 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Alright everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Saturday night. Hope everybody's doing well. Hope you're having a great weekend so far. Alright, so I need a little bit of the people on live, a little bit of your help. I've tinkered a little bit with the audio to try to get the volume up for the podcast versus the YouTube channel. So I'm curious how the sound is. Is it too hot? Is if I yell, does it get a little too much? Or is it under control? Is it managed? So let me know what you guys think of the sound today. Is it better? Is it worse? Exactly what's going on. I can adjust on the fly, but I'm trying to get the volume of my speaking up on the podcast while the volume too loud on my end. You can lower your volume. Is it distorted? It's definitely pretty loud. Can you lower the volume? The other sound's louder, harsh. I turned it down at my end. Too harsh is a better description. Okay, that's good. That's good to know. Let's see. Is that better? That less harsh? More brash. Do we want more brash? Brash is a British term for harsh. Okay, so we turned that down a little bit. Does that help? Clipping, gain. I think this should be better. Let me know if this is better. Keep letting me know as we go along. No, I don't want it to be brash. I don't want it to be harsh. I want it to be better. Heck no. That just means I'll have to turn it up for the other podcasts. I don't know what the hell... No, you can change the volume. Good now. Okay, Christopher says good now. That's good. I slightly turned it down, but you see now the podcast volume isn't high enough, so let me try. Anyway, I don't know. I think we're just going to talk to the podcast company to raise the volume on their side somehow. Michael says I didn't answer one of his super chats from yesterday, and he can't believe it. Neither can I. I don't know what happened. I must have skipped it somehow. Sorry. All right, let's see. So today we're going to talk about National Cultivatism. We're going to talk about particularly the economics of nationalism. What economics of nationalism looks like. A little bit about nationalism. I've got some quotes from the National Cultivatism conference regarding economics. So we're going to talk about the whole conference, what it looked like. Hey, Henrik, good to see you. Thanks for the support. And so we're going to talk a little bit about National Cultivatism, the conference they just had. It just ended on November 2nd, so it was last weekend. We'll cover some of that. And yeah, we'll see where that takes us. Of course, as you know, I don't see Allie here. Allie's been having problems with electricity in Venezuela, so maybe that is the issue. And yes, so we're going to talk about that. And let's see. Yes, let me make this appeal before we get to that because some of you listen to this on podcasts and other places, and you probably don't listen all the way to the end. So you don't actually have, how should I say it, you don't actually get my appeal at the end. So let me try my appeal at the beginning. I think it's harsh again. And that is, I'd really, oh, we've got already three thumbs down. I haven't even said a word. All I had to say was National Cultivatism. And a bunch of people gave me a thumbs down. So thank you for all of you, for all of you haters. I appreciate it. I appreciate you hating on me before I say anything. I guess they do it because I give them attention. Maybe if I ignore them, they'll stop. But that's okay. The idea that I'm in somebody's head so much, that even though they hate what I have to say, even though they hate the show, even though they hate me, they have to show up on time and click that thumbs down button. And that makes my day that I have that much, I occupy so much space in the head that this is part of the daily routine now is to come and hate on me on YouTube. Cool. All right. Let's see. Yeah, I know how many thumbs up. I'm just finding it entertaining of the people that do the thumbs down. Let's see. What was I? Oh, yes, I wanted to make an appeal. I want to make an appeal for you to support the show. You know, I'm trying to get an extra 500 people to support the show. It's going to take a while to get there. But, you know, a fraction of only a fraction of the people subscribing to this channel support the show on a monthly basis. Only less than 25% of people who actually, well, less than that, you know, less than 20% of the people who actually listen to the show, maybe less than 15% of the people who listen to the show actually support it on any particular show. So there are 500 people out there that listen regularly to your own book show and do not support the show. Anything from $2 to $1,000 a month would be great. Any amount, whatever you can afford, whatever value the show represents to you and your life, please consider supporting it. You know, those of you who listen on the podcast or don't come on and do the Super Chat and those of you who watch these videos after the fact, you can applause. It's right there, which allows you to contribute money while you're watching the show on YouTube. But you can also just go to youronbookshow.com slash support and become a monthly contributor. You can do the same thing on Subscribestar on Patreon. A lot of you are re-engaging on Patreon or even at locals, on Dave Rubin's local. So lots of different platforms in which you can become a regular monthly contributor. A regular monthly contributor is incredibly valuable to the show. I can use, I can plan, I can predict, I know how much money is coming. It is a massive benefit and a massive advantage to get those monthly contributions. So I know there are literally hundreds of you, maybe even thousands of you who listen to the show and get value from it. I think because you keep coming back, it would be nice to show value for value. Let's trade, show your support, even if it's a small amount, do something. And if you can do more than you do right now, that'd be great. We're trying to get this, we're trying to get the show to be self-sustaining. We're trying to get the show to be in a position where, you know, this basically sustains all my intellectual activity, are sustained by the contributions to the show, so I appreciate it. All right, let me just, I see Scott's already asking the same question. He always asks in iteration 556. Michael has a question, although I'm going to have to find a way to get you guys to stop asking $5 questions and move it up a little bit. Although Michael asked so many questions, he really is heavily invested in the show. All right, we've got, I've copied over the questions. Okay, one other kind of administrative thing before we get on with the programmatic stuff, and that is that I think the clocks are changing tonight. So just to remind you all to change your watches, except in Puerto Rico. So in Puerto Rico, we do not have daylight saving time, so the clocks do not change. Therefore, all of you guys are moving away from me. Some of you are moving closer to me. If you're in Europe, you already changed your clocks a week ago, and you moved a little closer to me. That was good. It makes it easier to communicate with Europe and Israel and so on because you shift your clocks towards me. But in the United States, you guys are drifting away. There's now an hour difference from me and the East Coast starting tomorrow. And that means, since I don't want to have to do these shows in the middle of the night, that means that we are going to, we're going to start the shows for you a little earlier. So the show will be starting at 7 p.m. East Coast time on days where it used to be 8 p.m. on the weekend. I don't know how much I'll change it. I don't know if I'll change it. But right now, the weekly shows during the week. God, I can't talk today. The shows during the week are going to be 7 p.m. East Coast time, 4 p.m. Pacific time. For some of you, I know that's less convenient. For some of you, it might be more convenient. For Europeans, it's probably better. I think Thessie should be celebrating because for Thessie, that means it won't be quite as late. So she won't have to stay up until 3 a.m. She'll only have to stay up until 2 a.m. to listen to your own book show, whatever the hours happen to be. So that is the time change in their wisdom. Your government is instituting and we are just going along for the ride. So starting on Tuesday, Monday or maybe Tuesday, we'll see the shows will be at 7 p.m. East Coast time in 8 p.m. Puerto Rican time. So take that into account. When I advertise it, I'll try to make sure that I separate between my clock and your clock in the East Coast time. So I'll try to continue to advertise in East Coast time. All right, let's jump into this. I've already wasted 12 minutes on not a lot. All right, so as a lot of you know, I have been a critic of this movement on the right, which I think is probably the most dominant intellectual movement right now on the right, to emerge conservatism with nationalism and set it on what they are calling an illiberal path, a path that is anti-liberal, liberal not just in the sense of left, but liberal in a sense also of classical