 KL says Russell Band Eagle Jesus 2.0. He certainly has the look. And you know, I don't want to dwell on this, but what the hell is he wearing? I mean, I get it that he's counterculture. He's trying to be different. He's trying to be special. But what exactly is he wearing? What is up with that? I mean, Woodstock is like, what, you know, 50 years ago. So that is just weird. And that's okay. He's an original. And he can wear what he wants to wear. But I think it's a little weird. Oh, Russell Band Eagle did a remake of Arthur. I think I liked the original Arthur with that Vimoire. If I remember right, he plays a drunk. I can't remember what happens in the movie. Oh, it's a long time ago. But yeah, I liked the original. I don't know that I've seen the remake. All right. All right, let's watch this. This is about billionaires going to space. This is about billionaires more broadly. He has multiple, as I said, he has multiple videos about billionaires. He generally dislikes them. And I've, you know, you know, my defensive billionaires, I'll repeat some of it, but we will go through some of this material and try to understand ways coming from maybe try to understand, is there anything to what he's saying? And what is the implication? Whoops. I guess I have to unmute him first. Let's unmute him. All right. Here we go. What's so brand? Their power is growing in the pandemic. They own the present. Are they about to colonize even our future? Let's have a look. The net worth of American billionaires has soared by a trillion dollars since March, according to a new report. I believe so powerfully in the ability of entrepreneurial capitalism and free markets to solve so many of the world's problems. Not all of them. So let's start with this trillion dollar increase in wealth, a billion of billionaires. I mean, I don't know the number. I don't know, you know, whether it counts the market declines of the last few days. But generally, yeah, I mean, they did very well during the pandemic, particularly, particularly, you would say that those, those billionaires who are tech entrepreneurs, or those billionaires who are heavily invested in technology stocks, did phenomenally well. I want to ask ourselves two questions. One is, why did technology stocks do well during COVID? What's the reason? Well, I'd say the main reason is that they provided us with unbelievable values during COVID. That is, even 20 years ago, COVID would have been dramatically worse in terms of its impact on our day-to-day lives, given lockdowns and everything else, without Amazon, without Zoom, without Netflix, without Google, without YouTube, without Apple, whether it's an Apple TV, or whether it's your iPhone, or with the iPad, or whether it's your laptop, or whether it's the apps. Technology stocks went up by a trillion, or many of these billionaires added a trillion dollars to their worth, to their net worth, to a large extent, because the companies that they run, the companies that they own, are changed our lives by, well, more than a trillion dollars worth, just during the pandemic. If you think about, again, what life would have been like without these, and the fact that all of this is accessible, not just to us relatively rich Americans, but is available to everybody in the world, is available to every American, almost every American uses these products, and their lives are significantly better for it. So, they made a trillion dollars because they added value, and Jeff Bezos is absolutely right. Whatever problems we have, and we're clearly going to get to disagree with Russell Brandt on what those problems are, whatever problems we have, the solution is going to come from the ingenuity, from the thinking, from the entrepreneurial activity of entrepreneurs. There's nowhere else. You're going to solve any problem, even the kind of little bit of crazy problems that I think the left thinks we have. So, let's keep listening to Russell. Not all of them, but so many of them. Of course, people talk about, you know, progress, they'll point to medieval France or something, and like someone coughing up a lump of plague in a public square. Of course, entrepreneurial capitalism has provided many things, but I think really, Russell? I mean, you don't have to go to the Middle Ages, France, to see people dying of disease, dying of poverty, dying of hunger, just being poor, just not having anything, or having very little. You can travel to any, basically any non-capitalist country in the world today, and it looks like war, France, of 300 years ago. Of course, I don't know why you're using France and not England, but anyway, volume is too high. Is it too high? Is my volume too high, or is Russell Brand volume too high? I can adjust either one. You guys need to tell me which one is too high. Here's, I guess, the same YouTube. Okay, I'm going to change the volume, and hopefully that'll be lower. Thank you, thanks for letting me know. It's hard for me to keep track of it here. Everywhere where capitalism is tried, to the extent that it is tried, and it's never been tried perfectly, completely, purely, but to the extent that it is tried, in other words, the extent that we respect rights, to the extent that we have free markets, the extent that we allow for property rights, to the extent that we have institutions to protect property rights, the extent that we allow entrepreneurs to keep the product of their success, of their production, to that extent you have wealth in society in which even poor people don't live like average people in places that haven't tried even a little bit of capitalism. So