 I mean, there's some interesting things, I'll just give you one thing. One interesting thing that Bernie says here, before this clip, you know, Bernie wants the TV stations to give free airtime to political candidates to make their case, like the BBC I think does in England, he says the BBC does in England, but he does say he's not sure, he thinks that's the case. In Israel I know in the old days at least, the television station was owned by the government and the television station would give each political power based on how big they were a certain number of minutes for them to make their case. So, Bernie is saying that TV stations should do that and Joe Logan asks him, yeah, but do you really think that the U.S. television stations would agree to that? And Bernie says, straight face completely, of course. Well, of course not. We'd have to pass a law. In other words, he says, well, of course not. We'd have to force them. We'd have to use coercion against them. We'd have to put a gun to their head and make them do it. So that was a little gem that you're going to miss, because he says it a few minutes before this, it's pretty, you know, pretty funny. Okay, here we go. And the truth is, Joe, that if you look at the issues that I campaign on, but I believe they are really not terribly radical. Now, this is something you repeat on and on, and this is what I find socialists and leftists do constantly. Everybody agrees with us with a majority. And the sad fact is in America that on issue by issue by issue, on the issues, on the specific issue, in polls, this so-called social democratic ideas win. So Medicare for all or some kind of socialized medicine, some kind of public option wins in polls. The specific issues, even among Republicans, enough Republicans agree with them that a majority often agrees. And Bernie will make the case that not only the American people believe in him, but what he'll say over and over and over again, again, to soften up the culture, to make it clear, again, to play to the second-handedness of the culture, of the people listening. Look, all the European countries do it, and most Americans believe this is a good thing, so I'm not radical, I'm just, this is just mainstream American, this is just mainstream European, this is every civilized country in the world has national health care. In many countries all over the world, for example, just we can start on health care. Is the idea that health care is a human right, not a privilege? Now, that's great, right? This is great. Is it a human right or a privilege? Not that something, that's the real alternative. Is it right or is it a service to be paid for? And this is, of course, the moral point that he just takes for granted. Well, of course, it's a human right. And watch Joe Rogan's response. I don't think it is. Yeah, Joe Rogan says, well, I don't think that's controversial. Of course, it's a human right. This is so-called the Batarian, Joe Rogan, conservative Joe Rogan, I don't know, whatever Joe Rogan. So health care is a right. Now, you know, I could do an hour talk on the issue of is health care a right? But think about the implication of health care being a right. Health care being a right means that you should have access to it at no cost to you. At no cost to you. Which means it should be provided as a duty by anybody who can't provide the service. It makes doctors and nurses in the health care industry completely at your behest. They are your servants. They are responsible for your life. They have to treat you, whether you can pay them or not. And health care, not just not that this is a right either, but not just life-saving, you know, emergency stuff, but health care. You and I titled to health care. The doctor has a duty now to provide it, whether you pay or not. What do you call that when somebody has to provide you with the service, whether they get paid for it or not? Well, that's, he becomes your servant. He becomes your slave. You, he is now forced to provide you with the service. His view about whether he wants to provide you with the service, whether he's gonna, whether he's being paid the right amount to provide you with the service, doesn't matter. His ideas, his perspective, his motivations, his incentives, his pursuit of happiness, doesn't matter. He wanted to be a doctor. By being a doctor, this is what he signed up for. Now know what a right is. A right is the recognition that each one of us has the freedom to act in pursuit of our own rational values. So if you have a right to health care, then you're rejecting the idea that the doctor has a right to his own life. You rights here are conflicting. They're at each other. Now, there is a sense in which you have a right to health care. You have a right to take the actions, to find a physician who will treat you in exchange for a value that you provide and that you're willing to provide and he's willing to accept. So the government shouldn't be able to limit your access to doctors, nurses, hospitals, insurance plans, or any other related activity related to health care. The right to health care means the right for you to actively pursue health care that you think is appropriate for you at whatever price you're willing to pay for. And of course, that does not conflict with the right of the doctor to provide you with care or not to provide you with care depending on whether you can come to an agreement or not. That's how you apply rights to health care. But the way Bernie Sanders, the left in general and much of the right today, use the idea of the right to health care turns one's rights, rights and quotes, against the others. It is the denial of the rights of producers and we'll see that as a theme for Bernie, the denial of the rights of producers for the sake of those in need. This is altruism to the extreme. It places the needs of those who need health care above the life, the rights, the freedom of those who produce health care. And remember, health care, like any other value needs to be produced other than the air we breathe. Pretty much everything else that we need in order to survive as human beings needs to be produced. Somebody needs to produce it. One of the things you see with thinkers both left and right, unfortunately, is their assumption and this is true of many economists as well, their assumption that the stuff is just there. Now it's just a question of whether we have access to it or not. And that's the assumption throughout Bernie's discussion of health care and we'll see that when he