liberal. Classical liberalism is something they clearly reject. So this is probably the most dominant, active phenomena on the right, certainly among intellectuals. But among non-intellectuals, of course, non-intellectuals are enamored with kind of the Trumpism. Trumpism is very much aligned with this nationalist conservatism that these intellectuals are actively now promoting. You know, the movement was started probably two years ago as an intellectual movement. They don't necessarily love Trump, but Trump is an inspiration for them. I think many were embarrassed by Trump's post-election behavior, but they certainly supported Trump while he was in office. They were significant cheerleaders. Primarily because they view Trump as the only alternative to the left. And as we'll see, the dominant thing that unifies the national conservatives at this point is, or at least the thing that they think has the most currency with voters, is the hatred of the left and what the left represents. They have a major donor who supports them. That is Peter Thiel, although there are many others like the mercers within the conservative movement who support them financially. But Peter Thiel is definitely kind of the guy who they respect and who supports much of their activity. The movement is dominated as often intellectual movements are by Catholics. So this is a movement is dominated by conservative Catholics. Most of the intellectuals, if you go down the list, are people who were either born Catholic or many of them actually. And I'd say a significant number of the leading intellectuals in the national conservative movement are people who converted to Catholicism, converted to Catholicism, and of course by Jews. So Catholics and Jews dominate national conservatism. And one of the leaders of the national conservative movement and indeed the founder of the Edmund Burke Institute and the person who put on now, I think this is the third year, the National Conservatism Conference is an Israeli, an Israeli American or an American Israeli, I don't know how you place that, but he lives in Israel. He's a conservative Jew as a Yomika, like Ben Shapiro. And that is Yoram Khazoni and Yoram Khazoni as somebody I'll be debating in December, December 8th at the University of Texas in Austin. So that's going to be a lot of fun is to debate. And the debate, by the way, the debate topic, which he basically chose, I was going to debate him on nationalism and he didn't want to debate nationalism. The debate topic that he wanted to debate was conservatism versus individualism. So that's going to be an exciting debate. I'm looking forward to it. It'll be filmed. We'll put it up on YouTube. But he's super smart. He's a philosopher, trained philosopher, and has written many books. So he's going to be probably the most challenging debate partner I have, you know, I've ever probably debated, we'll see. But I fear that he's probably the most, maybe among the smartest and certainly one that's most knowledgeable and he's going to be tough. And that's partially what makes it fun. So I encourage you to watch it when it comes out. And if you live in an Austin area, please show up and bring your friends and encourage other people to come. If you know people in Austin, encourage them to come. So it should be an exciting event. I'm definitely looking forward to it. All right. So this conference was held on last weekend. And, you know, some of the keynote speakers were Peter Thiel, as I mentioned. You had some, you know, people I respect and admire, like Glenn Lowry, spoke. And then people I despise, politicians I despise, like Josh Hawley. I'll read you some of Josh Hawley's comments in a minute. Josh Hawley is, I still think of this group of the nationals, conservatives, the most dangerous man on the right in terms of political ambition and in terms of his charisma. And yeah, in terms of his charisma, I still think he is likely to run for president. And maybe one day we'll become one of the leaders. So Josh Hawley was one of the keynote speakers. Of course, you can't just have one politician. You have two other senators, Marco Rubio, who's basically sold to the devil completely. Any respect I used to have a long time ago for Marco Rubio has gone completely out. He's finished from my perspective. And Ted Cruz, who's an interesting case, will get to Ted Cruz in a minute because his talk at the National Conservative was quite interesting and different. And, you know, let me see if I can find some of the other. Oh, well, Douglas Murray was on one of the big panels. Sohob Amari, who I've talked about on this show in the past. Joram Chazzoni, of course, did a number of things. And Dave Rubin, Dave Rubin was there doing a number of panels and actually being one of the commentators on some of the sessions on the future of conservatism. Who knew Dave Rubin would land up being a conservative? It's not the path I expected. Not the path I expected, but... And then, let's see, J.D. Vance, for those of you who don't know, J.D. Vance is running for the Senate in Ohio. He is Trump's candidate in Ohio. He is being funded massively by Peter Thiel. And, yes, J.D. Vance was the closing keynote speaker, I think to a large extent, in an effort to support his ambitions. Peter Thiel is funding two candidates, one in Arizona, Blake Masters, who is actually an employee of Peter Thiel's, or has been, and he's running for the Senate in Arizona in a Republican primary and in Ohio, J.D. Vance. Those are the two candidates. I think Peter Thiel has given each $10 million, if I'm not mistaken. So this is real money, and both of them have a real shot at winning. They are true national conservatives with everything that entails. So what is national conservatism? Well, I mean, even among national conservatism, there is a debate, a infighting, disagreement, conflict about what it actually means, what it actually represents. But what it is clear that it is, it's a rejection of classical liberalism. It's a rejection of the idea of individual rights. It's a rejection, indeed, of the idea of individualism. This is why Yoram Chazzoni has agreed to debate, or proposed to debate, conservatism versus individualism. Because national conservatives views the conservative project as an anti-individualistic project, an anti-individualism project. They view conservatism as a project that is inherently collectivist. Collectivist centered around the nation, the community, and as we'll see from many of them, suddenly the Catholics among them, around religion. This is the problem that they have. So one of the two countries in Europe, you know, Europe is always something that American intellectuals always admire from afar. Europe is this place that is, I don't know, it has a certain mystique about it. It has history. It has intellectuals. When it comes to ideas, it is typically, not always, but typically at the forefront of ideas. And the left admires certain countries in Europe. You've often heard Bernie Sanders talk about Scandinavia to the Scandinavian chagrin. You've often heard Obama and others talk about France and talk about other countries in Europe and what they like about it. The countries that the national conservatives admire the most are Hungary and Poland. Poland, not accidentally, is a committed Catholic country. Very much a Catholic country has preserved its Catholicism in spite of its decades under communism. Hungary has elevated religion. I don't know how religious people really are. I think they're more, I don't know how many, how Catholic they are. I think they're more Eastern conservative, but they might be Catholic. I think they were more influenced by the Byzantine kind of form of Christianity than the church in Rome, but maybe some of you know more about religion in Hungary. But Hungary is definitely another source of great admiration for the national conservatives. And we'll get to that, and maybe we'll have an opportunity to talk about more of that later, and if not later, certainly in future shows. This is going to be this whole national conservative thing. Hungary and Poland and generally what I'll call the new right is an ongoing theme, and we will continue to discuss it on the show. I'm a huge opponent of the nationalism in Hungary and the nationalism in Poland, again because of the rejection of individualism and because the elevation of the state, of nationalism above the individual. So I reject both of those countries in terms of their politics, but the national conservatives love them, but this is the challenge they face. Both Hungary, certainly Hungary and Poland have a certain ethnic identity. They have a certain shared history. The Hungarians come from an ancient tribe that you can date back centuries. It has a long history, a long history of tribes coming from the steeps and settling in the valleys around Budapest and basically the Hungarian people as they see it from an ethnic genetic perspective, although once you study the genes things get a lot more murky. But they have this shared history that goes back a very long time, there's a unity, there's a traditional basis for a nation and for quote solidarity within that nation. They all come, they're all family members in