 Okay, let's, let's take on some of these questions and see how many of them we can do. So these, some of them are going to be pretty random guys. So I'd love to hear the three of you respond to Stephen Pinker's unfair assessment of objectivism as Nietzschean. So, you know, Pinker said objective, he has associated objectives with Nietzsche. So is objectivism Nietzschean? No, but I don't, I don't remember the details of what Pinker said about it. So I don't want to comment on exactly his claims, but it's often associated with Nietzsche, but it is not Nietzschean. Rand read Nietzsche when she was a young woman and liked certain things about him, but disliked others even from the beginning, in particular his lack of belief in free will and his extolling of the Dionysian irrationalist elements over the rational, all the stuff this these Prager folks probably like. And so she had a kind of mixed relationship with him from the beginning, but she really appreciated the things that she liked in him, including the kind of individualism that she thought was there. And then as she developed intellectually and developed her own views, she started to see more and more emphasis on reason as what's important and distinctive in life. And she started to see whatever things she shared in common with Nietzsche as very minor and kind of matters of style and poetry. You can, there are some pieces on this in a companion to Ayn Rand, a piece by Lester Hunt on her developing view of him and some other pieces that address it. So if people are interested in the actual relation of her thought to Nietzsche's, that's a good place to look. But when someone claims that someone is an Xeon, you know, Rand is a Nietzschean or so-and-so is an Aristotelian or so-and-so is a Kantian, what's going on is the claim isn't necessarily that that person was following the other person. The person who's making the claim has a view about what the categories are and what the essential similarities and differences among thinkers are. And from his perspective, these views go together, whether or not the individual thinkers thought they did. And so we want to think about what does Pinker think about Rand and about ethics? That's that he wants to group Rand and Nietzsche together. And is he right about that? And is he how informed is he about Rand? And my sense is he's not very informed about it. And it's too bad. So that to me, it's too bad because I think of Rand as the philosopher of the enlightenment in the sense it's the philosopher of the enlightenment deserved and never got. And he could learn a lot from if what the enlightenment is grappling with and trying to have a view that you can have abstractions that flow out of sense perception. And that that's the essence of trying to understand reason and that you to understand political freedom, you have to understand the issue of rights and where rights come from. And they're not God given and the kind of thing that kind of rhetoric and more that you get in lock and in the declaration about this in some sort of sense, they have a supernatural source. And if you're rejecting as Pinker is the supernatural, that that will be like, so where do rights come from? She has a profound view about that. And then that you have to question the issue of morality and not just take over Christian morality and try to give a secular explanation for it. This is all sort of I think the project of the enlightenment, which it does a lot of good work on, but doesn't fully succeed. And these are all the central issues she's interested in and has really new positions on. So I think it's too bad that he just thinks of it as Nietzschean rather than this is a new view that's worth checking out. Yeah, and I don't know how much of the nonfiction he's read or if he's read the fiction. So I don't know. But my sense is he's mainly ignorant. An exchange between Pinker and a objective, or someone who's very influenced by Randall, I think would still call himself an objectivist, Rob Trezynski. And they did a podcast together where they talk about some of this. So you can get a sense of how we'd respond to some of these kind of points if you find that. 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 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 stepped 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 uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...