let's not, let's not necessarily have to go to 300 years ago in France, but of course it is true that 300 years ago 95% of all the world population, all the world population, not just in rural France, life expectancy was around 30 or 39 in the best countries, but under 30 in the worst, that most people lived, no, sorry, 90 plus percent of people lived in $2 a day or less. That was everybody's life, not some particularly poor peasant in the middle of nowhere that Russell Brand had to pick out. That was life, and that was life not just 300 years ago, but that was life pretty much throughout human history. So instead of being curious as every human being on this planet should be, but what changed? What happened? How do we get from 300 years ago to today where Russell Brand can sit in wearing ridiculous clothes but with a nice clip on microphone and some high quality digital cameras and broadcast on a platform called YouTube from the comfortest home to the comfort of my home? How do we get from there to here? That's the question people should be asking. That is the most interesting, important question one can ask if one's interested in progress and in human success and history, no period in human history is more interesting, more important than that period where we transitioned from life expectancy of in the 30s and poverty of $2 a day and everything else, that transition from that to where we are today. That period, the enlightenment into the 19th century, that's the most exciting period in all of human history. Nobody seems to care. Nobody seems to care. So, yes Russell, we use that example because capitalism is this unbelievable success. Now he's going to tell us what capitalism's failures are and of course the failure is always the same. There's only one. They always raise it. They have to raise it in a sense. They have to create the problem so that they have something to attack capitalism with because it's so successful, even in improving a lot of the poor, that they have to come up with something new, something new in order to go after capitalism. And this has been the thing that the left has chosen to go after capitalism for the last 40, 50 years. It's always the same thing. Sometimes that we deify it because we don't look at the cost because sometimes the costs are harder to evaluate. So what are the costs guys? What are the costs? Inequality? No. No, because I mean he'll say inequality will get to that but inequality is not the main cost because he realizes that that's a trap. Everybody's better off. Yes, the gap might have increased but everybody's better off. So it can be inequality. So what is it? Billionaires have carbon footprints that are thousands of times. Yeah, it's carbon footprint. It's carbon footprint. The cost is climate change. That's the cost. Higher than those of average Americans. They own yachts, planes, multiple mansions, all of which contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Here's an interest. By the way, that can't be true. That billionaires have thousands, x, thousand times a greater carbon footprint than ordinary people. It's just not true. It's impossible. Think about it. And this relates to another aspect of inequality that I think is important to know in the modern world. What determines your carbon footprint? I mean the whole concept is disgusting but what determines your carbon footprint? Well basically what you eat because a lot of carbon is emitted by the cow's weed. It's the electricity used in your home. The fuel you use to fuel your car. The fuel the airplane uses when you fly. Yeah, the fuel you have on your yacht or whatever. So let's think about the difference in consumption of those kind of things and generally by the way consumption. Every time you buy something made of plastic, every time you buy anything, there's some carbon footprint of that product that you bought. But how much different is your consumption from a billionaire's consumption? I mean breathing. Yes, somebody, I mean it's important to note that breathing of course increases your carbon footprint. The less you breathe, the less carbon you emit. You should try not breathing for a while. But what's the difference? I mean the major difference is, I mean we all drive cars. Billionaires probably drive electric cars so they probably have a smaller carbon footprint. We all have homes. Their homes are bigger but not thousands of times bigger. I mean maybe Broguesa's home is 10,000 square feet or maybe 20,000 square feet. But mine is like four. So it's five times bigger if that, right? Yeah, it's yacht. I don't have a yacht. But how often does he go on the yacht? How often is the yacht engine really running? I don't think that's thousands. What else? The private plane. Now I fly a lot. My guess is I fly more than some billionaires. Now it's true. You can divide my carbon footprint across 300 people on the plane with me. But I also fly more, probably not 300 times more. Okay, so the billionaires carbon footprint from flying is probably higher than even mine, even though I fly so much. But okay, it's not thousands of times more. There's no way that would be true. So where is it? They eat more hamburgers? I know Bill Gates really likes hamburgers. Do they eat more hamburgers? Maybe, but not by thousands. And I eat meat. I don't think they eat more steaks than I do. Or lamb. So what are we talking about? I mean, whose quote is that from? This nonsensical quote? Does it say it's from the conversation? Like who? Private planes, mansions and super yards. Thousands of times? It's just not true. And this is the