 Welcome back to the gourd cafe for more coffee and philosophy. My interview with Sheldon Richmond ended up running at in a nearly two and a half hours and so I decided to cut it into like the two halves of kill Bill. So, this is the second half and so it will. It will start in medias race, we just finished talking about Sheldon's first book, not not his first book, the first book that we talked about the first of his three most recent books we talked about. The one on the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention is a portrayal of the Articles of Confederation. And now we're about to talk about the second of those two books of those three books. I can't seem to keep my number straight. Well, it's just an arbitrary convention anyway, numbers, whatever. About to talk about his book on Palestine and then I'm going to talk about, we will talk about his third book and we'll talk about some other stuff. We will talk and talk. And we, at the end of this, we won't really be finished talking but we will stop. But I think that it's a good chance we'll want to come back and and revisit and talk some more actually it's generally true of these interviews is that I generally feel that these interviews could benefit from revisiting with in many cases to part two although in this case we have to be a part three. Anyway, so we're now resuming my conversation with Sheldon in medias race. If you don't remember who he is. Go back and watch the beginning of the, the first episode where I introduce him and talk about his books in his career. But now onward to the rest of the interview. So, so moving on to next book coming to Palestine and complete the uncontroversial book. Yeah, I think those are things that won't, you know, cause many ripples. I don't like to get attacked on Twitter. Well, that book also was many years into making I began writing about the Middle East Palestine Israel Palestine in the late 80s, when I was. Okay, I wasn't a kid, I don't get to the 90s. So it was maybe early 80s and into the early 90s I was a columnist for a while for the Washington report on Middle East affairs, which is a very good magazine still published today. And I just started, you know, reading history, which I hadn't done. I, I told you in the beginning I grew up in a middle class conservative Jewish home and was taught that Israel was very important Israel's key to Jewish identity, and it is important. And I gave up God and when I was about 18 but I didn't give up Israel till later on. And what, what helped to trigger that was I attended the very first Kato summer seminar at at Wake Forest University in 1978 is the very first student seminar they put on. In those days you had to write a 500 word paper, and then they picked 10 to be delivered. You got to deliver get to read it. So my was about the was not about the Middle East to just point it out. Oh, one of those side light. I think I'm the only person who attended both the first and the last of those, those students seminars. The first doesn't attend the last as a lecturer. I don't think anyone can claim that. But I heard Leonard Lycio talking about imperialism. And I think Roy Childs also wrote, also spoke on whatever he gave a couple talks but one of them was to talk on imperialism to and I remember asking him, because I was someone had given me some walking in the fence of Israel. You know, they're both the land. And I hadn't looked into it. And I just said, Well, okay, so I just filed that away. I started asking Roy and probably Leonard to and they started suggesting I take a look at some stuff. And because it's that's not exactly a way that's not a good account of what went on so remember I was in New York at one point. I talked to that talking to Roy was lazy for books by then. And he said, here's a book you need to look at David Hurst's the gun in the olive branch which has been through many additions. It's pretty thick book, very good book he's a report. He's not an activist, but it's a very good book and it's a it's a balanced book by balance. I don't mean that it leaves you agnostic at the end it's very clear, you know, who's the great party and who and who's the aggressor but it's a very fair book. I said, you need to read this books I remember being at the Xerox machine, I hope the statute of limitations is run Xeroxing manually, you know, chapter by chapter I don't have I did the whole book but just enough to get me going. And I started reading that and of course that was a big eye on opener. And so from there I started meeting people I mean I would talk to Murray about rough part about this. He then put me in touch with Rabbi Elmer Berger, who was like the last of the great anti Zionist reform rabbis I mean there's still probably some around nobody was as dominant figure. One of his books is called members of an anti Zionist Jew. It's a great book. And his stuff is fantastic. I just started reading. I was reading Chomsky I read Edward Said, probably I was reading more Jews, or at least people of Jewish heritage that probably weren't active believing practicing Jews who were anti Zionist and then it opened my eyes to anti Zionism. And then I recall the memory of my grandfather, my grandfather was Orthodox now not Hasid, you know, not not the kind of the crazy, the cats and the pay us. I guess it's just considered modern orthodoxy. I mean it did all the observance but he just pretty conventionally kept his head covered. Didn't have a long beard. Back to the 67 war, or maybe while the 67 war was on, and Israel, you know, demolished the air, the air forces of Egypt and the other Arab countries before the planes had gotten off the ground and it was the six days. And this is when the territories are occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. So, I remember my parents, we used to go over to see him every Saturday afternoon after synagogue. I was 64, 67. So I was 17 turn 18 later in the year but I was 17 was June. And I hadn't thought much about this stuff I was not doing any reading. I wasn't. I wish I had been far more precocious than I was. But my parents were saying like, isn't it wonderful what's you know how the Israelis being threatened have prevailed. And my grandfather's this little joyous orthodox Lithuanian Jew wonderful guy came over to the US before World War One, although lost a lot of family in the Holocaust but I don't even know the real reason, the reason why he came so early but he did just looking for opportunity I guess. I hear him say I'll never forget it. The Jews are the cause of all the problems. It's kind of exactly probably verbatim. My mother said, How can you say that. Look what they've done there the desert made the desert bloom, you really ought to go. I wouldn't set foot in that place. Well, I never heard that any that kind of talk from anybody and this is from our sage grandfather right the wise, the wise man who's reading the Talmud all the time and talks about Rashi and the Rambam my minorities and you know he knew those books. That's what he spent his time doing by then he was, he was retired he had been a house painter paper hangar, you know, kind of pricing little company little bone firm. But by then he was just running a little synagogue wasn't a rabbi had a good voice he could be a canter. But he was, I think they just chalked it up to, but it's getting old or that's the, maybe that's the orthodox. I didn't know that the orthodox and originally were anti Zionist. And I didn't know the reformer anti Zionist and all that's kind of faded right, especially once the state got established. All that kind of faded, and then all the lines are blurred and it's hard to tell who's a conservative who's an orthodox, who's an orthodox, who's a conservative is a reform. But I since over the last, you know, 20 years 30 years have gotten up to speed on that stuff by by reading lots of things. And so I started doing articles first of, like I said the Washington report, I wrote for the Institute, I wrote a journal about Palestine study Palestine studies published by the Institute Palestine studies, and a few other journals Middle East Journal, few other things. And, and then I started writing, and then I didn't write for a while I just was turning to other things the Freeman for 15 years so my mind was on other things. And I wasn't fully