 So it's an anti-concept. So let's take another one from the right. Fake news. Fake news is an interesting one because it started as a legitimate concept. Then I think started to become a package deal on the left. Or just in general, but more on the left than on the right. And then was appropriated by Trump in particular as an anti-concept for the right. And we could argue maybe it was an anti-concept even a little bit before Trump got a hold of it. But it started, you know, there were these phenomena where there'd be like a clearly made up out of whole-clothed hoax story, like the Pope endorses Trump or whatever, that some, you know, thing that looked vaguely like a newspaper would post. Maybe it would even be an onion story or a satire story. And people would spread it as though it were real news. And it was just literally a made up story of hoax that kind of either intended to be funny or intended to trick someone into stupidly sharing it. And so there was originally that meaning of fake news. It looks like a newspaper, but it's bogus, right? It's made up. Well, as opposed to what? Well, as opposed to sites that are not making things up out of whole-claw, but are very lax in their journalistic standard. And I don't mean like the New York Times or the Washington Post, but like Alex Jones, he really believes I guess what he's saying or he's putting it forth is true. But conspiracy theories and things like this, the things that aren't intended to trick people but are very irrational and no one should take them seriously. And then it expanded to include very biased kind of news sources, like on the right bright part, I think would be an example of this, or something like Salon or Mother Jones on the left or something. And it was being used kind of like that, which I think is already a package. There are very different types of things, very lax sites that are maybe not too concerned about fact but are not making things up versus people who are making things up out of whole-claw. And then Trump took it and started using it to refer to, you might think, non-objective or biased reporting. When he starts calling the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal, if it says something he doesn't like, a fake news. So now it's just the same kind of leftist package deal or general culture package deal that Trump's taken up, but he's done something different with it, right? Any time there's a story that he doesn't like that's unfavorable to him, regardless of how well researched, what the facts are, etc., he's claiming it's fake news now. And what is it now serving as? You can dismiss it because there's no difference between any of these things. A story made up totally out of whole-claw, very biased reporting, somewhat biased reporting, etc. And it serves as a, we now don't need to think about whether we can tell this is true at all. So if you're using the term fake news as Trump does, it amounts to any story that doesn't align with the president or with my own prejudices, because you could do it from any ideological standpoint, is therefore fake because it doesn't, and I don't have to take it seriously. And there's no thought about what actually goes on in news. There's no thought about journalism anymore. So what would actually be required to report the news? How would we tell? And if you're saying it's fake news, what you ought to be saying is it's pretending to have gone through a certain journalistic process, and it hasn't. Or it's purporting to or being taken as, but there's no sense of what that process is anymore. And so like, is John Bolton's book fake news? No, the guy was there, he was a witness to what happened, and he wrote it up. And now maybe he's lying about it, but then the newspapers don't report that everything he says is true. They're reporting that this is what someone said. And likewise, for pretty much every other story. So it's now become a term to use to dismiss news you don't like. And again, the president, who's I think a real anti-conceptualizer, is using it a lot, but other people on the right are. And there's no doubt that we'll get this kind of picked up by some awful person on the left for his when it serves his interest. And why is this so damaging? Because to me, this is one of the, you know, early signs of authoritarianism and real undermining of the idea of objective reality. Yeah, and it's, I mean, it's got historical precedent fears. I forget the German term for lying press that was constantly used by the Nazis. So it's easy to put down the press. There's a lot wrong with our press. It doesn't, you know, a lot it does badly. A lot of reporting is biased, et cetera. And occasionally there are even lies. But the whole discourse on the press today, I think, particularly on the right, but you find it also on the kind of Chomsky kind of far left that thinks of the press as all beholdant to corporate interests and they're justifying the power structures and, you know, the kind of like real Marxist panel. There's no real thinking about, there's a value here that needs to be created, namely being informed about what's happening about things that you can't see for yourself. And in ways that you could be reasonably assured that it's accurate. And then it's a hard thing to do if you wanted to do it for yourself. If you want to create a company, it's difficult. And like there's actually, you know, knowledge is work, being informed about the world is work. There are organizations that are doing the work to try to get out what's true. And it's really, really hard. And there's no acknowledgement of the difficulty there. And if you were a person who was running such a company who was totally honest, you feel us with the best of intentions, want it, you know, it would be really difficult to figure out how to hire staff, how to get enough people, how to solve all the problems. You would expect the, you know, quote, perfect newspaper to make mistakes and have problems and have some slanting sometimes. No one thinks the ones we've got are perfect. But, you know, there's some of them trying to some extent to do this. And it's something that needs to be done. And too much of the reactions against the press we have are, as though if there were no newspapers, everybody would know it was true automatically. And it's just the newspapers and their foibles that get people having false beliefs, right? If there were no newspapers, there'd be no sources of information. People would just believe whatever conspiracies propagated through their personal grapevines. And the newspapers are organizations that are trying in perfectly in flawed ways, sometimes with mixed and dishonest motives, but to inform people. And we should be like looking for what's best in them and trying to push them to be better, not being dismissive of them. Yeah, we should be critiquing them in important ways. I mean, to the extent that they, that in journalism schools, if it's true that they don't teach that, you know, journalism needs to be objective. To the extent that they newspapers view journalism as a means to propagate an ideology that should be critiqued, but you don't get that from fake news. Right, from describing it as fake news. I recommend it to Greg before the show and I'll talk about this in the next episode. But this movie, Mr. Jones, which you can get on iTunes, is a really good artistic, based on a true story, but artistic presentation of this issue about objectivity and about ideologically motivated journalism. And it's very, very powerful, very powerful. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there. Help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals. And show you support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You're good notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.