 And let me try to try to do the ones on Zizik first. So, compare Zizik's nihilism to Chomsky's nihilism. I know Chomsky can't stand him, as he says Zizik is the theoretical and is too theoretical and non-empirical. I mean, I think Zizik and Chomsky are very similar, very similar. And Zizik admires Chomsky in spite of the fact that Chomsky doesn't like Zizik. And I can see why Chomsky wouldn't like Zizik. I mean, Chomsky, in spite of everything you say about, in spite of all the stuff I've said about it, how evil I think he is, is understandable. He speaks English. He's in some sick way grounded. Zizik is all over the place and in that sense too theoretical and non-empirical. Chomsky though is more evil in that Zizik seems to try to distance himself from violent authoritarianism. And particularly, and he talks a lot. He's very anti-authoritarianism. He talks a lot about that. And he tries to distance himself from communism as exercised by the Soviet Union. Although again, he has this, I think, implicit, half-joking, respectful, and uninstalled. Anyone assumes that if it's a joke then there's some reality to it in the background. Chomsky is less apologetic, so as I've said in the past, Chomsky was so enamored by the Cameroons, and I'd be curious what Zizik thinks of the Cameroons. By their, what he views as sincere efforts to bring about a truly revolutionary alternative form of society, that he was willing to whitewash their, you know, murder, the destruction of the lives of millions of people, 40% of their own population, just a horrible nature of that regime. He's willing to completely ignore, right, and really be a promoter of Popat and the Cameroons. So, and that's when I think Chomsky is worse, but I think, and I think Chomsky probably has a more detailed view of what the world would look like if his revolution was successful, but I think they're very similar. I think they're the same type of nihilist, and note that Chomsky is also anti-political correctness, anti-identity politics, anti, I think, well I don't know what his position on LGBTQ, but they both have this wanting to see the world destroyed, wanting to see capitalism destroyed as its own end, wanting to see, in a sense, blood in the streets, wanting to see revolution. So I think they're very similar in the nihilism, and more similar than I think Chomsky would like to admit probably. But yeah, they're very different styles, but they are probably the most watched, as public intellectuals at least, in academia Chomsky is far bigger than Zizek, but in, I think in popular culture, they're probably the two most influential leftists out there. Let's see. I want to be very basic here because there are many people who don't understand objectivism, who don't know what it is, but who have read much about Ayn Rand and have read her books and kind of want to know where she's coming from if I can use that phrase. So let's just basically say what objectivism is, okay? And make a long speech about it? Oh, not too long. No, because that's terribly difficult, you know, to begin with, it's a philosophy, it's a philosophic system, and philosophy is the science that studies the basic nature of existence. So it's a pretty technical subject, and anything I say briefly will not really do justice to my philosophy, but I can try to summarize it. Well, can I ask you some specifics then about it? Yes, sure. All right. How does, quote, I fit into the philosophy of objectivism? How does objectivism relate to me, the individual? What does it do for me? Are you a human being? Mm-hmm. Well, then it relates to you. It tells you how to lead your life, and how to achieve things, how to be happy. It tells you the fundamental principles by which you can make your own choices. Above all, it tells you that you have the means to make these choices, that your mind is valid, that the reality you perceive really exists, and that is epistemology. Mm-hmm. That's a branch of philosophy, and then it tells you how to make the base, by what principles, to guide the basic choices of your life? Now, there are many philosophies that would offer that to an individual. Oh, yes. There are religions that offer it. There are forms of government that offer it. How does... Not forms of government. That's politics. That's a different branch. That comes later. Well, yes, but governments in some areas, in some instances, would define for you choices, or dictate to you how to live your life. Yeah. But I'll retract governments and just say religions are philosophies. How does objectivism differ from the philosophies that many of us have been exposed to in our youths, philosophies based upon religions, theologians, dogmatists? The very first difference. Objectivism tells you that it is not right, it is not proper to men, to take anything on faith. Religion is a matter of faith. You accept a religion emotionally or because you were born to it. You have not chosen it rationally. What objectivism will tell you is that reason. Man's reason is his basic means of survival. That is the most important faculty which he has and he has to guide his life and make his choices by means of his rational faculty. He has to make his own choices, but he has to know how to make them. It is immoral for him to act on his emotions, to be guided by the whim of the moment. That objectivism holds as very wrong, very immoral. And morality, in fact, consists of following your reason to the best of your ability, so that rationality is the basic virtue from which all the others proceed.