 By the way, I got a comment on the other day's video that I did on race and Harvard and I said something about right wing racist and somebody said, well, there can't be any right wing racist because racism is collectivist and collectivism is on the left. Let me make clear, I do not accept the definition that left is collectivist and right is individualism. I think that is, that ship is sailed. If anybody used to hold that, if that had any validity once upon a time, and maybe it did, and maybe I ran during I ran's period, that has no validity today. That is the idea that we should fight all the fights that we have over concepts. The concept we should fight most about is right versus left is ridiculous. Right describes republicans and people of that ilk and moving further out towards greater collectivism from there. And the left describes socialism and moving out further out or kind of progressives and socialists and everybody kind of associated with the democratic party and moving out further towards greater collectivism and nihilism from there. And both end up being collectivist and the true political spectrum is collectivism versus individualism. You can be an individualist racist but then let's abandon the use of right and left because right and left plays into the hands of our enemies. Right and left is ambiguous. People don't understand what you're talking about. They're associated with the current political attitudes. And the current political attitudes are right is collectivism, left is collectivism. So to me, the entire political spectrum today, the entire political spectrum to varying degrees, the middle tells to be less, the extremes tend to be more. All collectivists, left and right and we and a few others are different. We're not on the spectrum. One a different spectrum in a third dimension, which is the dimension of individualism versus collectivism. So I'm an individualist. I'm not on the right. Besides, most liberals are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery. So they evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is evil. Immoral as this might be, what is one to think of men who evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is good? What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to know or to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the courage and the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, speaking at and apologizing for their own ideals? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, pull them into progress, found them into preserving their rights, and while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning. Such, unfortunately, are a great many of today's conservatives. Gentlemen, if you want to save capitalism, there is only one type of argument that you should adopt, the only one that has ever won in any moral issue, the argument from self-esteem. Check your premises, convince yourself of the rightness of your cause, then fight for capitalism with full moral certainty. 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 subscribestar.com, Iranbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...