thing about this. That most people look at this and say, yeah, okay, yeah, that makes sense. I mean, I was even tempted to say, okay, I mean, I don't care, but okay. But no, it's just false. It's just a lie. But this is the thing in our culture. If you repeat the lie over and over again, if you use social media to repeat the lie over and over again, then everybody starts believing it. And it's just, yeah, well, of course, billionaires can use a carbon footprint thousands of times higher than. I mean, yeah. Marble mansions, all of which contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Here's an interesting quote from Evgeny Morozov at the office. He says, Silicon Valley is a bizarre mix of greedy catalysts and cultural markets. That is true. That is kind of bizarre. It's keen on indoctrinating their users into left-wing ideas while getting filthy rich off everyone's data. And also. Well, as if all they do is get rich off of data, right? You know, Apple doesn't make stuff. It just gets rich off of our data. Facebook gets rich off of our data, but not directly. It gets rich off of advertising to us, using our data to advertise to us. The same with Google. It's not that they're using the data for some nefarious means other than to sell us stuff, which we don't have to buy. By the way, you do have free will. You can, you can afford it. Ooh, Bill Gates house is 66,000 square feet. Okay. So if mine is 4,000, then his is, you know, 15 times my, okay, 15 times, still not thousands, still not thousands. Are they any self made female billionaires? Yes. Yes. I knew one. Her name is Darla Moore. And there are others. The Oprah, of course, Oprah is a billionaire. But there are others. I think Kali Fiorina, whether she's a billionaire or just a centimillionaire. The same with the other woman who ran for the Senate in California might be only a centimillionaire, not a billionaire, but there are a number of very wealthy. Oh, of course, the other female billionaires are the daughters of Sam Walton, the daughters of Sam Walton, the Queen of England. Yes, but she doesn't count really. But the daughters of Sam Walton, J.K. Wallins is a female billionaire. So yes, quite a few female billionaires and many of them self made. So some of them inherited like Walton and the Queen of England, but some of them self made like J.K. Wallins and some of them self made in technology. All right, so let's keep going. Further to the start of this video, US billionaire's wealth has risen by over a trillion during the pandemic. A report by Oxfam concluded that Jeff Bezosworth had climbed so much between March and September 2020 that he could have given all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still have been as wealthy as he was before the pandemic. A couple of things on that. Mental, every single one of 8, that's not even a few employees, 870,000 people dropping stuff off to your house in a van could have given 105 grand each and still been as they would have made no difference. Look how outraged he is. And again, notice that in the culture we live in, his outrage, everybody's going to be sympathetic to it. Nobody's going to say, no, why should he give that money away? Almost everybody's going to say, yeah, that's right. Because we're conditioned by altruism to, well, they don't have the money. He has the money. Why shouldn't he give it to them? And he's no worse off by our standards, maybe by his standards he is. I wonder, you know, what do you think? I wonder, maybe we can pose this question to Russell. If Jeff Bezos tomorrow lost all their money in the stock market because maybe the market realizes maybe there's a bubble in tech stocks. That was the other reason tech might have increased by a trillion. Maybe there's a bubble there. Maybe all the stimulus money has gone into fueling a bubble in tech stocks. I don't know. Maybe it's a possibility. I'm not giving you financial advice. It's just possible. But let's assume that that happened and Amazon stock collapses. And Jeff Bezos loses, you know, $100 billion. Do you think Russell would advocate for the employees giving them any back? Do you think he'd support that? Do you think he'd support, you know, every time the stock price of Amazon goes down, that we all do it like a day of mourning, a moment of contemplation for the pain that the Silicon Valley guys, I mean, these people lose because it's all in the stock, right? It's all stock price. It's not like Jeff Bezos has a mountain of cash somewhere with $200 billion. It's all in the stock. It goes up. It goes down. Mostly it's some creating value in the company. We sell all that anyway. Up 100 land owners. Notice how altruistic this is. It only goes one way. And how, I mean, the reason somebody like Russell Bland has so many subscribers, he's entertaining, he's funny. He's very animated. He's morally outraged. He has a moral perspective, but he's conventional. He's completely and utterly conventional. We'll get to some of the, you know, if we get there, I don't know if we're going to be able to do a whole 13 minutes of his thing, but he plays off of exactly what people would expect, right? He plays off of altruism. He says something like, why didn't, and everybody goes, yeah, yeah, we agree. Absolutely. There's nothing controversial or questionable and except to me, to an out to a, except to a individualist and egoist, a capitalist. And each and still bitters. It would have made no difference. You look at the top 100 land owners in America. They now own 33 million acres. That's according to the land report 100. That's up 18% since 2008. And