keeping up. I was aware I was going on. But then once I got to the Libertarian Institute I wrote a few more things Scott Horton encouraged me, there was stuff going on. And I wrote, and I started reading slow mo sand a very important historian, this first book, the invention of the Jewish people. And then he's got a trilogy the invention of the land of Israel and then the last one which is more personal statement. I thought it was originally called the invention of the secular Jew but it's called how I stopped being Jewish. But he's a very good historian. And it was an eye opening book, all three books I opening and I started writing articles, you know, based on his book citing him quoting him, and bringing in other people Israel Shah a great Israeli human rights activist who was a classical liberal by the way, somebody I knew exchange letters with. You know, Scott said one day, you know he played the Gary Chardier part for this book. Why don't you put all that stuff together. So I said, Is there enough and I started gathering the stuff from the early days the 80s into the 90s and I wrote some stuff for Kato, I wrote a big thick paper for Kato at the time it was the thickest policy analysis they published. That's history. It basically an account of US intervention in the Middle East, since the end of World War two up to 1991 so it came out in 91. It is online at Kato PDF and it's heavily that's heavily footnoted lots of footnotes there now that's not in my book. That was very thick and it was being that was beyond Palestine anyway that was about everything. That was right around the time of the first, you know the Gulf War, the first record. I said, I guess there is enough for a book here. There wasn't just going to be a little booklet. And so, Scott, you know, he did all kind of mechanical work I just read through the stuff and gathered and tweaked it where I thought it needed tweaking a little bit updating here and there. That came out last year, last April. I'm going to push back if you've gotten for that because then a lot of will react to criticism of Zionist policy as though it's, you know, criticism of, you know, either just cleaning up anti Semitic or at least it's a criticism of, of, you know, ordinary Jewish people in Israel, or whatever. Well, I guess I'm not a very important person, because I seem to just under the radar. I didn't get attacked. I mean, look, on Facebook, if I put up an article either mine or someone else's, that's taking an anti Zionist position or a pro Palestinian position. I mean my position and put it in one quick sentence is the Palestinians or the agreed party, I mean, no Palestinian ever violated the rights of this. Of course, I'm not saying there are, there are, there are unjust ways of retaliation against. Exactly. But, but you can't say you can't use that to then forgive all the violence that the Israelis have inflicted on Palestinians over the years supported by most American Jews. No, that's changing because of the younger generation coming up. But the Palestinians are the agreed party. The Israeli Jews are the oppressor class. There's no two ways about it, which is one reason why, one reason why sand has executed himself. I mean, he's also an atheist so that'd be one reason. Although there are lots of, lots of atheists who consider themselves Jewish atheists. I don't quite understand that. In fact, I know, I know some atheists Jews who actually keep kosher because it's, they want to have a, or at least keep kind of sort of kosher, because it's a way of connecting to their cultural heritage. And the religions can do it through that. Right. I, but I just don't get it. For the sake of the cultural heritage. Well, but Sam makes an important point. You know, he says he's not sure what a secular Jew is because as he puts it, I think he's right about this. There's no, there's no secular Jewish culture. Worldwide secular Jewish culture take away all the separate the religious practices beliefs, stuff like that. There's nothing left that you're going to call secular Jewish. Now, some people will say, well, what about, you know, the Yiddish, the Yiddish, but the Yiddish is not Jewish. The Yiddish is a type of a particular time and place Jewish, but Eastern Europe for a limited amount of time a couple hundred years. And so Yiddish humor essay filtered through what Mel Brooks and Woody Allen and Brooklyn is not something that a Yemeni Jew, it's going to necessarily find funny we're an Iraqi Jew. Now these days in globalization, there's cultures are kind of coming together across all kinds of lines just because people have contact with it through, you know, Netflix or, you know, YouTube. It's changing a little bit, but there's no reason to think that a Moroccan Jew, who's culturally Arab speaks Arabic would have spoken Arabic, maybe also French, would be laughing at Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, or sitting through Yiddish theater, which was a quite developed well developed Yiddish there, and getting it. In other words, that's not Jewish, that's Yiddish. It's not the same thing. And this is something that the saying writes about so Sam says, you know, he doesn't understand, look, people are free to call themselves secular Jews, they can identify themselves as secular Jews and have other people accept that identification. Fine, let them, you know, live and be well as my, my grandmother would say. The other objection he has to it is it's a closed. It's a restricted club, because how does someone become someone who's not Jewish how does someone become a secular Jew. He said, I don't want to be a member of a restricted club. So you can convert to Judaism and become a religious Jew, but it's harder to see how you convert. Well, I came up with a way, get your mother to convert to Judaism. And then you declare yourself a secular Jew, but I don't think that would work. I don't know if that carries over to you. I don't know if, you know, it does come through the mother's line, but I don't know if it's retroactive. I don't think if your mother converts you then become Jewish. I have never asked that question of a rabbi. I need a timer to make it work out. So I don't mind calling, you know, I don't regard myself as a Jew. First of all, I think Judaism is monotheistic. And I think it dishonors monotheistic Jews for me for an atheist, their own self a Jew personally. I mean, I was always taught, you know, Jews in Germany died, reciting the most, you know, holy prayer, right? You know, you're a hero Israel, the Lord is one, the Lord is God, the Lord is one. So it seems to me, it doesn't honor them for an atheist to claim to be a Jew. And it doesn't matter if you eat gefilte fish. I mean, I can eat Chinese food every night of the week because I make me culturally Chinese. I don't think so, but that's on a religion anyway. You know, for most of the Jews, I've known eating Chinese food might be sort of more, more definitive. I haven't noticed. That's right, especially Christmas, Christmas day. When that's probably the only thing open. That's a tradition for some people. So that's true. So, like I say, I seem to fly under the radar. I mean, I guess I wish I got a little more heat. But I don't think it's going to be too much. I mean, you look at, look at how Norman Finkelstein and other people have suffered, right? Dershowitz basically stopped them from getting tenure at the Paul because of his, his, his books, but he's an extremely good researcher. And I think a very honest researcher, I've read a ton of his stuff. I, you know, I'm ignored. I mean, I promote the books on, I promoted that book on social media when first came out and, you know, blog about it. I never got a fact. Facebook there might be a negative. Maybe you'll get some attacks in this video. We can also. I mean, I haven't been called anti Semitic. But of course I would do, I would have to be called, I guess self hating. But, you know, my answer to that is, I ought to be self hating, but I just can't manage it. I mean, I have grounds for to be self hating, but I just can't pull it off. So I'm sorry. I mean, if somebody says, well, who is it somebody says, I hate myself, but being Jewish is the least recent. By the way, going back to what you said earlier about about confessing about the possible misuse of of the photocopier