 Okay, so for someone that's watching this, that might be a little confused about these ideas and is hearing or learning in college right now why intersectionality is good, right? And we mentioned the oppression of the Olympics before. Can you explain why this competing set of oppressions, or I don't even think they're real oppressions, I think they're perceived oppressions, why this is actually something that can't hold? Well, it's the whole perspective is that if you don't have a value, that's what entitles you to consideration that other people have to give money, time, sacrifice in some kind of way for you, but what it elevates is the person who can't be bothered to move. So now we have to somehow pay that they can stay alive, or it can't be bothered to educate themselves. So now we are in charge of their education. They won't look after their health, so we have to do it. They can't save for retirement, so we have to do it. And the more they won't do those things, the more we have to give them. Yes. That's the ultimate irony. So, and what you're taking then, everyone who achieves a value, and it's way bit wider than money, if they've achieved knowledge, if they've achieved any kind of success, if they've achieved happiness, they owe it to the people who haven't, you're destroying these people and you're leaving the everything is geared to these people. If you gear a system to the people who can't think, that is, won't think, won't work, won't struggle, what you're inviting is complete disruption. If that's your whole system is geared to that, and this is what is the American revolution is we're creating a system that's geared to the person who's not at all like that, we're geared to the ambitious person. It's not you have to have money or whatever, but you have to be willing to work and choose and think, and if you're doing that, here's a system in which you can thrive. And there's two really competing visions of who you're designing the system for. Right. And in a sense, intersectionality is inevitable. Once you accept a moral code in which those who have ability or have education or have money, oh, morally that's a moral duty to sacrifice for those who don't, because then those who don't are now going to compete for these resources, and they can compete based on what's standard by how miserable they are. And the more miserable they can prove to the world they are, the more deserving they become, the more, so it's a whole moral code based on need. Whereas the founding of this country was a political system created to make possible the achievement of virtue, the achievement of success. It was, if you're not going to work hard, if you're not going to strive, you can go back to Europe in a sense. It was an implicit assumption. And indeed a lot of people did go back to Europe, a lot of the immigrants who came, because they couldn't make it. But the idea is this is a system geared towards the rational, the productive, the ambitious, the honest, the person who wants to take responsibility for their life and achieve something. And we've turned that completely upside down, and now we're gearing the political system, and this is why the welfare state is so destructive, because it creates this mentality. This is why I think the New Deal was the beginning of this politically, because it creates this mentality of, oh, you're in need? Well, it's our duty now to help you, but he's more in need. What do we do now? And of course, the need expands, and it ever grows, and there's always more people in need. And you can get to a point where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the other day, a society that creates billionaires, or allows billionaires to come into existence as an immoral society. And it's exact opposite. A society that allows people free, so that some people, because of their talents and skill and hard work and ability to create value, become billionaires, that's a great, exciting society. She also thinks we have 12 years left on her, thanks to climate change. We'll talk in 12 years. We'll discuss that in 12 years. I want to add just one point, because I think this distinction is really important. The issue is not that what about the few people who literally can't take care of themselves? They might have some Alzheimer's or something like that. There are people like that. They're a relatively small number. The issue is, who cares about these people? Yeah, people who are making something of their lives, you'll take care of a relative who has Alzheimer's. But what do you do for the true outlier cases? I don't want to spend too much time talking about it, but I think that would be one of the criticisms. People would say, well, you're just going, because there are people that have mental health problems, whatever it is. What does a functioning society do about them? Those really marginal occasions. I think a functioning society at the sort of individual level, if it's your parents or whatever you... That's the ideal version. And then the wider version is, you don't... These people, it's unfortunate what's happened to them. There would be charity for these kinds of people. This is why the distinction is so important. If you see for no fault of his own, he's in a really tough situation, either permanently like Alzheimer's, or just he's lost his job and he's having trouble. He's trying to find another job, having trouble. So you help him out for six months or so. There would be all kinds of organizations would do that. And you're looking at there as human beings with real lives and potential, versus the people who don't want to take care of themselves and choose not to. And this is the impression, Olympics is not, all of a sudden we've got all these Alzheimer's people. It's all of a sudden we've got all these people who, oh, okay. So if I say that I'm in need, that gives me a claim to everything. So I