some of the names on this list may surprise you. Jeff Bezos is actually the 25th biggest land owner. And owner in the U S we've told you before about. So they own a lot of land. Why do they own a lot of land? Why have they increased their land ownership by so much since 2008? Anybody know anybody out there listening know what land is a hedge against? What is land? What is land a hedge against? What would you buy land if you were worried about what? Well, generally. I could wait for an answer on anybody in the chat. Anybody want to guess what you're hedging? Why you're buying land? What is it a hedge against? Well, food shortages, certainly. But, but EPPO 1875 is absolutely right as Daniel, as Mitch, as as Alan. All of us know this. I guess Russell doesn't. Might want to take out finance class Russell. It's a hedge against inflation. And as a reason why since 2008. Since 2008. A lot of people are being worried about inflation as the government prints more and more and more money. As inflation looks like it might be more possible. It's also a hedge against ultimate collapse of food shortages and farmland goes up in times like that. Of course, then there's also no will. You know, there's no nobody to buy the land from you, but it's a hedge against inflation. It's a hedge against inflation. And that's why a lot of billionaires right now are buying land. So why is this somehow nefarious? And by the way, 33, whatever million acres. I mean, how much of that of the United States is that it's still true that the federal government and state local governments own 75% of all the land Western Mississippi. 75% of all the land Western Mississippi is owned by government. 75%. And we're worried about a few billionaires buying a few ranches. Give me a break and Bill Gates is the 25th largest land owner in the United States. Who cares? Why does that even make news? Why is that relevant? Farmland ownership with billionaires notably of course Bill Gates, but also Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. He owns 420,000 acres of land, mainly in West Texas. So they own cyber. West Texas. If you ever mean a West Texas. 425,000 acres in West Texas. I wonder how many of you've ever driven through West Texas. Why would anybody own 425,000 acres in West Texas? What's he hoping for the only justification for that? I mean, the two possibilities. Only two possibilities, far as I can tell. One is that he plans to use that. I mean, West Texas is desert. It's just desert. There's nothing there. Nothing except oil. So one possibility is he's bought it in order to get oil rights. I don't think there's gold. But the other possibility is that it would make a great place to launch rockets from. So it could very well be the place in which he's going to build a launch site for his rockets. Who knows? I don't know. But there's nothing you can grow in West Texas. It's not farmland. It's oil. It might be sand for fracking. There are a bunch of things that West Texas have that are not pretty, not typical what you would invest in. But why does anybody care? Why does anybody care? Yeah, it drives the small farmer crazy because they bid up the price of land to where they can't expand. Yeah, so, but what's alternative to expanding for the small farmer? They can sell and make a fortune. And indeed a lot of farmers have sold at prices they could have never imagined they would get. So two sides of this. All right, let's keep going. Base, they own the land that we stand upon now. No, they don't. You don't stand upon land in West Texas. And my guess is you own your own place in London. It's cost a fortune, by the way, because London is one of the most expensive cities in the world. But no, they don't own the land in which we stand on. Space itself, the final frontier is about to become just another item in their portfolio. It is potentially the next giant leap in private space travel. SpaceX has announced it's sending a Japanese billionaire up around the moon. I hope they've told him first, we're sending a Japanese billionaire out around the moon. What's going on? I'm trying to have my breakfast. Yusaku Mayazawa, his pocket's deep enough, deep as the moon is high above the earth. And that's what it's going to take really to get there. It's being jauntly reported, but we're living in a time of massive inequality, suffering and poverty and frustration. Not just, of course, in places like India where the farming protests are destabilizing the country, or at least challenging authority about the way that the country is organized, but in countries where it was taken for granted that we had a stable way of life. So, now the volume's too low, is it? I don't know, wonder if Freeman, you have to be explicit, volume, that mean up? Alright, we'll increase it. Alright, inequality. We're sending a billionaire up into the moon, and we've got inequality right here on earth. In India, the people who are poor, lower is good. Man, Russell Brand is that loud. How is this just, how is it just to send a billionaire around the moon while people are starving? Well, what in the end prevents people from starving? How do we take a population of 8 billion people around the world and get them to where we'd like them to be, the equivalent of middle class? How does that happen? How does that happen? Well, how has it happened in the past? How did we get from 300 years ago France to today? How did we get from 30% of the world population 40 years ago living on $2 a day or less, to only 8% of the world population living on $2 a day or less today? Did any of that require taking money from billionaires