the place you're working. I have a worse confession to make, which I've never made before and I'll now make it. When I was at the social philosophy policy center in Bowling Green, Ohio. Back in 91 to 92, I think. And I was there on the weekend I was the only one in the building. There was a photocopy of their, and I decided to perform an experiment which is, I made a photocopy of my hand. And then I photocopied the photocopy and so forth. I was curious to see how many iterations would go before the the hand just faded out became invisible. So I ended up with this thick stack of papers of, you know, increasingly fainter copies of my hand, because is surely a greater abuse of of a photocopy of access to what you were doing. But I was thinking of copyright. I wasn't thinking of using photocopier. Oh, I was thinking of a copyright issue. Oh, no one thinks my hands copyrighted. I don't think Roy Charles didn't mind. No, I was just used abusive corporate resources. I don't think Andrea rich or or child's mind that I was doing it out in the open. I was going to close. Oh, I was worried that there would have been less than total enthusiasm for what I was doing if people had known that that's what I was doing with. Well, Lisa wasn't any other part of the anatomy. Let me say that. Okay, no, I stuck to the hand. Because there's been lots of funny stuff about, you know, other, yeah, other parts. Anyway, I didn't go there. So somebody attacked me. I don't get attacked. You can get attacked on writing a book in defense of Palestine. What do you have to do to get a what's a guy got to do to get a factor around it. Let's talk a little bit about your most recent book was social animals owe to each other, which is, I think the only book of yours I haven't read yet all that read a number of the looking at the table of contents. I don't remember the articles on into it by not sure I've read all of them. You see a little bit about Again, it's a collection, going back to I think when I started TJF which would take it back to 2006. So again, it wasn't written. I didn't write these things with a book in mind. I didn't have a theme in mind for a lot of that time. I always write every article on that theme, but I became extremely interested in the concept of social cooperation back then. And the first, the second and third chapters are actually social cooperation part one social cooperation. Part two, those were really TJS. And I think what the Austrians were saying about social cooperation into Herbert Spencer and just the liberal tradition, because, you know, you just see so much criticism of the libertarianism with a liberal tradition. Along the lines that to put it in the real sort of caricature way. But the libertarian ideal was Ted Kaczynski without the letter bombs, right, living in a shack in Montana off the grid never seeing another person growing whatever food you can eat, putting together whatever clothes, you know, you can wear. And that's it, which is of course ridiculous. I mean, it's either dishonest or it's really object ignorance for critic of libertarianism to think that has anything to do with libertarians. So I started again, just gathering stuff and just doing more narrowly pitched articles, one at a time, pretty much on a weekly basis. And I came across the fact that human that the Mises was a was originally thinking of calling human action social cooperation. So there's something else I haven't come with Mises I could have called my book social cooperation, but I didn't. And so, but your title is borrowed, adapted from a famous. Yes, that's the liberal book type. That's true. I mean, I've written this essay called what social animals owe to each other, which, again, another thing inspired by you, if you've read that, you'll know that that draws on quotes you quite a bit. It draws on. Oh, reason and value and I forget what else but a few other things where you talk about Aristotle and political, political animal social animal. And I'm glad I hit on that I think it's a good title I almost called the book. Because I think there's another essay by this title. It's a market state on an autonomy. I always thought I got to have a book that has the three, you know, a three tripartite, you know, man economy and stay on the state of utopia there's all lots of books that do that I thought. I was a lot better than a cotton and steak I thought it was a dinner order. Well it's funny you thought of that because I independently years ago. You know, one of my one liners I do prime myself on the one liner that I wanted to set up a libertarian restaurant and you know, the dishes would be named after famous libertarians and the Rothbard would be manicotti and state so you came up with that state. And state, right. Yeah, so we independently came up with that isn't that interesting. But I have a friend who independently had the same thought he was he had the Robert Nozick which was tapioca and anchovies, something like that. No tapioca steak and anchovies and you took anarchy state in utopia. Yeah, so. The anchovies steak and. Anyway, that's going to get as well as manicotti and state I'm getting I know I have to. That's brilliant. And you too. Anyway, it's making me hungry so let's get off the subject. So I just started reading what manger and others in that tradition we're saying about about social cooperation that led me to Spencer who had read some of but you also were getting me interested in Spencer because I had you write about Spencer for the frame. So I started reading in like a principal sociology and other places where he talks about that. And he makes this very interesting point about how it seems paradoxical but as as society progresses and comes moves, you know into the industrial mode, you get it, you get a heightened individuality and a heightened. You know, it's not a collective but collective collective not collectivism but you know, social cooperation so you get both intensifying kind of at the same time and while it seems paradoxical it's not paradoxical easily resolved and so I quote I quote daddy discuss that. And so I just tried to carry on. And in some ways it looks like I was appealing to the left because one of my themes in many of the articles that are in this volume is is saying to like a good faith. I have to say that distinguishing from left libertarians, but the more conventional the way we think of leftist conventionally. We can deliver what you want. And here's how. And so by drawing on people like boss the art and, and Bomba Burke and all these other people I ended up pointing out in Hayek, I point out that the market and the free society really is social control of the means of production, not in a legal sense. But in the actual real sense and the example I use is in a borders the book chain went out of business a few years ago, who put it out of business. Well, in a sense, we did. We quote decided that we didn't need the resources we are book, our book producing was being taken care of and those resources might be better use somewhere else. We didn't sit down at a meeting and argue, you know, all night, and then vote. We just do our behavior. I would have voted the other way I left borders. They were better noble. In a democracy there's a minority tough luck. Yeah, it's the tough luck theory, but that sounds a lot like collective control, but not in the way that left. I didn't necessarily vote with my dollars because the nearest borders was in Atlanta. So I didn't get to Atlanta all that often. So I probably ordered from Amazon, more often than I made it out to border. I would have voted voted for borders, but I could have. It's this unplanned order that happens and it's, it's as if it's as if we sat down and took a vote, and you would have been in the minority, but but nevertheless so I'm trying to in various ways try to show good faith left us of that hill that we really are talking about what you want but we don't need force, and we don't have the problem the discord nation problems that come from central planning and all these different things. I don't think it's a chapter of Boston, which nobody seems to appreciate appreciate appreciate I don't mean they don't appreciate my chapter. It's based on chapter 11 of economic harmony, chapter 11 less way they think it's morally bankrupt. Where he, it's called from private property to common wealth to words from private property to common wealth. And he says that as technology advances. And as comp and when competition is free, then stuff you used to have to pay for is becomes free. That's to sum it up. And so he says wealth moves from the realm of private property to the to the communal is his these are his words, the communal realm, and think about it for a minute right if the real prices of real prices of things are fall. And what you, if you were paying, you know, X for a chicken. 