 You know, I'm at 40 here, so they're rehearsing for some hard rock concert in the background and I had a hilarious slow video going about, you know, an Australian Christmas carol. You know, Aussies get ready for Christmas and just as I was going live, the hard driving rock just ended, but at the botanical gardens here in Sydney. Got some hard driving rock in the background as they rehearsed for a big show. And thinking about how Richard Spencer has been on a tear the last few months, talked about how Republicans can't win without embracing the crazy. Right, only by embracing the crazy can they win. And that's fun, right? That's not, I have a talking point you got to get on Fox News and Richard tends to state his opinions with great passion and he tends to really believe what he's saying. But what exactly does Richard know about winning? And I can't claim that I know a whole heck of a lot about about winning either. But Richard does not have a track record of winning. He has a track record of losing. Almost every project he starts has gone downhill into the trash can. So Marjorie Taylor Greene, who Richard absolutely despises, right? Richard says, you like Christian nationalism? Christian nationalism means reign by people like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Which is a great line. Very provocative comment. But you can despise her what you like that Marjorie Taylor Greene seems to be in a pretty powerful position. She's in good with Kevin McCarthy. She's on tap to sit in some powerful House committees. She won a resounding re-election. She has tempered some of the anti-Jewish things she used to say. Now she's condemning Nick Fuentes' anti-Semitism. So she's learning how to play the game. It reminds me of Robert Moses, right? There's a classic book about Robert Moses. Came out in the 1970s and he was started out as such a young idealist. And as a pure idealist, he wasn't very successful. He just had failure after failure. Then when he accepted the direction of Democratic Governor Al Smith, and he was willing to listen to people more experienced than him in the ways of winning in politics, became a tremendous power broker. Robert Moses became perhaps the most powerful man in New York City government over the course of 50 years. Because he learned to play the game, learned to take advice, learned to take direction, learned to humble himself, to listen to people who might know more than he did. And he became a winner. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, right? She's no Robert Moses. But she's humbled herself to listen to other people. She's learning how to play the game. And she seems to be doing it effectively. While Lauren Boebert, who used to seem like the far more sane version of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert just barely, barely, barely won re-election. So her success in politics does not depend upon the rationality of your ideology. It does not depend on the beauty of your prose, the profundity of your thought. There are a lot else figures into winning in politics beyond being able to mount comprehensive and thoughtful political philosophy. Just from my outside perspective, it sure seems to me like Marjorie Taylor Greene is winning. And Richard Spencer has had to subvert his ideology and turn it into a religion, Apollonianism, which is a more socially acceptable form of Nazism, but trying to do it under the disguise of religion so that he won't attract as much criticism and opposition. So he's learned to play by the rules of normal society. So to that extent, that's a win for him. His life seems easier. He seems much happier. He seems much more well-balanced. He seems much more sober. He's cut way back on the alcohol, but he's essentially being driven out of politics. And so he is trying to channel his talents into forming a new religion. He's actually a fun and compelling political commentator. And so he does bring the contrarian heart tanks on a regular basis in Twitter Spaces and on his sub-stack. And that's where he's so good. So I think it's vitally important that we put ourselves and other people in the correct genre. So is Richard Spencer primarily a philosopher or an intellectual? No. He is a contrarian pundit. He is good at the talk radio live streaming game. Ben Shapiro. Political philosopher? No. Intellectual? No. He's a talk show host. He's a provocateur. He's a Republican activist and pundit. Stephen Turner, a philosopher of the social sciences. He is a philosopher. He is an intellectual. Then 40. What the hell are you? I guess I'm a blogger and a vlogger. Someone who shares his opinions and tries hard to place them in context so that I'm not claiming expertise that I don't have. So I'm not exaggerating my depth of knowledge. I'm trying to stay within the realm of reality. I'm a bloke who shares his opinions with a few dozen, a few hundred, a few thousand people. And some people seem to get some benefit from them. And I enjoy sharing them. But I'm not primarily an intellectual or a philosopher. Or a theologian. I'm not a rabbi. I'm not a great talk show host. Probably what I do best is interview people and bring incongruous people together. Like doing a solo show. It's very taxing. I need something to work off of. Why do I play so much Richard Spencer on my shows? Because he's like a hundred-mile-an-hour baseball pitch that if I hit it, the ball's going to go far. If I just make any contact whatsoever with what he's saying, the force and the power of what he's saying, if I then make contact with it in the realm of reality, I've got a good chance of saying something that's useful, interesting, even perhaps compelling. Now for most people I listen to, I've got nothing to add. Like when I listen to Steve Saylor, I've got nothing to add on top of what he says. Most professors, most people I listen to, I just don't have anything profound to add. But just like there are some hitters who can hit change-ups, but can't hit fast balls. There are some hitters who can hit fast balls, but they can't hit curve balls. For whatever reason I feel like I can consistently hit out a useful comment on something that Richard Spencer's saying. And I can't do the same with Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, dozens of other people that I listen to. I just don't have anything to add. I don't have any energy or enthusiasm to add to their comments. So it was better when I was doing group shows, right? I'm much better suited to doing a group show, having guests, having co-hosts when I'm on my own. I had to quickly run out of things to say within two minutes, five minutes, ten minutes, 20 minutes max. And I need someone to feed off of because I don't have a regular co-host right now. I had to play excerpts from articles and lectures and podcasts. Now need someone or something that's going to provoke me, right? You need a lot of energy and enthusiasm and passion to do what I'm doing right now. And so you need someone who provokes you, like brings out the energy and the passion that gets you thinking. You want to take up the challenge.