 me it disappeared by me oh yeah how do you explain the slaughter 50 million people in China by Mao not a place where Kant was influential really really Kant wasn't influential in China what are you talking about the people who ran the Chinese Communist Party were all educated in places like Moscow or in the west and who are they educated by they were educated by Marxists and what is Marx if not a direct descended intellectually from Kant he is you know so absolutely uh you know the motive of 50 million people 60 million people in the Mao is directly related to Kantian philosophy to Marxist philosophy to German Romantic philosophy and the influence of German Romantic philosophy was huge now let me also say that just because Kant was an incredibly evil according to Einwand the most evil person in history she had a deeper understanding of Kant than I do I can't say that claim without you know I just can't other than relying on her because I don't know enough about philosophy and history but I believe you know she's she's been pretty reliable in my life so far um that doesn't mean that every murder in every place around the world was related to him on or Kant but in the case of China of course it was and I'll give you another example the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia where did they go to school where did they get the ideas that led them to slaughter 40 of their own population two million people out of five were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia where did they get those ideas in Paris where they studied with the great you know egalitarian philosophers the existentialists who are the heirs of whom of the Marxists who are the heirs of whom the Kantians so in the west in the west you cannot find a real significant evil that one cannot link back to Kant to Kant and hold him morally culpable not legally culpable you can't equivocate between morality and politics keep saying this but you know people can't think in those terms I know a lot of people that are immoral why are they immoral because they don't use their minds because they don't take their life seriously because they don't dedicate themselves to the pursuit of their own flourishing but you don't put them in jail for that but then you take a university professor who is constantly on university campuses preaching that the human mind is impotent that race is what matters that all that matters is race and that if you have you're in the wrong race you you are victim and if you're in the another race you should be ashamed of yourself and you should have guilt white guilt to brown guilt to green guilt whatever right doesn't matter what race these people are evil and you have to declare them as evil and then when those students go out and riot and pepper spray people well you hold the professor morally culpable not legally culpable you put the kids in jail of course we don't even do that because we're so appeasing we let them get away with it but you put the kids in jail the ones who pepper spray don't want to beat other people up but you hold the professor morally accountable and you condemn them and you condemn their ideas and you and you argue against them but to not hold the professor morally culpable for the for the violence that the students are perpetrated violence motivated by the ideas the professor has taught is bizarre completely bizarre now we are committing the sanction of of the victim if we don't speak up if we don't argue against them and and it's true that university professors who teach this crap and who who are who are motivating these students to behave in the way they are can only exist and thrive and be successful because the good professors the people who hold good ideas and we out there in the world are too silent we don't condemn them we don't fight against the evil everywhere we see it we are way too passive particularly in academia so evil succeeds because as Iron Man said because the good is silent but that the fact that we're silent doesn't give them doesn't kind of whitewash the fact that they are bad that they are evil and that their ideas are evil and they as human beings these professors are evil because of the ideas that they hold and that they teach these ideas are nihilistic they're destructive now let me let me make this point i i know i've got at least one other call but let let me make this point because it's an important point i want to make sure i get to it right what's at the end steam play dough and conch and and i'm not going to get into a whole or played on marks right a whole thing about conch because again i i i you know read fact and value read on rand's analysis of conch to get the sense but what's at the play-doh and conch because yeah in a sense and as as lennard pickoff's epilogue says you know all all the bad ideas in in in western civilization have their origins in play-doh but why don't we hold play-doh quite as morally culpable as we hold conch because the the essence of the evil is um oh the degree of evil is a consequence of how much you know your ideas are destructive the extent to which you have the evidence you have the ability to know to know that the facts around you that the facts contradict the ideas that you hold play-doh comes so early in the history of philosophy but not just in the history of philosophy in the history of mankind in the history of civilization there's just you can't blame kato kato play-doh for having the wrong answers he asked the right questions he comes up with the wrong answers but there's not a lot of historical evidence there's not a lot of other philosophers challenging him he's early he's kind of first on the scene or one of the first on the scene and there are such things of errors of knowledge errors of ignorance you don't evaluate an error the same way you evaluate an evasion or a conscious choice to advocate for destructive ideas nom chomsky was an apologist for the kamehruz after he knew the kamehruz that slaughtered two million of their own people the massive evasion that that that's involved it right well it's not evasion because he knew it right the massive evil that is involved in recognizing that your ideas are leading to destruction leading to death and defending them in spite of it play-doh i don't think knew the extent to which his ideas were destructive and he was struggling and even there his ideas are not as destructive as cons because he's not as consistent as cons he still strives towards some kind of utopia he still strives towards human happiness he still strives towards people achieving some form of happiness he's wrong and therefore is the enemy intellectually and this therefore his ideas in terms of implementing them and integrating them into your life should be avoided but he's not at the same level of somebody who comes at 2000 years later who has a knowledge of history who has all the philosophical discussions that happen up until that point who knows so much about the world around them who's lived and sees history playing out at cons i mean oh my god contu who did not who at the end destroys reason to make room for faith he says right post scientific revolution post the facts right there in front of him of the efficacy of reason and then he denies it and rejects it post the declaration of independence in the united states the beginnings of the industrial evolution of real progress in standard of living a human being all that rejected denied put aside and in its place a focus on basically the rejection of reason and the rejection of a pro uh human individual human happiness and there's no utopia with cons there's no even afterlife with con this is what makes him worse than the christians there's no afterlife you suffer in this life because it's your duty that's it there's no reward there's no something you get out of it there's no semblance of of of selfishness so egoism a pursuit of happiness in cotton he is that depraved that evil now plato is avastado is a counter and everybody who comes after plato and avastado has a choice to make they can choose plato or they can choose avastado plato didn't have avastado before him i would argue that plato was more evil than he than i now would argue if he had come after avastado but coming before avastado coming before the first philosopher really articulates a pro-life philosophy pro-life philosophy you know you can't you can't place him on the same again moral standard moral evaluation as you do uh as you do others now again i repeat these are moral evaluations they're not political evaluations politics have to best to do with individual rights hitler violated individual rights cant did not Stalin violated individual rights marks and angles did not therefore you you know you you've got recourse political recourse in terms of in terms of the police the military whatever you need to do against the murderer you don't have political recourse against cons marks they have free speech and i would defend they write the free speech on the barricades but it's it's it it's funny that people are arguing that these positions are contrary to the objectivist epistemology i mean you can argue that you don't agree with these positions but given that i ran held these positions i find it difficult to to to to view them as positions contrary to the objectivist epistemology um okay so politically right you can't do anything to these people they have free speech and you have to defend their free speech but morally you have to condemn them and you have to condemn them as much as you condemn the practitioners of the evil ideologies