10 years earlier and now you're paying half of that that you're kind of you're getting half. Let's assume no increase in quality. You're getting half of the value. You're good. Sorry, you're getting here for the value for free. You don't have to, you don't have to labor to buy that other half. You're running all over the place, but you need two things tech technological innovation and as Boston puts it all that does what that means is to say all that does what it means is we're substituting the free services of nature for onerous effort human labor. So the sun, gravity, water, electricity. And that that takes human labor to do the harnessing, but what are we harnessing we're harnessing the free services of mother nature. If you try to charge for that a competitor will jump in and undercut your price. And eventually the free services will be those free services will actually be free, because they won't be captured will be free to the consumer is they won't be captured by the seller, if there's competition. You know, with IP, what about that. But here's where Boston so great he doesn't directly discuss IP, but he was pro imitation. David Hart sent me a letter that he had translated a Boston that's where he's praising imitation I was a key to civilization. So he couldn't have been for IP. And he also says in the chapter. Well, if the person can keep the message secret, can he capture. And he said, you know what he said, you can keep those ideas secret for very long. He doesn't talk about IP patents and then specifically but he does say, in effect, those secrets will not be secret for long. So I think that means Boston really doesn't get enough respect, even among libertarians who often respect him as like, you know, it's like a brilliant and persuasive economic journalist but they tend not to respect him as as a you know, kind of the stuff is really valuable. It's a shame taking it's a shame liberty for me just continuing the, the process since David Hart is has been ejected. Yeah, I think I think doing that complete collection. I don't know. I don't know if younger libertarians are reading or you're not just talking about one younger libertarians but but it's show better right who said that Boston was not an economist. I'm a journalist, which is a shame. Economic harmonies is a very good book. It's a very good book. People don't read that they know they read the petition to the candle makers they read the law they read what is seen and what is not seen and those are all great essays. You never finished. Those are philosophically and I'm getting a husband has a nice piece on on on the role of counterfactuals and economic law which is really making the point that even what is seen what is not seen is really making a deeper theoretical point, which even has it to some extent may have missed. What's disappointing to me is, well, for lots of people don't read economic harmonies but even people who know the book economic harmony is a very knowledgeable person about Boston. I asked him about chapter that chapter 11. And he said, I never really understood that chapter. I was just flack yes, I don't see how you could not understand it. Here's the other thing Boston says in this, he says I know that I am going to get accused of being a communist. I don't know about value or utility. I forget, you know, he's got a kind of using credit uses of those words, forget which is which for him. He's, you know, he's saying that's moving from the realm of private property to the communal realm. That's his term. And he laughs. He says, I'm sure I'm going to get a communist for talking like this. And I opened up with a quote about that saying who said this, you know, and I named some famous Eugene Debs or, you know, I named some people. No, mostly, you know, mostly didn't accuse him of being a communist. They just didn't read the chapter, or didn't say anything about it. I don't, I don't understand why I, well, maybe I do understand why maybe people are uncomfortable with that chapter, because it just sounds to me for start my free delivering free stuff. Yes, with the sort of the right wing vibe that has been part of the libertarian culture for a long time. It wasn't always. Right. For the 19th century individual anarchists like I spent less underspooner and Benjamin Tucker and so forth. There's much more of a left wing cultural vibe with a lot of them. I say repeatedly in this book that if we that if we want to talk to the good faith, non libertarian left. These are the kinds of things we need to explain. And that it's, it's, it's important. It's not just pandering. I have been accused of just pandering misusing Mises misusing. Oh yeah, we use the panda to the left. I'm sure. Yeah, you've heard that. But no, it's a completely honest thing. The point is, look at this, we can deliver what you say you want. But we don't have to kill anybody or give or issue orders to anybody, what I like that. I find lots of ways to do that, not just through Vostia, but through Bomba Burke who's got this great piece about how cost of production cost of production determines price which seems like an on Austrian thing. This is something George Reisman has been pounding away at for years and couldn't get anybody to listen to him. And I was aware he was doing this and I finally read that paper by Bomba Burke. And I did an article, it's in this book about why Bomba Burke is right about that. Now it doesn't take a marginal utility out of the picture. It's the marginal utility determines the cost of production and then cost of production determines prices. Well, he didn't get the Mises book to publish the boom of X piece plus his commentary on it in the quarterly. That's right. That's right. So when I did my chat. And I did my, raised the idea that they were willing to publish it. When I wrote my TGIF right and Murray didn't like it either. I remember talking Murray about it when I wrote my TGIF about that chapter and I and of course I linked to George and mentioned that George had been writing about this. I got one of the nicest emails. I'd ever gotten into my life. He said like, finally, someone gets it. It was so good. It's like ecstatic. And I felt very good about it because I have total confidence in the thesis. I think George and Bomba Burke are right about that. It doesn't take marginal utility out of the picture. It just is more round about to use a bomber bomber concept anyway, it is more round about. And it's an, it's an, I could describe it. I can explain it quickly, but it's kind of involved. So probably not the place. I'll have a link to it. So anyone wants to see what we're talking about. Look in the description. There will be a link. But the point is that with competition prices get are driven down. The question is how, how low can they go and cost of production sets the lower limit. It's not going to go to zero because who's going to sell the prices zero. So something above zero provides the floor. What's the floor has the floor determine cost of production cost of production. That was the result of the marginal utility of alternative uses of the resources. That's the quick, that's the quick. Okay, I thought we might finish up by talking about your, your logical atheist blog. By the way, I'm probably going to split this interview into into two halves since it's okay. You know, since we're already in two hour mark, but I, I'm not, I'm not willing to stop yet. I want to talk a little bit about the logical atheist blog. I'll cut it in two and, but people will get to enjoy both. So tell me what you're doing on this. Well, I wanted something, I wanted to do something new during the pandemic. There's the first thing. And it was a way, if God, if God sent the pandemic to us as Pat Robertson and whatnot, whoever else thinks, I figured