and handing it out to other people? Did any of it, was any of it achieved through charity, through taxation, through redistribution of wealth? The answer is no. What ever success we have had in the world in eradicating extreme poverty, it was caused by jobs, entrepreneurship, by freeing up economies, by allowing and defining private property, by unleashing the capitalist forces. And is it just the capitalist forces, I don't know, informing or no, it's pushing the envelope of human progress. It's advancing into the future. That that creates jobs. Sending this guy around the moon, which SpaceX is committed to doing, is going to require massive amounts of work from probably hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people. From the mining of raw materials, to the generation of jet fuel, to the production of the particular materials that you need in order to create the rocket, to chip manufacturers around the world, most of them are not in America, to software writing, to a wide variety of people who are going to get employed by this one rocket that is going to take the sky around the moon. And of course, all those people you might say, well, they're the hire earner, but those hire earners are now making more money. And once they make more money, what can they do with their money? They go and spend it, they buy, they go to restaurants, they buy toys for their kids, they buy all kinds of stuff, they buy shoes, they buy clothes. So by sending somebody to Mars, you're actually helping raise people out of poverty. Indeed, you're actually engaging in the activity, the only activity that raises people out of poverty. And my guess is there was somebody, some Russell Brand of his time, who in the early part of the 20th century was going, why is this Ford guy building this automobile thing? I mean, horse and buggy are good enough. Why do we need automobiles? And he's going to cause unemployment in those buggy factories. And what about the poor? I mean, Henry Ford is rich enough. What does he need another car for? Why can't he just help all those poor people in India? Oh, by the way, we're poorer back then than they are today, partially because India has adopted a little bit of free markets, right? So, you know, one says Russell has no real life experience. Maybe that's true, but this is not his lack of life experience, because this is just him buying in to an economic explanation of the world from a moral perspective on the world that is indeed detached from reality, but not because of a lack of experience, but because it is a philosophy, an ideology that is detached from reality. And then of course, what about all the new technological innovation that SpaceX is going to have to create, produce, that is then going to be used in all kinds of other areas, which is create all other new industries, and then new industries being created every day. I just read about flying cars, flying taxis. They're going to shut up people around. Big investment just made by a SPAC. We won't get into what a SPAC is, but anyway. What do you gain by putting down the billion in, by putting down his ability to fly? It's not like he's burning his money, even though he has a right to do it. That money is being paid to SpaceX, which is paying suppliers and engineers and people. It's not like the money is gone. Indeed, it's circulating in the economy for productive activities. Productive activities that are pushing our knowledge, pushing our technology, pushing our productive capacity further into the future, making us all richer, all of us. Well, those of us who want to be part of a productive economy. There's poverty, doubt and uncertainty. So I suppose I can't share in the kind of journey. Oh, there's a billion air being flown around the moon. You know, we still continue to be captivated by space. Look at who else is out there. We have Virgin Galactic by Richard Branson. We also have Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos from Amazon fame. So this is really heating up. This is interesting. What's amazing to me is that here we go have billionaires who have created so much wealth for themselves that they can now, if you will, indulge in a hobby that is going to propel man into the stars. If we build a colony on Mars, it's going to be because of Richard Branson, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. It won't be because of politicians. And these are the same guys, the same capitalist system that is accused constantly of being short term. And yet here they are building businesses that won't really generate significant profits for decades, that won't achieve their goal. If I think Bezos, it's creating colony on the moon for Musk, it's going to Mars for decades. They won't achieve their goal for decades. This is long term thinking. This is individuals moving mankind forward into the final frontier. You know, I think it's a beautiful thing. A beautiful thing, not Richard Branson. Not in the age we live in. Not in the age of envy. Not in the age of altruism. I mean, he hates these guys. And he hates them for their virtues. So on one hand you have a future for a few institutions and people that is literally opening up the cosmos where elsewhere we're seeing dereliction, decimation, destruction and suffering. Really, think about it this way. Has the internet opened up the future for billions of people? Has the internet decimated them or opened up that future? Has the iPhone empowered billions of people around the world? You should ask entrepreneurs in Africa who use the iPhone not only to figure out prices and to design and monitor