don't have to exert any effort. And it's the systems being geared to those people. And what you saw in the 19th century into the 20th with the progressive, and this was deliberate, was that you cannot talk about the deserving and undeserving poor. And that's how it used to be conceptualized. There's poor people. Yeah, they don't deserve their fate. And we're going to help them out. And there's poor people who drink their lives away and so on. And what they have to learn is that choice is wrong. And you don't learn that by bailing them out and so on. So there was the deserving poor, deserving of charity, and undeserving. And the progressive said, this is a moral abomination to make that distinction. There's just the poor. And so now you feel like, oh, so if you say you're not going to help the poor, you're not going to help this guy with Alzheimer's are met? No. But you have to distinguish those two. And there's all kinds of push that you can't make that decision. It's really hard, though, to deprogram people from believing that victimhood is virtue, though, right? I mean, people have been so infected with this. Just a quick anecdotal example is when I was at University of New Hampshire, and all these kids are screaming at me, and one girl screams something to me. I could walk out of here and be shot. And I thought, this is actually crazy. You're in New Hampshire. You're at the University of New Hampshire. You keep telling me how oppressed you are, even though you're at a wonderful school in a very safe area and all that. But she needed this idea that it's possible she could walk outside and be shot. I don't know why she thought she might be shot, whether it was her skin color or whatever it was. But I could see how pervasive it was. The need for something horrible could just come around the corner and knit me. But you see that in Alexandria Cortez with the 12 years, right? You know, so when you take ideas out of it, it's the same concept. It's the same concept. Fear is an amazing motivator when you're taking ideas out of the equation, when people are not thinking, you're trying to manipulate people's emotions, scare them. And you're seeing this on the right with immigration. It's about elevating fear and then driving people to act based on that fear. So yes, people are fearful, irrationally fearful. They don't think about the facts. They don't think about, I mean, New Hampshire, who's going to really shoot me here? Am I really oppressed? And then you also deny them the ability to take control of their own life because you deny them, you tell them they don't want a free world. You tell them they don't have control of their life. You tell them they are products of their skin color or their genes or whatever it happens to be. So I mean, if I knew I had no free world, I'd be afraid. I don't know what that even means because I can't even contemplate not thinking I'd have free world. But I'd be afraid because how do I know what's going to happen next? I have no control over my life. That is a recipe for fear and what you're seeing among these young people and what is so sad about it about these kids in New Hampshire is how afraid they are. When I look at the environmentalists and the world, and I see these young kids who really believe this, who are bought into this doom and gloom. I think what a waste, right? How sad is it that people are growing up in an environment where they think the actions that they're taking are going to destroy the planet, they're going to destroy their lives, and that they can't think themselves out of this. So it's challenging, but it goes back to what they need to be taught. They need to be taught. They do have control over their life. They need to be taught that they can't think. They need to be taught the facts. We need to elevate that discussion back to the area of ideas and free will and control and choices. This is why I think objectivism is so important for the sort of the error we're in or the cultural point. Because I think of it as it's the philosophy that the enlightenment deserved, but didn't get. The objective of the Imran's theory is it's pro-reason, it's pro-science, it's pro-technology, it's pro-the individual, it's pro-capitalism. It views the 19th century as this was the pinnacle of freeing man in the broadest sense. You see such tremendous achievement in the 19th century. It's an end of war, of world war. You only get that back into the 20th century. I think the most unusual of all, it's pro-the pursuit of happiness. How do you get people out of this that they view everything as about need? You have to articulate a positive vision. It's important not only about reason and science and technology, but a moral vision that what you should be striving for. When we look at people, how we should distinguish between good and evil, it's who is pursuing their own happiness and who is not. To resurrect that moral idea and to give it a real underpinning in philosophy, that's what she was about. I think she thought of herself as I'm bringing a new moral perspective that has never really fully existed. This is what we need. You need the positive. There's no way to undercut intersectionality. I think this is part of the problem with a lot of the discussion going on today, while accepting the moral code that made intersectionality possible in the first place. I see a lot of intellectuals who are what meaning, who see the evil in intersectionality, but can't really fight it because they're advocating for another form of altruism, another form of the sacrifice of the individual to some other group, unless you have a real new conception of morality, an alternative conception of morality which Rand provides, of the individual pursuing their own values, pursuing their own life, pursuing their own happiness, that is the only alternative to the dead end that is tribalism and intersectionality.