 But what they're expressing is their antagonism to capitalism, their antagonism to individualism, their antagonism to technology, their antagonism to freedom. They write, we stand with the American citizen, citizens, an important word. We oppose attempts to displace American citizens. Now, what does that displace American citizens stand for? What does displace American citizens mean? It means we don't want those brown people coming over here and replacing us. We don't want immigrants coming here and replacing us, but American citizen doesn't mean all citizens. What about those godless people? They don't count. And one senses. Now, notice that, you know, the guy wrote this or one of the lead writers of it. His name is, he's an immigrant. His name is Amari. Amari, well, it disappeared on me, but it's somewhere here. Where's Amari? Sohrab Amari. Sohrab Amari. So he's from some South Asian country. He's a Catholic. But the language of displacing Americans is a language of racism. The language of displacing American citizens is a language of xenophobia. This is the language, unfortunately, of the conservative movement in the age of Donald Trump. We reject attempts to compromise in human dignity. What does that mean? That means we will fight to the death on the abortion issue. We will use any tactic necessary to win on the abortion issue. And we oppose the transhumanist project of radical self-identification. What's that got to do with transhumanism? I have no idea. We resist, we resist a tyrannical liberalism. And yet they don't mean liberalism as the left. Liberalism as individualism. Oh, Sohrab Amari is Persian. You write Persian, but Persian Christian. Obviously, Catholic or converted Catholicism, whatever. For those of you who care about economic liberty, here's what they have to write about this. The Republican Party has for too long held investors and, quote, job creators above workers and citizens. So investors and job creators are not citizens. That's kind of interesting. Again, investors and job creators are not citizens. It's time that conservatives heed the cries of the working class as much as the demands of capital. They sound a little bit like socialists. Maybe they sound like national socialists. Not Nazis. I'm not claiming the Nazis. But these are nationalists who advocate for, who use the terminology of socialists. So a question on the super chat. So today's American religious conservatives like the 30s fascist. Yeah, that's what they sound like. And you'll get more in a few minutes. That's what they sound like. We believe home matters. And listen to this. For those who enjoy the upsides. A borderless world brings intoxicating new liberties. They can go anyway. Work anyway. They can call themselves citizens of the world. But the jet setters vision clashes with a human need for a common life. As a jet setter myself, really? And it has bred resentments that are only beginning to surface. And as these resentments rational, not rational, justified, unjustified, it doesn't matter. It's resentments by the citizens, by the working class, by the people who matter, by the proletariat. We embrace the new nationalism. Insofar as it stands against the utopian ideal of a borderless world that in practice leads to universal tyranny. False dichotomy. Nobody's advocating, or nobody on the right as far as I know is advocating, including me, for a borderless world. Nobody. Jim is asking, a Tea Party movement was interesting at first, and then it was snatched by the Republican mainstream. I mean, I've talked about this in the past. Yeah, I mean, the Tea Party was focused on economic freedom. It was focused on the Constitution. But it was non-intellectual. And it was captured by people like this. It was captured by the mainstream Republicans, but really it was captured by mainstream conservative intellectuals. Primarily these kind of people. And ultimately the Tea Party became the main source of support for Donald Trump. So the Tea Party could never, never remove itself from religion. It could never remove itself from big government when the big government programs are supporting it. It could never actually turn into a movement to resurrect the spirit of the founding fathers, which I had hoped it would. All right, so that I was quoting from this manifesto was published in First Things a few months ago. And, you know, it was a bunch of young-ish, mostly Roman Catholic writers. And it didn't get a lot of attention, I don't think. Now, I don't follow these things, but it didn't seem to get a lot of attention. But then, three weeks ago, I think about three weeks ago, Sorab Amari, a rising star in the young-ish Roman Catholic intellectuals of the right, wrote an article in First Things attacking David French. Now, I have to admit, I don't know who Sorab Amari was, and I only vaguely knew who David French was, but David French is a leading writer in the National Review and a leading kind of conventional, what's considered conventional conservative out there. And in this piece, he basically attacks David French for a few things. One, for using reason in his arguments, for fighting like a gentleman, for trying to use arguments, for trying to convince people, for trying to change the culture. And so it attacks him visually around that. He says, though culturally conservative, French is a political liberal, which means that individual autonomy is his lodestar. Again, individual autonomy is what they really, really hate. He sees, quote, protecting individual liberty as the main, if not the sole, purpose of government. Oh my God, if only that were true, if only there were conservatives who viewed the soul, purpose of government, protecting individual liberty, we would be living in a different world today. So if only French and the standard conservatives were what these people pretend that they are, and of course he conflates the left with individualism, which it is not. It is not. He goes on to attack David French and to attack this idea of conservative liberalism, and that it is basically folded, that it is dead. And that the only way, the only way to win