 Yes, going back to, you mentioned the debate that you had with Socialist that you posted today. I watched that and it seemed like there was a lot of equivocation going on during that debate where he would equivocate between, you know, physical force and economic power. How do you put up with that? It's so frustrating. I was yelling at the screen a lot. Imagine if I were not in the debate, I'd be yelling at the screen. I mean, you have a completely different personality when you're there. But look, this is what they've been doing forever. Right? I mean, Iron Man talked about this. And of course, Haby Binsway has one of his best essays, is this essay on economic power versus political power. And actually was happy that he did it because he gave me an opportunity to talk about, hey, there's this thing called economic power and there's this thing called political power. And they're very different. And they're not the same. And you have to separate the voluntary from the forced, from the chorus, from a gun, from what's really, but if you watched my debates with Pacman originally, with David Pacman originally, he did the same thing, exactly the same thing. This is what the left relies on because they can't get away in their own minds. They can't get away because they believe that they're for freedom. And this is how they justify their free speech, the better left, not the completely wacky. They're for free speech, they're for abortion rights, they're for a bunch of social rights. But then what happens to economic rights? We say, well, economic rights are different because economic rights involve power. They involve, in a sense, force. And force, therefore, the government has to intervene. It's only in the economy do we see these forced kind of relationship. Now, what's interesting is the new left doesn't accept that. This is the big difference between the old left and the new left. The new left says, no, these power relationships exist in all human interaction, not just economic. This is why we have to regulate you because you're white. This is why we have to regulate you because you're male. Because you're white or male or whatever. You now have a power relationship vis-a-vis a woman or vis-a-vis a minority. So they have taken this Marxist concept of economic power being the equivalent of coercion, the equivalence of force. And they've expanded that concept to every human interaction. You're tall. I'm short. So you have power over me. And this is the whole intersectionality. We create now whole sciences of who has power over whom, under what context is in which situations. And we need to then restrict the people with power. We need to regulate them, in a sense. We need to constrain them so that they don't exert that power over others. And it's not, you know, it's not coercion. It's self-defense because you're tall and I'm short. And I can't help being short. You can't help being tall. So we have to chop your legs down or do something to prevent you from exerting this power over me that you can't even help yourself but do because you're white. They recognize you can't help yourself but being white. Now we have to just, now you have to be, you have to atone, you have to feel privileged, you have to, you have to. So they, this is a really, really, really important concept where they have, they have equivocated or they have stolen the concept. They've stolen the concept of coercion, of power, of force. And they've applied it where it doesn't belong. And by doing that, they now expand the government power and they've expanded their power over everybody's life and they've expanded the realm of guilt. That's the other thing that works, which is a moral, which is a way to control people, you know, by making them feel guilty for being white, male, tall, whatever. At least they're predictable in the debate. Yes, I mean, the socials, I mean, I've debated enough of them, they're now, it's not much new. This one was a little different because he had such a technology focused and I thought he dug himself. He, you know, he kept saying how wonderful these technology were. And he talked about this network effect and I'm going, yeah, network effects are great. This is why who cares how much, how much market power they have. They're taking advantage of network effect, which means we benefit. Because every time somebody joins the network, we get a disproportionate benefit from him joining the network that Facebook or Microsoft has created. So network effects are fantastic. And he, he went on and on and on about the wonders of network effects. I thought that was very convenient for me. But yeah, I mean, it's maddening because the left, and not just the left or right as well, they don't, they, you know, see, he started, I'm going to define freedom and then he doesn't. He just describes two different approaches to freedom with no, no definition, no idea of definition. And nobody defines anything anymore. And if, and you notice in their minds, all these concepts are floating, they mean nothing. And the left, this equivocation on the issue of force is the key to understanding the left attitude towards all these issues. I did seem to notice a difference between your conversation and your David Packman's moderation in that he seemed to have a really good grasp from his previous conversation with you of your position. So he's able to kind of lead you and articulate it. So I thought David did a really good job moderating. So I really, I thought he was very good at, you know, I was a little worried. He skewed it a little bit in the other guy's favor, but not, but not in any significant way. So I thought he did a very good job. And, you know, I would do it again with David moderating, because I do think he, it was good. It was good. So hopefully, hopefully we'll do more of these. I'm, I thought that one went well. I think even the leftist to watch it will, it'll at least cause them to think, you know, you know, some of these ideas challenge them. 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 men's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women's or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Using the super chat. And I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribe star.com. You're on book show and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next.