talks about drug companies that the ability to provide health care is just there. It doesn't need to be produced. Drugs are just there. Somebody has to produce them and those people have rights as well. But they don't matter because need trumps all else. That's how altruism manifests itself in politics. And it's why nobody stands up to them. It's why Joe Rogan's can't say anything because what he's gonna disagree that somebody sick doesn't have a right, shouldn't immediately get care because even if he can't pay for it, he can't do it because he can't challenge altruism. Altruism trumps every other issue out there. And the truth is, we are the only major country on earth. Many people don't know this. We're the only major country on earth, not to guarantee health care to all people as a human right. And yet we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care. Now we get into these numbers. This is a good example of what I meant before by they just saw this stuff out. It's true. We spend twice as much than Canada, which is what he's gonna example. Not twice as much as Switzerland, which is much closer to us in terms of per capita spending. But why do we spend so much? And you can argue with me if you want, but the function of the current health care system is not to provide quality care. It is to make tens of billions of dollars in profit for the drug companies and insurance companies. Now, you would think, you would think given how much time they spend talking about profits of drug companies, you would think that drug companies in the United States were fabulously, I mean fabulously profitable that they return to capital was amazing, was huge, was humongous. They were the most profitable industry in the United States. But it turns out none of that is true. Generally health care as an industry, the return of capital is quite low. The highest return of capital within the health care industry happens to be among the middlemen. The pharmacies, the drug wholesalers, the PBMs. PBMs, something, something, something. I'm not sure what PBMs are, but they are middlemen between the pharmacies and the drug companies. And there's a reason why they have all those of the highest profit margins because the industry's so convoluted, so distorted. I'm not just talking about drug development, but every distribution of drugs is so distorted by regulations, by controls that those who have managed to play the regulatory game and capture those areas have made large profits. Drug companies have relatively low profits. Medium relative to other industries, for example, half of what computer science companies make in terms of profits. The internal rate of return on drug companies is 3.2%. That is pathetic. I wouldn't invest in anything at a 3.2% interest rate. They return to capital, they return to investment, average, average. But you wouldn't know that from hearing Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is all about, oh, they make so much money, huge profits. And yet, that's not the case. And indeed, the return on capital has been in decline for the last, what is it, six years, seven years. And that is true in general in medicine, in the private sector, massive declines. What Bernie also doesn't tell you is yes, the United States spends double. But where is that money spent? So this is the thing, to really combat this, you have to go look at graphs. You have to go look at data. Who wants to do that? And who has time to do that? But if you really want to understand what these guys are talking about, you have no choice. It turns out that the United States spends as a percentage of GDP in the public sector about the same as most other countries. But that's weird. Most other countries treat almost their entire population with the public sector. In the United States, we treat a much smaller percentage of the population, not granted the older, but a much smaller percentage of the population with the public sector, and we spend the same. So it means that we've got a public sector that is far less efficient, and this is true of all welfare programs. Welfare, generally in the United States, is delivered far less efficiently than it is in many of these welfare states, and there are a variety of reasons why that is, and the fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are fabulously inefficient, and that's why it's very, very expensive. Now, over 50% of every cent spent in the United States is spent by the government. Bernie wants it to be 100%. The 50% is unbelievably inefficiently spent, and now you wanna make it 100%. That's not gonna reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare in the United States, because what's driving that is to a large extent the public sector, the government sector. Now, you could go on and on and on about these kind of things. You know, do you know what the percentage, what the percentage of the U.S. budget dedicated to healthcare is? Anybody know that? What's the percentage of the U.S. budget dedicated to healthcare? How much of the government's money, of our money, taxpayer money, of the budget of the federal government is spent on defense? Anybody know? I'm looking at the chats. I don't see a number. Oh wait, 40% on defense? No, it's about 10% of defense. 39.5% on healthcare. So maybe, maybe Leonard was saying 40% on healthcare. You're right. Just below, no, it's 40% on healthcare. 40% and Bernie wants to do medical for all. Just think of the numbers, but everybody does it. Every country in the world does it. Now, it is true also that the United States healthcare system, the private sector healthcare system is very inefficient. It's very unproductive. It costs a way too high. Well put it differently. We don't even know what to cost really up. And that is because of regulations and controls and there's no market. It's because of government intervention. It's not that we're comparing capitalist free market healthcare system United States to Canada. I don't know what we would spend in a truly free market in the U.S. I suspect significantly less than we do today if we are 100% private, but we don't know because we're not and because the private sector is so distorted by controls and regulations and restrictions left and right on everything, everything. Including which stem cells you can take from your own body to inject back into your own body. So to say that the American healthcare system is twice as expensive as the Canadian healthcare system is just complete distortion and completely meaningless. Yes, technically