is to embrace Donald Trump tactics. The only way to win is to smash the left. The only way to win is to use government to break up Silicon Valley companies. It's to use government to silence the left at every opportunity we have. It's to use government to impose the conservative social ideas on the American people. Not convince, but impose. He says it's ridiculous that these conservative things that Silicon Valley should voluntarily adopt First Amendment norms. No, we should force them to adopt the norms we view as right. And throughout political life, we should use the state wherever we can to impose our will. And that means a significant rollback of capitalism, a significant rollback of free markets. This is Tucker Carlson. I don't know if you've seen the video endorsing basically Elizabeth Warren. Tucker Carlson is in this wing, the nationalist wing of the conservative movement. Populist nationalist wing of the, but these intellectuals. He says, he writes, I mean, I hope you laugh at this, but it's kind of funny. Government intervention will not be the answer to every social ill. Wow. These are conservatives. These are the people people tell me all the time we should be working with. These are the people people tell me all the time I should be supporting and I should be helping and I should be embracing because hey, they're not the left. They're not the left. So we should help conservatives. We should support conservatives. This is what they stand for. Government intervention will not be the answer to every social ill. In many instances, which they will decide free markets and individual enterprise can best serve the common good. I'll bet indirectly, right? No, because you can't have free markets actually serving the so-called common good directly to have indirectly. Now notice what is the difference between that sentence and between Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? Nothing. The only difference is in how they define the common good and how they define social ills. And you know what? In many respects, I'm more sympathetic to the left definition of social ills because these guys definition of social ills is gay marriage, which I support. These guys definition of social ills is abortion, which I support. These guys definition of social ills are people making choices for themselves, which I support. Their definition of social ills is Silicon Valley companies deciding for themselves who to post and who not to post, which I support. Their definition of social ills is, oh, I had one more and it's gone, right? Oh, pornography, they would make pornography illegal. Pornography, I support. So all the, their definition of social ills are not in the realm of economics. They're not in the realm of liberty. They're not in the realm of freeing us up. They're in the realm of restricting us, bounding us. These are the intellectuals that are supporting Donald Trump. These are the intellectuals that believe Donald Trump is a flawed, but a flawed messiah, a person leading us, leading them to achieve their goals. He's a flawed individual. We are flawed after all, we're all sinners. But he is shattering convention and he is going to bring us to where we need to be. And we must say thank you instead of putting or proposing to put a tax on them in order to give the money to the government who does nothing. The government doesn't contribute anything except impediments. But if we allow the oil companies to have the power which you say has come to them because we need the oil, it's a question of supply and demand. Yes. We approach this laissez-faire as I think you would like us to, free of government intervention, free of all the force and the regulation and the controls which you abhor. All right. Now we've got Mr. Gigantic Oil Baron saying $2.50 a gallon. Now here's what happens. The blue-collar guy who's trying to make a living and feed his kids can't buy gas for his truck, can't possibly survive in the free market place. And suddenly he's on welfare and he's got to go for a handout, another feature of government that you abhor. You can't have it both ways. But all this is economic fallacies. To begin with, nobody in a free society, now we're talking about a free market in which the government doesn't interfere. Nobody can become a monopolist. All monopolies are created by a special privilege for government. It's only by an act of government that you can keep competitors out of your field. Therefore you couldn't become that kind of monopoly. The power you hold as an industrialist is not the power to use force. It's the power of producing something of value. That people want. And it's the people who literally control you because every purchase is a vote in the favor of some businessman and in a way against others. It's the public who decides what they want to buy and what they pass up. If, using your examples, you became this powerful tycoon economically, you cannot force anybody to deal with you and you cannot force competitors out of your field, then every smaller man would be in that field because you would have established a price way above the market. You might last months if that. So in other words, if I tried to be Mr. Big and charge outrageously high prices for gasoline, I would go broke in your view because in your, leave them alone and let competition handle an approach to civilization, somebody with a smarter, with a better mouth strap, pardon my mixed mouth. No, that's a very good one. All right. Would come along and undercut me. That's right. Sell at a cheaper price. But it isn't just my view. You know what I'll do? I'll buy them up the minute I see this bird. I'll buy him. I'll own him on Tuesday. And where will you get your money when you're not allowed? I'm already holding them up for $2.50 a gallon. But they're not paying you. You say they're all going out of business. They've got to get to work. We're married to a petroleum civilization. This has been done, you know. It isn't incidentally just my view. That is history. There are people who have tried to corner the market repeatedly. And the result was that they went broke.