this was a way to get back at God, right? This is my revenge. So, so I set up a blog, it doesn't cost anything bloggers free. And I set it up on April 4 and I actually haven't missed a day since I don't know how long I'll keep that going. A lot of it is. I haven't had a blog until recently, but I, I've been looking for it recently and Well, you're busy. I mean, I told you actually told you about it quite a while ago, but I'm sure quite possibly. As I said, my memory is not what it used to be. What what what helped it was, I was watching a lot of a lot of them don't like this name but I was watching a lot of the so called new atheists on YouTube. There are plenty of debates and lectures about the names Dawkins Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, very entertaining ones by Christopher Hitchens, and then there's a sort of the next tier of a sort of internet celebrities who know a lot of them don't like the word new atheism. I think one reason for that term is is that Hitchens and Harris and others were inspired to kind of go public with their atheism to make it an actual cause. After 911 because they thought 911 could be was totally explained by crazy Muslims right hating our way our freedom hitting our freedom to use the George Bush then I think the wrong about that. It's much more politics. It's like with Palestine right it's a tiny bit of its religion if any of it is, and an awful lot of it is politics. It is a an unjustified form of retaliation against unjustified. But it's not political. The motivation is not religious. I mean that may be in part of the mix but it's not. I don't believe it's the main motor of the thing. It's certainly true the Palestinian Israeli conflict. A lot of Palestinians are are secular, the PLO and our fat worst secular organization. Anyway, I watched a lot of the stuff and I was really annoyed. I have philosophically shallow it is. Now the top four, the people they call the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, then it's the only philosopher. Then it interestingly enough was a student of two very famous philosophers who have single so so will names Klein and Ryle. Ryle I wonder if he's not spinning in his grave at some of the things. Some of the things written by Dennett about consciousness but I won't go into that I'm a hardy an expert on that. But the others are not about another time though I would I would like to come back to those issues. Harris is a neuroscientist right. Hitchens is a journalist. I mean, widely read, but not much of a philosopher. And what's his name. Dennett Dawkins is a biologist I believe evolutionary biologist. And so there's just a lot of bad philosophy, shallow, not just when they talk about ethics. I think there's, yeah, problems with that, but just the way they defend, and then their view is that they're the God hypothesis which I think somebody wrote a book. I think that hypothesis. I can't remember. Dawkins is the God delusion. Okay, yeah. I think it may be dead. They see it as simply a scientific hypothesis. That the proponents of which haven't yet produced the evidence so they ought to be out there testing. And look, my views on I came across atheism by reading, I ran in particular, listening to the 10 lecture, the famous 10 lecture series right the principles of objectivism where Brandon has a very good lecture on atheism it's the concept of God or something. But it's a single cassette, I had it in cassette form years ago. And it's, it's, you can find it on YouTube, by the way, just to, it's great. It's very good. Now, typically, you know, they don't give credit to any other thinkers. I don't know if they mentioned anybody else. I'm sure the stuff I absorb from that. Yeah, I had been said before. But that that was a very, that was the first time I ever heard of presented. And to show you maybe it reveals something about my own commitment. I mean, I was a believer in some way. But I guess it shows you the depth of my or lack of thereof of my commitment. I listened to that lecture takes about an hour and I said, Okay, I'm an atheist. So, When I first decided that I was an anarchist. I remember telling both my mother and my ex-girlfriend that I'd become an anarchist and they both said, Oh, I thought you already were. Well, I kept it from my parents and I was living at home when I was at the temple. I lived at home. So it really gold my parents later when they realized they understand they can understand the kid goes off to college falls in with the wrong crowd becomes an atheist. I was upstairs by myself reading and listening and they never know it and that really got to them. And I finally had the reveals like coming out of the closet. Basically, it wasn't really traumatic. They didn't disown me. They didn't scream. But my mother wanted to know why are you giving up something for nothing. And I should have said proxy logically that's impossible. I ended up converting my mother. So there wasn't a problem. Well, I turned the anarchism in like with the drop of a hat also, you know, I became a libertarian in high school reading, you know, reading Ayn Rand and it wasn't until I, you know, I first year teaching at Chapel Hill that I finally made it all the way to anarchism. It's kind of embarrassing long evolution. So I gave up religion, but it was 18. A lot of people do it way earlier or not. So I was hearing Chomsky the other day saying he was 12 or 13. I feel that I feel bad. And by the way, I wish I hadn't been in well to didn't see something. Yeah, forget I would have had such questions from my grandfather. It would have been fantastic because he was a very tolerant person. I can't believe I blew that opportunity. I'm not I'd love to go back in time to talk to them. Anyway, but so okay so I gave up religion at 18 and it likes that was 1968. And I, but I didn't think much about it after that wasn't going to be something I was going to be writing about right I just okay that's just another thing I incorporate. But then in 1974 George, George Smith's book comes out George H Smith's books book atheism. The case against God. Right. Which if you think about it was was a real major elaboration of the Brandon lecture and he sites branded in there but he draws on many philosophers you know George. It's really already with with intellect widely read in philosophy. History of thought. Oh yeah. Oh, and it's a marvelous book you learns, aside from the God issue, you learn a heck of a lot about philosophy and the customology and the metaphysics in that book, leaving away the God debate, the God question. It's just, it's just a wonderful book. I was a reading group on that book at some point in my life, although I cannot remember whether it was here in Auburn or in Chapel Hill or where or I just so where the heck it was but I was in a reading room on that book at some point in my life. Yeah. It's a realistic book and I've read, you know, I've reread not cover to cover many times but certainly I'm going back to sections multiple times I've probably in effect read the book. The whole book many times it's a very readable book I have my original hard copy which was published by Nash, I think, and then I have a Kindle version of it so I have it always at the ready. So bring it back to the blog that was 74 to bring it back to the blog. I noticed as I'm watching these debates, whether it's between two atheists or with an atheist and some well known theist Christian theist. George Smith is never mentioned. They're only they mentioned Dawkins they mentioned then it they mentioned Harris mentioned Hitchens. I had also read the Anthony flew by the way God and philosophy I think before before George's book came out. I'm sure that's true. There was a whole other story we can talk about some time, not whether he actually became a theist on his death that I don't believe it. But anyway, I'm saying where's George Smith's name the books in print it's published by Prometheus right was one of the great humanist publishing houses Paul Kurtz I guess he died I think he got one of the great humanists publisher of magazines and books and that book is still in print. George's follow up book why atheism is not in print. That's unfortunate. He also has a collection called atheism I ran. Yes, I ran another heresies which is very good he talks. Yeah, which I have on my