 So if green energy is not the solution, what is the solution they propose to this quandary? Well, they would say we're not really, we don't have all the answers, but insofar as they do have any answers, it's reduce the population and then they're not very specific about that. And in fact, in some, in one of the follow-up interviews I said, they said, we never said population control, but they do quote people saying like, the only thing you can do is reduce the number of people. So I mean, what is, I mean, if you said that. And the other aspect is that is, cause they made it issue of consumption and they repeat this over is reduced consumption. So the two things that they would like to see is reduce the number of people and reduce what we consume per person. Yeah, yeah. I mean, so the, and I mean, the one that's more alarming is, to the average person is going to be just the reducing the number of people. But part of it is their whole view of consumption is nature is sufficient and gives us enough to consume. And we don't really need more than that. And then you just start to break that down. Like what the hell does that mean? Like, do I need to live in a place that I really like? Like, do I need to be able to travel to places? Do I need to be able to see my parents if I want to? Like- Certainly don't need an iPhone. Yeah. Do I need to be able to access really interesting information anytime? Like is that, so it's just what part of what's going on is they'll take, they'll take sort of the most irrational or apparently or at least caricaturable activities of consumption and then they'll equate all consumption with that. So they'll just say, oh, well this person's just looking at their iPhone 23 hours a day. And that's what it means to consume. So we can just cut this back and actually they'll be more happy because they'll be living in the forest with the orangutans. It's just like a total demonization of everyone's choices under freedom as value list which actually has a lot in common with the current lockdown. Yes. Which is say that those have no value, either all that matters is that you don't die from this virus, so that I Gavin Newsom will not be embarrassed by that statistic. You can die for the virus as long as other people don't die for the virus as long as there's some collective safety that exists out there in people's minds then we'll find, I mean, the one actually achieves the other, right? Because the goal is, if the goal is to reduce consumption, which means to reduce production, they talk the anti-photolization, their anti-use of land for agriculture, they're anti-all these things. That, the outcome of all that is what? Well, it's depopulation. It's people are gonna die. Massive people. Yeah, impoverishment and death. Yeah, and what's interesting is the, so I've watched some of the interviews that they've done and one of the threads is, you know, coronavirus has accomplished more in two months than our movement has accomplished in 30 years. And it's funny, because like that could be viewed, like some people on the pro-freedom side of things have said that, for instance, about like a guy named Tony Heller who's a really interesting critic of climate catastrophism. He was posting on Twitter. He's generally been supportive of Donald Trump, but he said something like, you know, Trump or at least the whole lockdown movement like accomplished, they basically accomplished the Green New Deal. Like they accomplished more destruction than the climate movement has in decades. But then, and that's from the perspective of, oh, these lockdowns are bad. But from Moore's perspective, it's like, no, this shows us what we can do. We don't need to consume all this stuff. And then you just think concretely about what is, how much misery is there in the world? I mean, not even just death, but misery and people's lives being destroyed and their dreams and everything they've built. And then- Two months, right? It was like this forever, right? Yeah, but Michael Moore's perspective is, oh, like people, this is a good sign and people are willing to do this, but we just have to be willing, but they're only unfortunately willing to do it if they perceive it as a threat to humans. But we need to get them to do even more because there's a threat to the planet. Whatever the hell that means, yep. 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 brought. 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...