 So this is a battle cry, both of these documents are battle cries, to abandon civility, which really means abandon reason, suddenly abandon individualism, abandon the idea of individual autonomy, abandon capitalism, abandon economic freedom, to fight for what? For a Christian conservative, for a Christian conservative authoritarian state or semi-authoritarian state that restricts its citizens freedoms, but protects us from immigrants and protects us from the left. And this is what Donald Trump is leading this country towards, because this is what he's emboldening, this is going to survive beyond him. He might go, who knows, he might go two terms, one term, he has no philosophy, he has no ideology, he's a complete pragmatist. But his style, his populism, his rhetoric, his attitude, his disrespect for the basic foundations of this country, for the basic ideas that are at the root of this country. That's what will survive, and that will survive in a new conservative movement that is dedicated to destroying the freedoms that we have. Now, one more article I want to read you from this side of the debate, that's the first things. This is from a philosopher, Peck-Nold, Peck-Nold, Catholic philosopher, of course. He writes, I hope that a new conservative consensus will emerge out of the old. But first, we must put to rest the foolish notion that the common good is a socialist idea, or that its relationship to the highest good is fascist or Leninist. So his idea is, we need to embrace the common good. And we need to get away from this individualistic view that the common good is, ah, that's something those fascists and socialists do. No, he says. This is what conservatism is all about. It's about the common good. Now what is the common good according to conservatism? What is the common good according to the, it's the highest good. It's the good that is God. It is good that is consistent with the teaching of Christ. It is America's assigning city on a hill, not just from an economic perspective. It's a shiny sitting on a hill from a moral, religious perspective. We need to reorient our politics around the common good illumined by God. So he get full fledged Christian theology as the, as the, as the, as the heart, as the root of what needs to emerge as the new conservative order, as the new conservative consensus. I mean, these are what I'm going to call the mystics of spirit. And Trump is there, Attila, Trump is their thug. Trump is their hammer right now. He says the deepest political question of the West has always been about this question of political standard. How can we determine what is proper and just for a republic and by what standard can we judge what counts as a perversion? I don't think that's the deepest political question, but okay. But what his answer is, do we live up to the standards of God? He ends the piece by saying without God, without the transcendent standard, the capricious whims of human desire will continuously drag us down the metaphysical scale away from the common good of our country, our homes, our families and ourselves. Now he comes out clearly on the side of Sahub Ammari, stands by him, supports him. And indeed many of the people I've seen writing do that, even this one guy who says, I don't agree with Sahub Ammari because I don't think, I think he's too pessimistic, he's too optimistic. He says, the problem is, the problem is we cannot take political control. We're not going to get there. Now remember, these are not some crazy, mystical, you know, marginal imams in some mosque or some church in the middle of nowhere. These are people at the heart and at the leadership of the modern conservative movement. These are the people driving the modern conservative movement forward and indeed right now as we speak, I would argue taking it over with the support of people like Tucker Carlson on Fox News, who used to be on the more free market side of the conservative movement and has moved now to this nutty, theocratic, theocratic, anti-intellectual, anti-reason and the most importantly, anti-individualist part of the conservative movement. And America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the power of their own intellect. But those neo-conservatives are now trying to tell us that America was the product of faith in revealed truth and of uncritical respect for the traditions of the past. It is certainly irrational to use the new as a standard of value to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new, but it is much more preposterously irrational to use the old as a standard of value to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The liberals are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are new, progressive, forward-looking, etc. And they denounce the conservatives as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The conservatives conceded and thus helped the liberals to propagate one of today's most grotesque contradictions, collectivism and dictatorship. The frozen status society is offered to us in the name of progress, while capitalism, the only free dynamic creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of passivity and stagnation. The plea to preserve tradition as such appeals to the worst elements in man and rejects the best. It appeals to fear, cowardice, conformity, self-doubt, and rejects creativeness, originality, independence, self-reliance.