some remote way. The Poles, it's similar, the Poles are much more ethnically mixed. What's the difference between Poles and Ukrainians, what's the difference between Poles and Lithuanians is less clear. But again, Poland has a particular identity, an historic identity, an identity based in ethnicity, based in tribalism. Indeed, after World War II, one of the things the Poles did is they kicked out all the Germans. Given what Germany had done to them, it's understandable. But the Germans who had lived in Poland for centuries, I think, were kicked out, were kicked out. Let's see, we've got Alex as Hungary, we've got 39% Catholics, 11% Protestants, 3.5% are the Christian and I guess the rest consider themselves atheists, which is not surprising. Hungary has a much more liberal, in the classical liberal, well sort of Poland. But Hungary I think was more secular country before communism and certainly after post-communism. The Poland-Poland hung on to its Catholicism through the communist years and then Pope Paul. I think we enforced that, John Paul, whatever the third, whatever he was, John Paul, reinforced that Catholicism in the Polish nation. But there's an ethnic group, there's a tribe, there's a religion associated with it, there's some homogeneity. And you can draw certain borders, they're somewhat arbitrary, but they approximate some kind of historical claim that these tribes have to the space. The challenge the national conservatives have is what unites America. Now, I hate the nationalism of Hungary and Poland partially because of its tribal, ethnic, racist, if you will, origins. Because it is so centered on history and on homogeneity and on a bloodline, on a tribe, on collectivism. But again, the national conservatives would love to have something like that, that this is what they strive for, this is what they'd love to have. So the challenge for them is what unites America? America does not have a shared history that goes back centuries. America does not have a shared ethnic identity, quite the contrary. Like it or not, America is a melting pot of lots of different ethnicities. It has Brits, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Irish, I said Brits already, French, Spaniards. It has Jews from all over Europe, it has a lot of Russians, Ukrainians. It has Italians from all parts of Italy, from Northern Italy, but many, many from Southern Italy, Sicily and places like that. It has people from Latin America, it has American Indians, it has Asians of all different types of Asians. And then of course it has Africans. America is this mishmash ethnically. It has, from the perspective of the national conservatives, no unifying factor that they can understand. It doesn't have one ethnic core. It doesn't have one shared history. And to the extent that it has a shared history, it's a very young history. And young is kind of not interesting. They want ancient as one of the writers about national conservatives to write. Nationalism requires a national culture. How do you get a national culture? If you don't have this in their mind, shared history, shared ethnicity and importantly shared religion. That's the big problem that they face. Because he writes nationalism requires a national culture which requires a national religion. But we don't have a national religion in America. Indeed the founding fathers made sure that we wouldn't have a national religion in America. You could say Christian, but even Christian is what? Is it Catholic as many of these intellectuals are? Is it the thousand different Protestant sects that are out there? Is there religious identity as this country arguably becomes more secular? What unifies it? What creates the unit that establishes for them the nation? And this is a challenge, a serious challenge that they face. How do we define that? And they're arguing about this. Many of the Catholics are what you call the integrationalists. And they really do want something somewhat resembling a theocracy. And you know, the Catholicism has become the religion of the intelligentsia of the right. You know, if you think about it, the president of the United States right now, the speaker of the house, six of nine supreme court justices, six of nine are Catholic. A seventh was raised Catholic. Number of prominent writers and many, many of intellectuals on the right are Catholic. And Deneen, who is probably one of the dominant thinkers on the right right now, one of the most visible of them, one of the most influential, writes, the Catholicism is a tradition that gives you resources for how to think outside of liberal categories. And when he says liberal think, not just liberal left, liberal classical liberal. And he says that these Catholic intellectuals of the right don't have a political home. This is how he described this. And this is, we'll soon get into, into the economics. He says, he says Catholics are often left wing and economic issues and right wing and social issues. And you tell me, he writes, which party now represents that position? Left wing and economic issues. This is them writing, not me, and right wing and social issues. Now, I can't think of a worse combination. Can you? That's the worst of all worlds. The purpose of government, according to these Catholics, is to secure the common good. They, in order to do this, they go back to the Catholic social tradition, the encyclical of Paul Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, where the Pope's argued that individual liberty doesn't help, the workers secure living wage, that capitalism indeed is impoverished, the workers, it valorized workers' associations, unions, and urged government to intervene to balance the economy. This is who these Catholics of the right admire. Maybe the most important thinker among these Catholics is a, is a professor at Harvard, a law professor at Harvard by the name of Vimuel, Vimuel, I might be pronouncing it right, V-E-R-M-E-U-L-E, who is a convert to Catholicism. And he has written that we need to replace originalism, replace religionism, originalism or textualism with what he calls common good constitutionalism, where he quote, quote, we read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the Constitution to create an indelible, illible, anti-liberal, legalism founded on, quote, substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good. He also believes in a strong administrative state, i.e., a strong bureaucracy, a strong alphabet agencies, super agencies, and that this administrative state should have a great deal of discretion in steering the ship of bureaucracy. And they are in a strategic position to bring about these common good policies and to destroy the liberal policies that exist out there in the world. Yeah, Cook, Cook in the chat says, Vimuel thinks speech controls in China are good. Yes, he also thinks, by the way, vaccine mandates are good because it's for the common good. He's a big supporter of vaccine mandates. And in order to support what he calls substantive moral principles, the state should be allowed to intervene in areas like healthcare, guns, and the environment to promote human flourishing, which should take priority over things like commerce or the right to be armed. So he's anti-Second Amendment as well. According to him, abortion, of course, would be illegal, but as I said, he is a big supporter or a supporter of vaccine mandates. Another convert to Catholicism, Amari, is one of Vimuel's biggest allies, and he's urged conservatives to approach the Cultural War, quote, with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square reordered to the common good and ultimately the highest good, highest good being God. And of course, he urges people to use political power in order to achieve this common good, in order to reorder society, in order to achieve this highest of all goods. He said that Hungary and Poland have offered an example of something that looks different. I guess this is a different nationalist conservative. This is a guy named Goldman. And they're thrilled by this. They like Orban, right? Because he has made it impossible for the left to really be active in this country. He's destroyed the free press. He is destroying the capacity of the left to dominate the universities and while accepting tons of money from the European Union by trying to milk the European Union for as many subsidies and goodies as he can, he stands up to them on primarily social issues here and there. Of course, all of these people oppose the idea of individual rights. To quote one of them, there is nothing natural about individual rights. There is no such thing as a rights-bearing individual. These are conservatives. That, by the way, is a quote from a Polish. So this guy, this is funny. This is Ligutko. He is a member of the ruling law and justice party in Poland and is in the European Union and I met him. I met him. And when I mentioned to him, we were at a cocktail party and we were talking and I knew kind of who he was and I had just given a rousing talk about individual rights. A heat which he didn't attend because I think he knew what I was going to say. When I told him that I believed in, that I was an advocate of individual rights, he looked