shelf and I haven't pulled down in ages so I forget exactly what he addresses. Why atheism. The second book is also very good. The second book is very good too because he discusses the ontological argument which he doesn't get to in the first book. So he has a full discussion of it in the second book. It's a thinner book. So I thought okay. I want something different to do while I'm self quarantine although I was self quarantining before self quarantining was cool. Before the pandemic I was pretty much under quarantine, not going anywhere but crow group to buy groceries and living, living online. So it wasn't a big change in lifestyle for me. But I thought okay let me start this blog April 4th I say I'm gonna start a blog. And one of the missions I had in mind was make George's book known to atheists. You'll get the impression reading these posts that it's more directed at atheists than atheists. It's also somewhat directed at theists and I think they'll, I hope they'll, they'd benefit from it if they're interested, but probably not reading it. I don't know. Not that many people are reading it as far as I can tell. But because I hear, I hear celebrity internet atheists say things like they have Colin shows right where theists call in to give them the concept of God and then they shout them down and argue with them. It's really ridiculous things like, well you know yeah we use reason and logic because you know it seems to work but we really can't prove that reason is reasonable. That's a direct quote from a well known internet atheist celebrity, or the problem with logic is to refute it you have to use it. That's above not a feature in these guys. And one the other day was talking about logic and I just blogged on this logic is sort of like part of the social contract. I grant you logic and you grant me logic for the sake of discussing and moving forward in talking about the world, but I don't know why it would be worth talking about the world if we're only granting logic as a, as just the basis to have a conversation. So that's the kind of logic yet and it doesn't seem as though you're entitled to pass for the premises. We want to talk about the world, we need logic to talk about the world therefore we should use logic. No, I mean if you're not in the logic yet then you know, it doesn't fall from the premises until you already buy it. I said why said how do you negotiate the contract. How can you negotiate the terms of the social contract. If logic is going to be in the country. So, I quote I've quoted George a lot not every post is like an original piece from me, sometimes just a quotation, it just like to try to have something every day. And so, one of my missions there is to get people to see that book it's a, you know, I haven't read every book on atheism by a long shop and it's got to be one of the most, one of the best books ever written on that subject. Well, a lot of the, a lot of the sort of the public popular dispute between religion and atheism is kind of philosophically impoverished on both sides I mean there's a lot of philosophical research in both sides they're very sophisticated defenses of theism up there and the philosophical literature and very sophisticated of atheism, but most of what you'll find in pop in the popular debates among the sort of the big names is not really, you know, engaging with any of that and so it's sort of, you know, sort of, you know, a, an unimpressive cartoon version of theism and an unimpressive cartoon version of atheism, battling it out and it's not for inspired. The only time I've ever heard anyone one of the points I've been trying to make is that there's a problem with the concept of the supernatural. Exit something that exists outside of existence. That's problematic. And you know, in the end it's nonsense. So this is a point I'm trying to make the only time I've ever heard that raised in these debates has been by the feast. An atheist says, of course there's not going to be evidence for the supernatural it's outside of existence why would you expect evidence I still believe it. Now I take the other side. Yeah, it's outside of existence which means we can't even say anything about it. And therefore, I'm not a feast. I've never heard an atheist bring an atheist bring that up. So that's what I'm trying to do. Now, I've gotten into a lied issues, epistemology and ethics because that's always coming up. You know, God, how do you ground ethics? I guess you don't believe in ethics. So they make very feeble responses to that sort of thing. And also about, you know, what can we know if there's no God, what can we know. So, the other book I've been a booklet that I've been promoting, probably as hard as George is, is your reason and value. If you look, you'll see there are quotations. I hope I haven't run afoul of fair use, you won't care, but but I've run enough quotations over posts that not the whole books, the whole books not there but but a lot but points are there about knowledge about coherentism about reflective equilibration I explained this stuff I've talked about Klein and then and then bring you into it about the whole holism idea and break just trying to show that there, there are ways to argue for your position that that aren't that aren't shallow because a lot of these atheists like I think they like to pose as an edgy skeptic their favorite word is skeptic I'm a skeptic. I know there's an everyday sense right I'm skeptical about that. Just meaning you have doubts about a particular explanation for something somebody's told you about, you know, some, some fact they tell you and you just say well I'm skeptical about that. But, but that I guess is more properly called, you know when you say well how do you know when people ask that question every day or friends and but not there's a new restaurant opening down the street how do you know. Isn't that really evidentialism that's not skepticism that's evidentialism which is fine you want evidence for. Assuming that you're open to any, you know, assuming that you accept any possible answer. You know, if you're if you're committed to rejecting any, any possible answer like oh, I saw a sign in front of grand opens day. Well, how do you know that the sign wasn't put there. How do you know you really saw the sign. How do you know it wasn't hallucination dreaming right now that's true. But I'm thinking real hard. Well, yeah, we'll deny what you don't find. You don't find those. You don't find them among your. Well, you're in a philosophy department so I can't speak for you. But on the, just out on the street I'm not going to find those types. Not into that kind of skepticism. New atheists like the guy I mentioned William Davis the guy who would heat up his coffee in the microwave and say was as good as espresso. He was, he was a skeptic, and a divine command theorist, and an existentialist. And he also explicitly denied the law of non contradiction. It was also an act deontologists do there are certain acts that are just inherently right, not because they belong to some general category we're just in and of themselves he also held the unusual view combination of views that the Bible is literally true, all of it. But it doesn't much matter that it is. It's not that important. I don't have very often encountered that pair of views. Yeah, but it exists. So that's, you know, that's bill Davis. And I think they just like this edgy does an edgy sound to it I'm a skeptic and one of them was recently asked, what can you take skepticism too far can you go too far we discussed skepticism. Absolutely not. You cannot be too much of a skeptic this guy says point like and he'll claim to be a humane but he doesn't really give any evidence is ever read him. And I don't think he would adopt the view that slave that slave that the reason is and can be nothing else than a slave to the passions. Although, as I've learned from you, there's other things in Q and which go against skepticism namely that we do in her sort of inherit these customs and sentiments and stuff which have gone through some the evolutionary mill, which seems to be more complicated than the cartoon version. Well everything is more complicated cartoon version and that's one of my right, but they don't seem to know any of this and yet they pronounce as if they're, you know, I'm