed off the public? Rhetorically. So I certainly wouldn't call itself interest what they're doing. I would call it self-destructive. You know, as you said, seven of them or whatever, five of the seven in jail, that's not exactly self-interested, but it's not altruism. I get what you're saying. So it's not altruism itself, you know, in grand, in grandisings, power, lust, whatever, but it's about a false sense of self in that sense here. I still think it's an orgy of altruism and this is the reason I think it's an orgy of altruism. I think it's an orgy of altruism because they couldn't get away with what they're doing unless they appeal to the altruism in the culture, unless they appeal to the to the altruistic ideas that people view, don't live by the way, because even there, right, the masses don't live altruistically, not completely. If they did, they would die and they wouldn't be as productive as they are. I mean, think about even Silicon Valley where they talk altruism, but they don't live it. They're out to make money, they're out to do the yoga and their meditation and to do seminars on self-help and to enhance their own well-being. So in many respects, they're acting self-interestedly in quotes. But the most standard in all the culture all over is altruism. That's how these bastards get power. That's how they maintain power. That's how they, you know, drive us crazy with the policies that they put in place. That's why they get the public support. That's why Silicon Valley in spite of pursuing their own, again, so-called self-interest, are quite ready to squash the opposition in the name of altruism because they're hooting the meek or they're insulting somebody's insulting somebody and we can't let people get hurt feelings. That's why, so altruism is never a system unless it's enforced by law and the communism under fascism. And even then the rulers are not really altruistic, right? Was Hitler an altruist in the sense that he lived it? No. I mean, he used it to gain power and sustain power and had everybody else exercise it. The orgy of altruism is in the appeal and it's not just the appeal. It's in the fact that the culture accept the guilt. So take, take, for example, the whole racial issue right now. How did, how do these people get so many white people to feel so guilty and so, you know, upset and so willing to give up their freedom and to give up maybe, you know, not yet, but maybe at some point to give up a lot of their money for reparations or whatever it is. How did they get them to do that by appealing to altruism? That's the sense, I mean, it's an orgy of altruism. Not that, yeah, these people, I mean, I don't even believe the intellectuals are motivated by altruism. I think the intellectuals are motivated by, by the same thing, Tui is motivated by. Like, Tui is not motivated by altruism. Tui is motivated by hatred, right? He's motivated by nihilism. He's motivated by the wanting to see everything fall apart and destroy people and watch them grovel. But to do that, he uses altruism as the tool. And that's the sense in which I think I ran meant orgy of altruism. And that's the sense that I mean, and trying to convey what I mean by altruism. So, David, do you want to follow up? Or does that make sense? So some of the characters in an Atlas drug like a Wesley Mouch or an Orrin Boyle, are they altruists? No, they are what I would call self-destructive. So my view, this is a problem that we don't have a good word for this, right? We don't have a good word for this yet. And I think our philosophers need to come up with a good word because I don't think I'm random. We've got altruists. We've got what we conceive of as self-injury. And then we need a term to capture the power-lusting. Ultimately, we need to capture, we need a word for Bernie Madoff, right? Because I think Bernie Madoff captures all of this, right? Power, prestige, wealth. So we need a word for using others, you know, exploiting others for your sake, right? And that's self-interest. I don't want to use self-interest for that. I have used, instead of myself, self-destructive because I think that's essentially what it is. But that's not satisfying because I don't think people really get it. They are second handers of a sword, aren't they, by using altruism's rhetoric. But you need a term that they're not self-interested in a proper sense and they're not altruistic. And parasites. Self-destructive doesn't capture the predatory aspect of it. Because I could be self-destructive in ways that were not predatory, like the governors of Illinois. Or a drug addict. A drug addict is self-destructive and predatory. And you'd still say he's not selfish, even though he thinks he's doing what's making him high, right? So you need a term. And I've talked to Ankhon Gregg and encouraged him to come up with a term. Because we need a term that captures this. And it really inhibits our ability to communicate, in my view. Because when I go and talk about self-interest properly understood and people say, but look, these politicians and these Booney Madoff, and there's no one word, there's no concept that I can capture with that. And then that creates cognitive, it makes it difficult for the audience to separate the Booney Madoff from the Steve Jobs or the John Gault from the Arlen Boyle. How do they separate the two? They both seem to be pursuing their self-interest. But there's a fundamental difference between the two. They're predators. And anyway, we need a concept. So David, I agree that they're not altruist, but I don't agree that they're self-interested. Not in the way we understand it. And what we're missing is that third term to capture what it is they really are. I propose the term parasite because it's parasitism directly on their economic victims, but also on intellectual victims. And they're using ideas, other people's ideas second hand. That captures the predatory side of it. It doesn't capture the self-constructive part of it. So it doesn't capture the drug user is not a parasite, but he's not altruist. And then there are people who are parasites but don't have that predatory, I mean, in the same way, like welfare recipients or whatever. So we need, I mean, narcissists, I mean, a lot of words, none of them captures it exactly. So that's where I would take this. It's anti-egoist, non-altruist. But you need a concept. 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, wins, 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, broods. 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 at least the people who are liking it, you know, 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 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 you 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, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.