supply chains and monitor their crops and whatever it is that they're doing. All over the world, people are creating wealth off of this and off of Google and off of the internet and off of all this infrastructure that these billionaires dare to design and just imagine what's going to happen in the future. One of the things that SpaceX is doing and I think I talked about this on a show in the past is they're putting up thousands and thousands of satellites and these satellites are going to be in low orbit all around the world and going to be able to basically provide high speed, gigabyte internet to every human being on planet Earth who has a device connected to it. I mean, that'll change the world in deep, fundamental ways and we should condemn these guys for it? I mean, the poor in the world should celebrate SpaceX should celebrate Blue Origin It's creating a future for them. Their standard of living is likely to rise much faster than everybody else's and from a level that no human being should live at not in the modern era no human being should be living at $2 a day or less no human being should be living at $10 a day or less and if they'd only adopt freedom and give it the time and embrace Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and all these guys, you know, and Jeff Bezos they wouldn't be poor. Sure said, a majority of compelling and visible ideas about tomorrow being conceived and developed by a tiny minority of ultra-wealthy individuals and private sector companies but who ever conceives and develops ideas for tomorrow? Who pushes the envelope towards tomorrow? Now, I know people like Russell Blant would like it to be politicians doing it for the common good in the public interest but that's not what happened That's not what happens Anyway, did politicians invent the internal combustion engine? Did politicians invent flight? Did politicians facilitate any of that? It's stunning what offends them Notice what offends them What offends them is that some incredible smart, hard-working individuals are using their own money to shape the future I can't think of a more beautiful thing It's not hard to see the seductive appeal of these visions of the future beautiful digital renderings inviting the glowing and highly conceptual world such as Elon Musk and Space X's plan to build a glass-domed colony on Mars or Jeff Bezos' plan for floating space colonies on Earth Richard Branson's Virgin Hyperloop 1 has worked with top architects around the world to produce spectacular inspiring images of a world connected by zero emissions 670 miles per hour vacuum propelled pods Uber imagining self-flowing taxis These are beautiful things and yet they want you to be cynical about them In a sense, a continuation of the ideology that's got us into this mess in the first place that by using the mindset of capitalism and no doubt that Notice he has to apologize Every time he attacks capitalism Every time he attacks capitalism he has to say, no doubt there's some good things about it It should tell you something, Russell that you have to say that It's all about excellence, entrepreneurialism and ingenuity in many areas But in extreme, in extreme form that we're experiencing it We have extreme capitalism today guys Did you know that? We have extreme freedom They're now regulated, they're now taxed They can do whatever they want They don't have to ask for permission We have extreme capitalism in the world today Where do these people live? What conception of the world do they have? It creates a lot of problems What problems? Other than carbon footprint I haven't heard a single problem Focus to potential space colonization for me Seems like it's compounding the negligence and lack of awareness that we're currently suffering from Toiling under What I feel we all Any of those result of capitalism? Really? We're focusing on is how do we create a fairer, more just society here on Earth? See that's it, it's fairer injustice And what is fairer injustice for Russell Brand and the entire left? Fairness and justice is we've talked about this over and over again Equality, it's about is egalitarian vision It's about knocking down the billionaires to everybody else's level It's about helping the poorest of the poorest expense of those who have It's about the need as the primary moral commandment What drives Russell What drives the left and the right This is why we're in this mess Is altruism and egalitarianism Fairness and justice is always egalitarianism And it is the most horrible idea in all of human history The most horrific idea We are not equal in outcome, in abilities, in production And it's not just that we be equal It's just that we all get what we produce It's worse than Marxism You do him You do Marx and injustice by calling this Marxism 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 despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist Remind them 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 there are like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it But at least the people who like it I want to see a thumbs up There you go Start liking it I want to see that go to 100 It doesn't 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 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 support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your 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 marks then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up you'll know what shows are on so yes like, share, subscribe, support like, share, subscribe, support there you go easy do one or all of those please