at me with utter disdain and basically, you know, all kind of that garbage and walked away that wouldn't have anything to do with me. This is the alternative to the left, guys. And all of these people, of course, are admired and supported by people like Tucker Carlson and by, you know, Josh Hawley, certainly by many of, on the right, who are trying to become the heirs to Donald Trump and to give Donald Trump's ideas kind of an intellectual heir. So if you look at, so that's kind of an introduction to national conservatism. You know, a lot of their energy, a lot of their focus, a lot of their time is really dedicated to attacking the left. That is their focus, that's where their real energy really is. It's to attacking wokeness, it's to attacking every little aspect of the left they go after and they spend almost all their resources in doing that. One of the reasons people always ask, you know, why don't you do more on CRT? Why don't you do more? Because all these guys are doing it and I'm not like them. And they do a pretty good job ridiculing CRT and ridiculing these other things, but it's, it's, it bores me because everybody else is doing it and it's easy to just be against. It's easy to be anti. It's easy to slam the opposition. What are you for is the real question. So I read Josh Hawley's talk from the National Conservative Movement. It's an interesting talk. I mean, much of it I agree with. He's very, every time he attacks the left, I agree. Much of his talk was about manhood, what it means. Well, he never really said what it means to be a man. He talked about manly virtues, you know, which are virtues and I do think they're associated with masculinity. But he mainly spent the time, as usual, as what these people do, attacking the left's view and attempts of the left to bring down manhood, if you will, and masculinity and the virtues of masculinity. And in that context, of course, he went after capitalism, the market economy. This is quoting from him. In this country, we are more than mere consumers. We are being the makers of great and mighty things and we shall be again. So we're not anymore. We don't make great and mighty things anymore. We don't make, I don't know, iPhones. I guess they're made in China technically. It's very, very Marxist materialist perspective. We don't make stuff anymore. I wonder how we consume so much. It's really an interesting question. How come we can consume so much if we don't make anything? I never understood how people think that works. I don't think Harley does this for votes. I don't think Harley is about the votes. I think Harley is an ideologue or at least has become a consistent ideologue. He has figured out certainly when he ran for president and not for president, when he ran for the Senate, he was already this. He was already arguing against individualism, wailing against classical liberalism. No, the thing about Josh Hawley that you have to respect and the thing about Josh Hawley that should make you really scared of Josh Hawley is that he isn't just doing it for the votes, right? Marco Rubio is. Marco Rubio will just say whatever he thinks will get him elected. Ted Cruz is. Although we'll see Ted Cruz is challenged. But Josh Hawley is a true believer. He is super religious. He's super collectivist. He is dedicated to this conservative nationalism. He was dedicated to Trump. And he is the natural heir as an intellectual to Trumpism. He will make it much more consistent. So Josh Hawley is truly scary. And I fear there's a good chance he becomes president one day. And I think he's the kind of guy who could really do a lot of damage to this country. Deep, deep damage that will be very hard for this country to recover from. Yeah, Hawley is different from Pence. He's much worse than Pence. Much worse than Pence. He continues. He says the DC experts will say it's impossible. Better to outsource our production to China or Mexico or other places where labor is cheap. But free labor and slave labor should never be put to an even plane. Wait a minute. Mexico labor is slave labor? Does he really know what slave labor is? We could argue about some labor in China. But Mexico, slave labor? Really? No, much worse than Biden. Much, much, much, much worse than Biden. Biden will not do lasting damage in the way that a Josh Hawley could do lasting damage. Or in the way Trump did lasting damage to this country. He quotes Teddy Roosevelt as saying, I'm for business, but I am for manhood first. And business is an adjunct to manhood. What does that mean? We must make every effort to restore vibrant manufacturing secretary in this country that can employ working men at living wages. Wages that can feed a family and support a community. And we can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies, critical to national security, be made in the United States. What is critical to national security? The Trump administration tried to claim that building cars was critical to national security. If that's true, everything is critical to national security. This is, I don't understand, I really don't understand this. So maybe you guys can enlight me, maybe somebody in the super chat can enlight me. Don't you see that this is worse than Biden? Because this is from the right. That if this is what the right stands for, then there is no opposition to statism. And that makes it a million times worse. That Biden is just what the left has always been. But the right used to be about at least a semblance, lip service to freedom, to markets. At least they gave it lip service. Now they don't. Now they're just the statist as the left. Almost the statist of the left. I think they're more statist than the left. And I think their statism is more powerful than the left. And you don't get that that is worse than the Biden form of statism, which is just one of the male leftism. It's stunning to me. It's stunning to me that instead of trying to save the right from the collectivists, from the fascists, from the religionists, from the statists, the nationalists, you want to join them because of your hatred of the left. That's just stunning. Just stunning. It shows how shallow the base for individualism is, how shallow the foundation of those who advocate for individualism, oh, and they can so easily flip, so easily turn their back on individualism, on freedom, on the founding fathers, on the very nature of this country, on the very basis of this country, to join's arm and link up as brothers with statists and nationalists and collectivists. Because the left is worse. It's what has made me so utterly pessimistic over the last five, six years to see the small, but what I thought was committed individualist movement out there. Just lose it. Lose it and embrace collectivism or embrace the collectivists. Lose it and forget what positive values we're actually fighting for. Instead of dedicating oneself completely to what you're fighting against and teaming up with some of our worst enemies. It's what I've been riling against and trying to convince you against for five years. It's why I have lost so many subscribers. It's why so few people ultimately in the big picture watch these videos. It's because there is no, there's nobody dedicated anymore to individualism, to the positive, to capitalism, to freedom. The founding fathers, the passions of hatred of the left are so powerful, so strong, so overwhelming that to hell with the founding fathers, to hell with the constitution, to hell with the Declaration of Independence, to hell with capitalism and freedom and liberty and markets. Let's embrace these guys just so we can fight the devil on the left. So we team up with the devil on the right. Anyway, my venting, my frustration with not all of you, but certainly some of you, and in some cases many of you, not maybe here who are listening live, there's maybe only one or two of you and the four who gave me a thumbs down, but many of you. Yeah, reform the right. Who's going to reform the right? Because right now the people who are actually reforming the right are the national conservatives, not you, not us, not me, partially because we don't have a beginning of platform. We don't have enough followers because so many of people used to be on this platform and now out there worshiping at the feet of the right in its various manifestation. You get a choose between the fascism of the left or the fascism of the right because you're going to get fascism. I mean, look at the right in England. They're going to bring about environmentalist fascism faster than I think a left wing government would have done. You're going to have power outages and shortages of fuel in the UK, not because of a leftist government, but because of government on the right. So what does national conservatives stand when it comes to economics? Well, trade should be limited. Trade should be strategic. Trade should only involve, trade should be measured based on the national interest, not based on the preferences of individuals, not based on the choices of individuals. Trade is not between individuals, the nationalists will tell you. It's between countries. It's between nations. And who gets to decide what the national interest is? The national