an amateur philosopher. I don't have a degree in philosophy. I took philosophy courses in college. And I read on my own. Gary Charity likes to chuckle when I say I read Wittgenstein for relaxation, which is not non exaggeration. I read rile for relaxation. He says you riled up. No, it doesn't do that. I love it and I love Gilbert and Riles operas he's wonderful. And Gilbert Sullivan is a fantastic philosopher. Not to be confused with that singer from the 60s Gilbert oh so that song alone again naturally that somebody else, one hit wonder. What am I trying to do. I'm trying to bring the this younger crop of atheists. I don't know if they're watching the blog that ever comment to George's book, and then your stuff on ethics without religion and, and, and solid, you know, sound in my, in my interview with Gary, which is going up this weekend. He cites, my work and reason and value as a way of defending religious epistemology so I looks like I'm giving aid and comfortable. I have to hear, I hope he elaborates a little bit. That's good. It means whoever wins I'll be in on the, you know, and if I could just say something about that, that book that I read that I read that while you were at fee that summer, because I remember flipping over my ID card in the name card on the back and I had written. I'm a negative coherence coherence and a reflective equal equilibration and I flashed it and you chuckle. I was reading it at that time for the first time. So I don't know when that was. I'm probably the only person who would have chuckle. Yes, no one else would have known what I meant. But, you know, I came out of a of a Randian background and my first contact with philosophy and you say the same thing was was ram. I was fortunate of not discovering Rand till after the split with with Brandon so I was not a child of that very messy divorce. Thank goodness, I came in months afterwards. I don't know for even I don't know if Brandon had yet published his response to to whom it may concern concern. And so I was detached from that I was like, I just want to know what these people write, you know, what I make of it. So that looks pretty good to me. So I had no stake in it. I was nasty, you know, declare myself two sides. But that was so that was my kind of working philosophical background. I really liked the epistemology, the book on epistemology I really liked the peacuffs analytics synthetic economy paper read it long ago, and really enjoyed your review of that was a browning book that discusses how to cut them and and Kripke said very much very similar things with Peacock said in that paper I found that very gratifying because I from my lay perspective that Peacock paper sounded like a pretty sound seemed like a very strong argument. So, where was I going with this. I think something about reason and value. And I'm not exaggerating that book that that that that essay is was was liberating. And maybe you've heard this before from other people who had an objective as background. And I would never regard myself as an orthodox objectivist. It was more conservative to reform someone. Well, I have long hair now, but I don't know about that. It was liberating because, you know, you should talk about that book someday just on your on this in the series. But you know you you talk about how you're not confined to the evidence of your own senses in building up knowledge and showing where Rand is weakest is where she claims she improved or Aristotle, and in yet she did not improve or Aristotle is better and much more plausible and reasonable and it's just in both ethics, flourishing versus survival. I mean, this may be esoteric for for viewers who haven't read the book. They should read the book. I'll have a link to it. And although he recently dropped, dropped that from their site. I will be. They've taken sort of a, you know, they've taken sort of a turn against intellectual stuff in general. And now they're mostly like satirical, satirical. He also dropped near about words monograph, although I'm told that they're going to put them up and I'll have somewhere. But anyway, both my and Neera's monograph. Kindle and Kindle's not very expensive. So get a Kindle if you don't have a Kindle and then get the writer's book. If you are on my side, I'll have a link to those two link if your framework is objectivism. You may be sensing that there are issues but this book I think will liberate you without like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but only throwing out the bathwater. So it's an extremely important book. So I want to bring it to the attention of people who probably know nothing about Iran. If they know it, they know where they have a very poor opinion of her and won't want to acknowledge he's an atheist because they don't acknowledge they have anything in common with her. So they probably saw. She didn't want to call herself a libertarian because she didn't want to have anything in common with the libertarian movement, even though by any normal definition of as an atheist, you know, I'm not primarily an atheist. I'm primarily an advocate of reason and liberty, of course, but I mean in terms of this logical metaphysical things. I said this one day, you know, it's not atheism that I would put on my gravestone, right? It would be rationalist or whatever she said, but that's a byproduct in my view. Well, in one of her early journal writings, Rand does say, I want to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. But that was before she'd really worked out her system back when she was sort of more Nietzschean and less Aristotelian than she became. She was not a crusading atheist. I was aware she was an atheist and then they had that one lecture in the series, but it wasn't like they were, it wasn't like Madeline Merrile here. Yeah, she said, if you compare the amount she wrote about that versus the amount she wrote about, about, you know, everything else, it really wasn't the major. I never heard a complaint that the coins saying God we trust or, you know, one nation under God, unlike Madeline Merrile here. So that's why I do that's why I do the money. That's what my life. That's what that's why I do the blog and I enjoy it. I'm learning more because it's pushing me to read more and or reread some stuff like Henry Beach, who was one of the great fans of Aristotle interpreters of Aristotle. I enjoy reading actually met him once at a libertarian scholars conference back in the 70s when he did a book on Liberty. He wrote a whole book on his notions of freedom. I don't know how good it is. It's actually I never, I never read it. I can't remember. I can't remember the title and I can't remember if I read it. I, you know, I read a number of things by by beach in the past. The main thing I remember was rational man but I read. I have that one. I read that he and he and Mary, he and Mary were on human rights that I think I read that maybe the book I'm thinking. And it's probably not, you know, hardcore libertarian. It must have been friendly. Yeah, I thought it was sort of a fellow traveler. Yeah, yeah. So, so it's the blog then pushes me to read additional stuff and I've been reading some of the earlier American free thinkers like Robert Ingersoll. It was, it was very interesting. Can you come across the live Palmer. What's the first name. Eli who el i h u. No, no Palmer. No. He wrote a book called. Oh, what is it called. I actually discovered him to pick off to pick off and the ominous parallels quote this passage from him anyway he was a sort of a crusading deist. Okay. A lot of them were deists, but but he has, you know, but he sort of he writes about revealed religion the ways winner writes about the Constitution. You know, it's very similar style. And style. Actually, of course, Spooner was a deist too but he only wrote like a couple of pieces on on religion. From then on, all his later stuff makes no doesn't ground anything in in religion and makes no reference to it. I thought that said there's a bituary that that Spooner still held the deist views of his early writings, he still have them at the end, but he, he never makes any fear. He thought religion was an insult to to the creator that he believed in was insulting. That heaven, that God who never would have created heaven where you sit around just contemplating the glory