interest should be decided by central planners, by leaders who sit down and figure out what industries are crucial, what industries need saving, what workers need protecting, what wages needs increasing and manipulate trade policy with different countries, different levels in different times based on national security, but not just national security, also based on economics. Just plain old, plain vanilla, old line central planning. Trade is a tool for national greatness. Now here they are channeling the mercantilists of the 18th and early 19th century. They're rejecting Adam Smith and the wealth of nations and they're rejecting basically the entire field of economics. But they don't care because for them it is not about economics. For them it is purely about the common good, the collective good. And since there is no manifestation of the common good, there is no person who speaks for the common good, there is no way to measure the common good. Well they need a trade czar, somebody who can channel the common good and dictate the common good and determine the common good and run the common good. So don't let markets determine what trade makes sense. Don't let markets determine where companies should build their factories. Don't let markets determine how much we should pay employees and what consumers can or can't buy. Don't let individuals determine who they want to support and who they don't. No, our trades are in the name of the common good, we'll determine all of that for you. Well what about markets inside the United States? Once they've controlled trade, should markets just be allowed to run? Well no, not if people are not earning enough wages, which people, the people that they care about. How much wages, whatever they decide, who decides? Well the markets, the wage czar, I'm sure Robert Reich would love to be nominated for that position. After all, to quote Josh Hawley, we have to make sure that our companies employ working men at living wages, wages that can feed a family and support a community. And who gets to decide what wage can feed a family and support a community? Well the economies are, we're not going to leave this the chance and indeed national conservatives are big supporters of unions, labor, the working class striving against those evil businesses. We don't want businesses. It's what they stand for, right? What about, I don't know, certain industries? Are industries going to be allowed to produce what they want based on price signals? Well no, we're going to have to think about national security and some industries are going to have to produce whether they can make a profit or not, whether they compete or not because of national security. And of course anything can be national security. Should we be allowed to innovate? Should biotech be allowed to run forward and extend life and manipulate genes and improve our genetic makeup? Well of course not. You can't play God. That's not right. We'll definitely need a biotech czar to say what biotech advancements can and cannot succeed. But you know, we're not the left. We're not the left. We're regulating all these things. We're nominating all these economic czars in the name of Americanism. We reject CRT. So this is all good. Our socialism is a grand socialism because it's for the state and it's for the nation. And ultimately it's for the truth with a capital T. It's for God. And what about immigration? Are they going to allow for a free flow of immigration or even a semi free flow of immigration based on labor shortages and what industries need, what workers and who goes where and let the market determine who comes into the country? Well of course not. Well we might not have one ethnic unified community. We still don't want to pollute it even more with outsiders, even more with people who don't share our quote values, whatever the hell those are. So we definitely need an immigration zone who will decide who comes in and who does not. Make sure that they come in from the right kind of countries, the right kind of culture. None of these shithole countries. We should not accept any immigrants from them. God forbid we get more Nigerian doctors and Nigerian scientists. We don't want them. They're from shithole cultures, shithole countries. So immigration will be dictated. Which professions allowed in will be determined by a central planner. So at the end of the day where national conservatism, their economic policy is, it's an economic policy of the left. It's an economic policy of fascism. It's an economic policy of central planning. It is economic policy not that different than the right, than the left. So it places different emphases on different people and different things. And of course the right still struggles with what will unify this nation, what unifies America. What makes it one nation? What is this nationalism about? Because they only conceive of nationalism in a sense of ethnicity and history. And we have none. And the only conclusion they can come to is religion. But they struggle even there because there is no one unifying religion for America. Of course the real unity of America. The real unity of America. It does not come from ethnicity. The real unity of America doesn't come from race. The real unity of America doesn't come from history. The real unity of America doesn't come from religion. The unity of America used to come from, used to come from the founding principles of the country. The vision of the founding fathers. A declaration of independence that declared all man is being equal. Equal before the law, equal in rights. And that all of them possessing the thing that the national conservatives deny us. Possessing individual rights. What made America a nation? The greatest nation in human history. What made America a moral nation? The first moral nation in human history. What made America great? What made America great? Was it's dedication to individual rights? Imperfect as it was in practice. The striving towards a country that believed that all man are equal before the law. That all men possess rights. That all men possess the rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The dedication to those ideas. The vision of those ideas. That is what unified America. That's what made America great. That's what made America a country with fighting for. A country with risking your life for. A country with emigrating to. Individualism is what makes America. You reject individualism, you reject America. And if you reject individualism, what are you left with? You're left with competing tribes. You're left with the tribe of CRT and the tribe of moderate, and the tribe of national conservatives and the tribe of Catholic traditionalists and the tribe of BAP and the tribe of alt-right and the tribe of fill-in-the-blank. There are plenty of tribes. There are two big ones left and right. And how do tribes resolve their disputes? Since tribes can't think. Since tribes don't have a consciousness or can't reason, all that's left to tribes is force. All that's left to tribes is violence. So when we reject individualism, or when we purport individualism, when we join a tribe in order to fight the other tribe, we're rejecting America. We're rejecting Americanism. And we're rejecting a future. And we're embracing, embracing violence. We're embracing, ultimately, a kind of a civil war. We're embracing the destruction. And you guys who support these national conservatives are embracing the destruction of America, the destruction of the greatest country in human history, the destruction of the greatest people who ever lived on this planet, the destruction of the only moral country that's ever been here. More because it was poor individualism, more because it stood for individual rights, more because it rejected tribalism, rejected collectivism, rejected nationalism. And if you can't, and that's what we need to be fighting for. We need to be fighting for individualism. We need to be fighting for individual rights. We need to be fighting for capitalism. It's stunning to me. The number of people who have dedicated their lives to fighting against fill in the blank, and not for anything. Indeed, many people used to be on the side of capitalism and individualism because they've been fighting against the left so much, so consistently. They've forgotten what they were fighting for originally. So let's not let that happen to us. We're not just fighting against the left. We're not just fighting against national conservatism. We're fighting against all forms of tribalism. We're fighting against all forms of collectivism. But more importantly, more fundamentally, we're fighting for individualism, for freedom, for capitalism, for the separation of state from economics. Stop using your emotions as a guide. Whoever pisses you off more at any given point in time is not the standard for truth. It's not the standard for action. The standard for truth and the standard for action should be what you're fighting for and what your best strategy to achieve what you're fighting for is. We're fighting for reason, egoism, individual rights, and capitalism, and nothing short of that will do. And anybody, anybody who rejects reason, rejects egoism, rejects