of God and stuff like that. It's great stuff. I was always, I was long of long been a big fan of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, which is a wonderful book. Debunking of the Bible and showing the contradictions and course and then. And that's the one we've got him called a atheist by, by Teddy Roosevelt called him a filthy little atheist. And filthy little atheists. Number one, he wasn't filthy. Apparently very clean. He wasn't little and he wasn't an atheist. Other than that. So, something like a cross between a pig and a puppy, or phrase, some kind of Dr. Murrow type. And then I've read a lot of I've read a lot of Spinoza's analysis of the Bible. He was really the first comprehensive analyst of the Bible show couldn't have been written by Moses. Historical problems. Some people have suggested that in some, in a narrow way, but he took it all. Yeah. What became the, you know, textual analysis of, of the Bible. And I'm very fond of Spinoza. I like Spinoza a lot of ways. Anybody that gets excommunicated from a synagogue is okay in my book. It became a Nazi. That might be. That's pretty good. And we don't really know what for that ever said. Yeah. Spinoza's life time. Spinoza's life time very harsh. Yeah. Spinoza's politics is fairly decent. Yeah, but he, he's basically high. He uses the Hobbesian framework, but he, he says, let's start from these Hobbesian premises. And then what do we end up with? We end up with, with a more democratic state. We end up with freedom of speech and religion and various things that the, that Hobbes in a non non absolutism, things that Hobbes did not go for. So although, you know, he's not politically, you know, purely one of us, he's definitely, he moves the, the Hobbesian framework in that direction actually done tonight. And he improves on the Greeks. Yes, he does. I've read, he's got two books. One was his dissertation and then you wrote another book. So I've read both of those. He improves also on the Greeks and on Aristotle, because he specifically says, state craft should not be soul craft that should only be for security, the state. He's not an anarchist, of course. It shouldn't be to promote virtue or make, make decisions. So disrespect. Well, the Greeks. Yes, he didn't, he didn't like George will pro proactively, you didn't like George will. And so for guy who's a determinist for for guy who's a determinist talks an awful lot about freedom. So I find I like I enjoy reading them. He's a challenge to read a little bit. The ethics is a lot difficult to read the, you know, the two, you know, it's puzzling, it just is the, the tractatus politicus, the tractatus theological politicus, even though the, the name sound daunting. Those are fairly easy to read, but the, you know, the ethics demonstrated according to the other one is like geometry is, is tough going. Yeah, mimicking, mimicking, mimicking your euclid, I guess. And then he has QED at the end of every section, right? Thus, here I proved what I said I was going to prove the beginning. No, there's a lot of interesting stuff in that and the appendix appendices are interesting. His appendices. So it's, it's, he's, he's good and I've been reading. I remember when I first discovered. And I was, I was in college, but I didn't discover him for a college course. I, you know, I found those a text in the probably was in the basement of the John Harvard bookstore, which is a wonderful bookstore better than the official Harvard bookstore. I hope it's still this a lot of wonderful bookstores are closing during this pandemic but that was. I discovered them just, you know, see the, actually, if Rand was a fan of smells or Rand names. I mean, not a super fan, but she says, among the philosophers that she's not a devotee of she nevertheless listed. I think she listed both Plato and Spinoza as people she thought had an authentic respect for reason, even though she didn't, you know, even though obviously she wouldn't be down with them but she has a passage somewhere. Oh, what she says. So in part did Plato Aquinas and Spinoza but how many others something like that. There are quite a few others. And for pick off names and as one of the egoists in history of course, I think you brought that quote to my attention. And, and he is, but he has the same rich view of egoism that that Aristotle has, and which you so well developed in reason and value namely, in your interest you'll flourish if you're surrounding yourself with people committed to using reason and you're using reason with them. And he goes on a great length about that it sounds like it's right out of. You know, the stuff you've been writing about. So, in other words, this line between egoism and altruism really end up getting blurred properly. I think you think you see this in some earlier thinkers. With a good friend, you're doing so if you're doing something for a friend I mean where's really the line your interests in a way kind of merge. And, and that happens to some extent with the with the community or being being a rational social animal and wanted to deal with people by reason. And that line is not quite bright now altruism as a as a as a duty in the way Rand talks about it, you know, my, my remarks wouldn't cover that, but, but I think it's a little more complicated than somehow set it up. Okay, well, that's the atheism. We should probably wrap things up now because this is getting a little long even for a two part episode but I definitely think. You know, this is the longest the longest they've done so far. So it won't be like, once I snip it. I told you you'd have trouble keeping me quiet. But we, well, this has been a lot of work. We definitely should. We definitely should come back for a part three at some point because anytime there are things we haven't talked about and all these things and that I would like to revisit. I haven't even talked to here. We haven't talked in a while. Stein or Gilbert and Sullivan, except, you know, glancing way. I'm, you know where I live and I'm under lockdown. So I'm stuck. I'm your prisoner. No, let me out. I enjoyed it. One light of Athens. That's right. When I started filming, I showed you my real background. Actually, let me, let me show the audience my real background, which they haven't. I don't think my audience has seen it, but just for the heck of it. I will show them what my real background is just. I can see the. And I thought that was your view. They can see the truth behind the line. Wow, war runs a lot larger than I thought. So this is the grim reality. You can see the, you know, one reason my hair looks so weird in these videos is because as this is the shaggy. It's ever been and the zoom seems to interpret this bit at the bottom is not being part of me. And so it is part of the background and so then. The reason I keep going like this is not because I'm training, but because this long shaggy hair keeps, you know, getting into my ears and I hate it. But I haven't, you know, I haven't undertaken to cut my own hair because I know from experience that that doesn't go well and but who knows when I'll actually get up. Maybe it'll grow long enough that I can put it in the ponytail, which is not something I would ever have thought. But right now, it's just long enough to be annoying, but not be able to hold back and ponytail. But you know, once I put the magical background back, it suddenly looks as though. But in fact, I got here that keeps bothering me on sliding forth into my ears and so I keep going like this and no one can see the hair that I'm pushing back and so it just looks like. Oh, I'm just preening all the time. I think that when I look at the deal at my own videos, it looks like just constantly preening. I'm not preening I'm getting the stuff that crap out of my, out of my ears. Anyway, little digression there about life under lockdown. All right, well thanks a lot. This has been a lot of fun. We will definitely hear it again. I say the same to you. Thank you and it has been great fun. And to to the hordes of eager viewers out there. Take a look through the links. Read Sheldon stuff is books as blog posts. Some of the other stuff we've talked about that I'll have links to and like share subscribe all that good stuff and I'll see you or you'll see me because I don't really see you. So I claim next time.