individual rights, rejects capitalism is not our ally ultimately. I was in the zone there for a little bit, huh? All right, let's see where we are. Who is keeping track today of Catherine? Catherine Mendez is right there. Where are we, Catherine, so that I can urge people to do more of what we happen to be? My guess is we're at, I don't know, 380? Something like that. So we've got some work to do. We've got another $220 to get us where we need to be, a best fed hank. I think that little spiel was worth more than $49.99, but I appreciate it. You're on 2024. I can't run. Born in Israel. Can't get one of those Hawaiian, you know, birth certificates. But there we are. We're up to $9 billion. If we had $9 billion, we would win. Not because what I would do with $9 billion, but because if there was enough support here to provide $9 billion, that would suggest that we've already won. Although all it would take would be one Elon Musk. He just put on a Twitter, did you see this? He just put on Twitter a survey. This is how ridiculous it has gotten. So Elon Musk is being accused of not paying any taxes. And the reason he doesn't pay any taxes is he doesn't get a salary. And basically his wealth is all tied up. And his stock, and the stock is unrealized. And since it's unrealized, he hasn't paid taxes on it yet. So he just put out a thing on Twitter where he has said, do you think I should sell 10% of my stock so that I can pay taxes on 10% of my stock? Whenever the Twitter community decides, he says he will do. So he's basically let the people decide on Twitter, decide whether he is going to sell 10% of his Tesla stock and then pay, you know, what is it? 54% of that as taxes. Todd, thank you. That's amazing. Thank you. That is very, very generous. Really, really appreciate it. I don't know where Catherine is, but I think we're very close to the 600 with Todd stepping in. Oh, you guys are reminding me that. So this is Elon Musk. It's ridiculous. But the fact is the 10% of his Tesla is a lot of money. I don't know exactly how much, but it's billions and billions of dollars. But in the big picture, it's not that much money for him. Some of you are reminding me, I said I would say something about Ted Cruz. Yes, I found I couldn't find a transcript of Ted Cruz talk at the National Conservative Movement. I did find a transcript of Josh Hawley's and of Marco Rubio's, but not of Ted Cruz. I don't know that they published it. Hopefully at some point they'll bring it out and maybe on video. But what I found interesting about the description of Ted Cruz's talk is the Ted Cruz trying to have it both ways. He rallied them around attacking the left. But then he tried to suggest that being a National Conservatives didn't imply that you were pro tariffs and pro this and pro central planning. So he tried to imply that you could still be a capitalist. You could still maybe be an individualist and be a National Conservative. But he couldn't make the case and the audience wasn't buying it. So he was clearly of the three senators, the odd man out, whereas it's clear that Josh Hawley has always been committed to this cause. And that Marco Rubio has sold his soul to this cause. The Ted Cruz is struggling. He sold his soul to Trump. He's given up, I think, on the principles of free speech and on the principles of freedom in his dealing with the big tech. But he still has a general sense that he should be pro markets because that's who he is. That's who he's kind of defined himself as. And he can't quite bring himself to giving up on that. So Cruz is the better of the three in that sense. But I think he will tilt. I think he will tilt full sway to the National Conservatives because that's where the power is. That's where the future of the Republican Party right now is. And I think Ted Cruz is going to go along. But we'll see. We'll see. All right. Let's see. We've got a few high dollar questions here. Yeah, Michael asks, it's clear that as the left becomes more socialist and the right becomes more nationalist, the two will eventually merge into national socialism. I agree. We're seeing it now. You can argue Poland, Hungary, and even Israel are nationalist socialist nations. Israel is an interesting case because part of the argument is, look, Israel has nationalism and yet Israel is culturally very diverse. People came to Israel from Morocco, Iraq, Yemen, Ethiopia, but also Poland, Russia, Germany, Britain, France, Lithuania. You've got a wide variety of cultures represented in Israel. And so what gives it that unity? What gives it that nationalism? And a lot of the conservative nationalists are looking for that. And I think it's no accident. Yom Khazoni is at the heart of this because he is at the heart of the Israeli nationalist movement. And you could argue that in Israel case it is religion. It's at least an appeal to religion. I would argue the opposite. I would argue that what makes Israeli nationalism unique is that it is a response to a negative. It's not a response to a positive. There are not that many similarities between Jews from Yemen and Jews from Germany, culturally. But there is one thing that is common to all Jews and that is anti-Semitism. What makes Israel nationalist, what unites the nation, what creates a unity in Israel is not ideas like it was in America. It's the reality of anti-Semitism. It's the reality that whether you consider yourself a Jew or not, the world considers you a Jew. And if the world considers you a Jew, another Holocaust is just around the corner. And if that is the case, you need a bond together in order to protect yourself, in order to defend yourself. So yes, we're heading towards some form of national socialism. It could come from the left, it could come from the right. I think it would come from the right for the reasons I told you. I think Tuesday's election was, as I said, I told you so, was more validation of my theory that the American people will not go on the left. If you look at the program of the National Conservative Movement, it was almost all, not all, but well over 50% of it was dedicated to timing the left. And on cultural issues, none of it on economic issues, purely on cultural issues. Why? Because cultural issues are what Americans will not go for, cultural issues is the real difference between the left and the right today. On economics, they don't disagree that much. It's all about culture. It's all about culture. And it's, so the right is much more likely once it gets its act together, once it formulates an identity that's more cohesive, once it finds its charismatic leader, the right is much more likely to bring us that national socialism than the left. Let's see, Todd, thank you Todd. $100 question. Well, it's really a comment. Let's get beyond left and right and focus on collectivism versus individualism. Yes, that's what I've been saying. That's what I've been speaking about. There's a talk up there. There's the talk I put up on YouTube where I talked in Vienna in Austria about the need to abandon the concept of left and right and to abandon the political parties associated with left and right, to frame it as individualism versus collectivism, and to identify all the collectivists as our enemies, and to try to rally a new political coalition around ideas of individualism. Alright, Corey from Australia. Thank you, Corey. That's generous. I often say that being an American is a mentality, not an accident of birth. It may seem silly, but I consider myself more an American than most people born in America. I agree with you, Corey. I think calling myself an American accurately reflects what it means to be an American. I agree with you completely. And this is why I'm so opposed to the barriers in immigration. I want Americans to come to America because the Americans who were born here have lost what it means to be an American. And I know people think that's horrible because to be an American is to be born in a particular geographic area. That is Tucker Carlson's view of what America is to be born in beautiful scenery. That's the essence of America. But no, the essence of America is individualism. The essence of America is entrepreneurship. The essence of America is the don't step on me attitude, an attitude of freedom, an attitude of independence, independence in thinking, independence in action. The essence of America is the rights of the individual to live his life based on his own standards, his own reason, without authority of left or right, without sacrifice to left or right. So yes, I think many of you out there who are not in America, were not born in America, not American citizens, are more American than most, unfortunately, most and overwhelming majority of Americans are today. Americans have lost what it means to be an American and it's accelerating. It's getting worse, unfortunately, and it's these national conservatives types who are driving it faster away from America. Christopher posted a quote from Jefferson, I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against any tyranny over the minds of men. Even tyranny from the right. Where would Thomas Jefferson be today? Would he be on the right or on the left? The Rocky Mountains are beautiful. Beautiful. But you know what? The Yellow Mountains in China are beautiful too. China has beautiful scenery. What are you going to do with that? I don't know what you do with that. It's a dead end. All right. Thank you, Corey. Let's see. The left is evil. We all know the left is evil. Why waste our time denouncing the left when we all agree on that? What's interesting is the stuff that I can teach you, which is about the evil of the right, which you don't know and you won't admit. Evil of the left is, as I've said over and over and over again, easy. Easy to document, easy to understand. You don't need me to explain it to you. All right. I'm going to just answer this question, even though it's not a big doll I'm out just because it's relevant to what I was talking about. Can you expand a little on why America is different from other European countries that put emphasis on freedom and individualism in its founding like France? France didn't put freedom and individualism in its founding. France's founding is the opposite, the absolute exact opposite of the American founding. There is no freedom in the French founding. There's the guillotine. There's violence. There's destruction. It's killing your own people because you disagree with them. There's 40,000 dead from the guillotine. There's egalitarian and fraternitarian. Faternity and egalitarianism. Now, freedom, non-individualism, not a mention of individual rights. And there's a reason for that. There's a reason for that. And the reason for that is that the French Revolution was not inspired by the Enlightenment. It was not inspired by John Locke. It was not inspired by Voltaire or Diderot or the many, many monosque, the many, many thinkers of the French British Scottish Enlightenment. They were not the inspiration for the French Revolution. The French Revolution was inspired by Rousseau. And Rousseau was the enemy of rights, the enemy of individualism, the enemy of freedom. Rousseau was the enemy of reason, the enemy of the pursuit of happiness. He was a collectivist through and through, an emotionalist through and through. There were no individual rights in Rousseau's world. So don't ever compare the two revolutions completely, utterly, intellectually different. Oh, you don't think he intended what happened, Thessie? You need to read Rousseau better. Of course he intended what happened. He would have been sitting there cheering and running the thing. And his most beloved accolades, the people who, you know, who were fair, Rousseau used to carry Rousseau's writing with him everywhere he went. The people who knew Rousseau, who studied with him are the people who led revolution. Rousseau would have supported it, basically did support it, inspired it, and is 100% responsible for it. And he is unequivocally one of the most evil philosophers in history. Indeed, I think he's probably second only to Emmanuel Kant in terms of that evil. Absolutely would have supported heads being cut off. In the name of progress, in the name of egalitaire, in the name of fraternité, absolutely would have supported it. Wapspair was killed because at some point his bloodlust and the ideology, it became evident to the people in power that, it became evident to some people that he needed to go. So, you know, at some point during the revolution, Wapspair and they were so faction was killed. But it's that opened it up, that Rousseau and his accolades are the ones that opened it up to violence as the means. And then of course, everything gets taken over by Napoleon and you get authoritarianism that way. But no, it's absolutely Rousseau as being the, yes Kant supposedly kept a copy of Rousseau's portrait over his desk. Yes, I mean Kant admired Rousseau, Rousseau is perfect. Enric says Rousseau is the philosopher of environmentalism, absolutely. He's the philosophy of almost every leftist cause out there. So no, there's nothing good about Rousseau. All right, so the real difference, so there is no country in Europe that was founded on freedom and individualism, none. There were thinkers in every country that advocated for individualism and freedom. There were enlightenment thinkers in almost every country in Europe. But there were, first of all, these countries, the borders are drawn not based on politics, the political freedom. They're drawn purely based on ethnic identities and history. If anything, Europe only is splintered even more over time to recognize ethnic differences rather than unite around ideas because they don't have any. All right, let's see, Michael asks a $50 question and then a $20 question, so we'll take those two. And by the way, you can still ask questions, $20 above, none of the small amount questions. For today, we're running already late, so $20 above, we're at $700. Somebody wants to throw in some money to get to $1,000, that'd be beautiful, but $700 is pretty respectable. So I'm happy with that, but thank you. Dean, thank you, I appreciate that. Let's see, Michael says, whether Rittenhouse should have been there that night is irrelevant. No, it's absolutely relevant because he put himself in harm's way. What kind of idiots attack a man holding a rifle? Well, they attack a kid who doesn't know what he's doing and I don't know how much he egged them on. What did he do? You're right. Why would they attack him with a rifle? What did he do? Did he do anything? Did they do anything? We don't know. What did they think was going to happen? I don't know. This is why you have a trial. They attacked him because he kept washing off their graffiti and putting out their arson. Maybe let's wait and see what we discover in a trial. That's the beauty of a trial system. It brings out the facts. But he should have never been there. He should have never been there with a gun. He should have never taken on the responsibility of policing the neighborhood, not his neighborhood. Rittenhouse might be innocent, but he's an idiot. And something should be done about discouraging future Rittenhouses. They shouldn't be out there on the streets trying to police. I don't believe in anarchy. I don't believe in taking citizens, taking guns, and going out there into the streets in neighborhoods that are not theirs, on property that is not theirs, to the so-called defendants, 17-year-olds who don't know anything about life. And then, you know, being in a position where you kill people. Now I know these people are leftists who cares. Some of you might be thinking, no, I think Rittenhouse cares, and I think, and you know, I'm not for going out killing people. I disagree with. Who's the thug here? You sure Rittenhouse is not the thug? Why was he there? What was he looking for? What did he think would happen? So Michael says, what did they think was going to happen? What did he think was going to happen? Coming into a riotous situation with a rifle. What did he think was going to happen? He was either going to get hurt, or he was going to hurt somebody badly. Alright Michael, I'll also ask for $20. You'd think there would be at least one Objectivist libertarian-oriented nation, or at least city in the world by now? No. Why would you think that? I would never think that. I never thought that when I was growing up with Objectivism. I mean, philosophy's hard. Changing cultures is hard. I mean, maybe in the first year or two, when I read, after I read Atlas Shrugged, I thought that was possible, but very quickly that disappeared, because I know how hard it is, and what it's going to require, and the kind of cultural change, and what we're going up against. If status nationalist regimes are inherently inefficient, why was the Holocaust organized so well? They're inefficient when it comes to production, when it comes to innovation, when it comes to creation. They're very efficient when it comes to destruction. Efficiency, quite efficiency, is meaningless. What are you efficient at? Efficiency should only relate to, should only relate to production. Positive values. To destroy is easy. You can take a child, can spend three hours building a castle out of bakes, and it'll take exactly five minutes to destroy that castle, and you can say, wow, he's efficient, he's really good at destruction. No, that's a wrong use of the term efficiency. Elon Musk net worth just past 300 billion today. He is a brilliant man who has acquired his fortune with honesty, integrity, and tremendous passion. Well, really, we are blessed to have him in this world. I mean, I think we're blessed to have him in this world. I respect him, but honesty, integrity, really? Given how much tax money he's received, given how much Tesla has been subsidized, given how many times he has basically deceived the market about Tesla, we're going to be sold to a private equity firm, and then stock goes up, and whoops, no, we're not going to be, I mean, there's a bunch of stuff like that where he says, and people trade on it, and then it goes away, no, no, no. Elon Musk is an amazing innovator, and amazing in many respects, but I wouldn't hold him up as a paragon of morality. Scott, I liked Elon Jonas' article on wokeism as a new religion. Well, of course he did. I mean, anything attacking the left you love. Do you agree, and does it imply that wokeism should be considered M's perdim instead of D's? No, no, no. I've said this like what? How many times have you asked me this question, Scott? How many times have I disagreed with you? Just give it a break. No, because wokeism is a disintegrative ideology. It's about breaking stuff. It's not pro anything. It's about shutting people down, and it's always going to be new people. There's always going to be somebody on the oppression hierarchy. Now it has the features of a religion. It has the priests, and it has the, it has a way to redeem yourself, and it has, you know, a kind of a God, but it lacks the M. It lacks the characteristics of an M. It doesn't integrate around anything. It's not a religion. It has the features of religion. It doesn't integrate around anything. You tell me what it integrates around. It integrates around nihilism. It integrates, which is disintegrated, which is D2. It integrates around egalitarianism. What does Leonard Peekoff say egalitarianism is in the dim hypothesis in the book? What is egalitarianism? Oppression isn't an integrating feature, because you can't integrate the oppressors into it. That's absurd. How does oppression become an integrating? What's oppression around what? It's oppression around egalitarianism. The ideology as Leonard identifies it in dim is egalitarianism, and egalitarianism is a D2, not an M2. You can say egalitarianism integrates around equality. It's not what integration means. You can't integrate around anything you want. Your ideology is inherently disintegrated, which is what wokeism is, which is what oppression is. Oppression studies is. Why is it disintegrated? Because there's always somebody more oppressed than you. The oppression matrix is not an integrated matrix. It's a disintegrating. Enough. Because we're repeating ourselves, and I've said this to you, Scott, many, many times. You don't accept it. Fine. But I haven't changed my mind. And Elon's article is not changing my mind. Todd, thank you. Another $100. This has been a very generous day from Todd. So thank you. Wow. Todd has done, I think, 450 of the 800 bucks we've done. Todd says, let's stop complaining about City Hall. Let's become City Hall one at a time. Yeah, I mean, it's one mind at a time, emphasis on mind. One mind at a time. The fact that God is an absurdity doesn't make God a non-integrating thing. I mean, all of history is a suggestion that God integrates human experiences quite well for people. Think of the billions of people who are religious today. Because God serves a purpose, an integrating purpose, an integrative purpose. Oppression doesn't. It serves to everybody be opposed to everybody, not to unite them around a cause, God, but to make them in opposition to one another. Because everybody's oppressing everybody, and everybody's on a hierarchy, and everybody wants to defend themselves against the accusation of being an oppressor. So it has attributes of religion, but it is not a religion in the sense of an integrated system of ideas around a central integrating principle. In that sense it's not religion. And by the way, I've been talking about the left as having the attributes of religion for years. I did a show four or five years ago, this was still in California, about intersectionality. And it was based on an article written by Andrew Sullivan, where Andrew Sullivan described intersectionality as having features of religion. And I talked about that. I've talked about that, the religious features of intersectionality for a long, long, long time. And it's up there on YouTube. Just look, you're on intersectionality. I think it's an old show. Best for the Hank, what attributes does your wife find the most admirable in you? Come on, Best for the Hank. You're gonna have to ask her that. I don't know. You like to ask these personal questions. I have no idea. I mean, maybe I have an idea, but I don't want to speak for her. I think I know what the answer is, but again, I don't want to speak for her. You'll have to ask her. If even people live in hell, why is Nam Chomsky still alive in 92 and seems so springingly while doing interviews? Yeah, I mean, there is no correlation between living in hell and age. I mean, I'm glad he's 92 because the living hell that he's living through has lasted longer. And that's a good thing, not a bad thing. So I don't think Nam Chomsky is a happy 92-year-old. I've seen 92-year-olds who are happy. He's got energy. He's got, he's passionate about what he thinks. But yes, I do think it's a living hell. Michael asks, what date is your debate with Yoram Khazoni? I think it's December 8th. It's a Wednesday, second Wednesday in December. I hope you guys can come. I'm hoping for a large audience. It's being put together by the center, kind of a free market center at University of Texas. Yeah, it's on the 8th of December at the University of Texas. As soon as I have the details in terms of where exactly and so on, I will get those to you. But 8th of December in Austin. Beth Svedham says, go ask her to join the live stream so she can tell us. My wife will never join the live stream. And she's not here right now. She is visiting family in Israel. So I've been alone without her for the last almost three weeks. Nerudo 1341, song recommendation and spirit of individualism. Flyers by Amelie. Alright, not familiar with it. Cool. I like recommendations for good stuff. Let's see, what else? Scott asks, if you reject individualism, you reject America. Channel this shows energy in your debate and you'll crush it. Yeah, yes. I hope I can channel the energy from the show into that debate. By the way, if you like the show, I hope you did. Don't forget to give it a thumbs up before you leave. If you like the show, then share it. Share the short videos that Action Jackson is likely to make from the show. Share those and let's get the word out there. Let's get the cause of individualism going. Let's get people inspired around individualism. So please help me grow this channel. Please help me get the word out about the existence of this channel. I don't see a lot of you sharing the stuff on Twitter and on Facebook, but that's how we're going to grow. That's the only way we can grow is to get to new audiences by you sharing. You elevate the show through the algorithms. You elevate the show into people who follow you, even if it's a small number, one of them might share it and it goes to there. And that's how movements grow. There's no other way to do it. This is the way social media works these days. So yeah, 111 are watching right now, but there are probably 400 people who watch the show and left and come in and people come in and out. But Hutter says he just got super chat working. Check email for JS gem three or four about booking love the show. I don't know if you're getting my email. I'm getting your emails. I just haven't responded. I will respond, but I am getting your email. So don't worry. I will respond. I flagged it. I'm behind on emails. I'm probably going to try to catch up on emails tomorrow, but I am getting the emails. All right. 838 bucks today. That is fantastic. Thank you, everybody. That is showing a lot of love that is great in terms of the support of the show. For those of you who did not have a chance to use the super chat because you're listening to this after the fact, please become a monthly contributor. You can do it on your own book show that comes to support. You can do it on Patreon. You can do it in a subscriber. Just search for your own book show and and you can you can become a supporter. Thank you all for the support. Thank you for listening. Don't forget to share. Don't forget to like. Don't forget to help promote the show and get it out there to a wider audience. Oh, I did an interview that's up online. Mark Moss, M-O-S-S. I think it's a good interview. I think you'll like it. Some of his audience didn't like it because of, you know, you know why? Because of my positions and certain things that people don't like. But I highly recommend you go watch it. Again, I really think you will really like it. Mark Moss, you can find it on YouTube and we talked about the Civil War. We talked about left versus right. We talked about reason and thinking. And you should go. You should comment on the video because his people, yeah, they're not individualists. Too many of them are not individualists. Not individualists as we understand it to. Bye, everybody. Have a great rest of your weekend tomorrow. Probably 4pm. Well, no, 3pm East Coast time. 4pm Puerto Rico time. 3pm East Coast time. So stay tuned. 3pm East Coast time tomorrow. I'm also going to be doing a podcast with Tals Fani from the Einren Institute on happiness tomorrow. So I don't know if you have access to that, but at some point that'll go up as well. All right, everybody, have a great time. And thank you. I see some of you already sharing the show on Twitter. So I really appreciate that. John says, hope to make the December event in Austin. I live just an hour away. Yeah, I hope you can make it as well. I think it will be good and it will be great to get a big, lively audience. I'm hoping a lot of students will come, but it'd be good if some of you guys came as well. All right, everybody.