that is true. What does it mean? Plus the other question obviously is what is the optimal amount of money to spend on healthcare? What is the optimal percentage of GDP to spend on healthcare? Who gets to decide that? Should we have a central planning committee that sits down and says, I think this year we should spend 10% of GDP on healthcare. Next year should be 20% of GDP on healthcare. Who gets to decide that? I mean, I know that I have quote wasted a lot of money on healthcare in my life. Like, I'll give you a real example. I'll give you a real example. So I once had something called third, was it third eye palsy. It's an infection, it turns out to be, it was an infection in the nerve that goes down to my eye and it, you know, the muscles around the eye stopped working because of that infection in the nerve that goes from the brain to the eye. And I had this, but I didn't know what was going on. My doctor didn't know what was going on. Nobody knew what was going on. It's very rare, it's very unusual. So what do we do? He sent me immediately to emergency room and I got an MRI, an MRI because he was why I was having a brain aneurysm. And the MRI was negative. Everything looked fine in the MRI. Wow, I wasted a bunch of money on getting an MRI. And it didn't show anything. So that's a waste. Then he said, oh, we should look deeper. So we got the next morning. I mean, just the speed of this is unbelievable. You can't get this kind of speed in any healthcare system in the world. So the next morning, I got a CAT scan with color of my brain and it was negative. Everything was normal. Man, was I spending money like crazy wasting valuable GDP on healthcare? Yeah, my healthcare. I wanted to exclude some horrific options and I was spending my money and my insurance company's money who voluntarily insured me before Obamacare. And it turned out to be negative. But on the numbers, if you look at evidence-based medicine or you look at all the different standards that supposedly they have, it looked like I just wasted a bunch of money because there was no, I didn't suffer from any of those things they were looking for. Now that was good news for me, but bad news for GDP spending, for healthcare spending as a percent of GDP, very bad. So yeah, maybe the United States spends an optimal number of dollars on healthcare, not so much to extend light, but also to give us peace of mind. Maybe we're so rich, by the way, we're about 35% richer than Canadians on a per capita GDP basis, whatever that's worth, 35%. Maybe we've reached such a state of wealth in this country that we're willing to spend a gazillion dollars in order to reassure ourselves we don't have certain diseases and that costs money and that inflates our healthcare spending numbers. Who knows? But the very fact that we're spending double means we're, something's really bad about American healthcare system, about America spending, right? Again, and I'm spending a lot of time on this because these kind of issues come up over and over and over again whenever you hear people talking about healthcare, these are the kind of issues that come up and they don't know what they're talking about. They're not giving you the context, they're not giving you the reality, they're giving you canned statements that don't really mean anything. And you have to dig deep to figure out what's actually going on. Oops, what's going on on my screen? All right, we've only done like 40 seconds of burning so I better speed it up because we've already eaten up most of the show. Here's more burning. That's the function. If you go to Canada, and I live 15 miles away from the Canadian border, you'll have major heart surgery. You're in the hospital for a month. Yes, how much is cost? Zero. You got it. Joe Rogan playing into that zero. It really cost you zero, really? I mean, this is the free lunch fallacy of Milton Friedman. Somebody paid for it. You didn't pay for it directly out of pocket but somebody should really pay for it. Nothing is free. Nothing is free. So you paid for it through your taxes. Taxes in Canada are higher. Maybe one of the reasons they're less rich than we are. And those taxes go to pay for your healthcare. So you pay for it in taxes. Healthy people pay for sick people, healthy people subsidize sick people. There's a massive redistribution of wealth from healthy rich people to sick poor people. That's what's going on in every socialized medicine country. But again, you'll never get that. And yet they guarantee healthcare to all of their people and they spend one half of what we spend. That's kind of what I want to do. And I don't think that that's terribly radical. We have a program now, which everybody knows, it's called Medicare. It was started by Lyndon Johnson back in 1965. It is a popular program. All that I want to do over a four-year period is to expand the today eligibility age of 65. I want to take about 55, 45, 35, everybody over a four-year period. That's about it. And I want to expand benefits to include dental care, hearing aids, and high glasses. And notice how he's presenting this. Well, this is obvious. This is what we should be doing. Everybody does this. And it's gonna be cheap because, look, Canada spends less than us. So by implication, if we do it, we'll actually spend less on healthcare because we'll take out all those profits. And I mean, this is what everybody does. This is just common sense. Everybody agrees to this. And Joe Morgan is going, yeah, yeah, absolutely. This is great. This is exactly what we should be doing. As well. That's better, not too radical. That doesn't sound radical at all. Now when you say that Canada spends less, obviously they have less people. You mean less per capita? Yes, half per capita, exactly per capita. And the quality of care is as good or better. Do they have problems? Is as good or better. And now that's, again, a blatant lie. Again, you have to dig into the numbers. You have to find the specifics. But again, the example I just gave about my third eye palsy, which turned out to be an infection, I would have never got those two scans. And if I had had a brain aneurysm, I'd be dead. The problem is those people who die waiting in line for the MRIs, they don't count. People, and this happens in the NHS in England and happens in Canada, nobody cares about them. They just die. And the people who it happens to, the family of the people it happens to, just accept that this is life. I mean, you have to wait three weeks for an MRI. You have to wait. No, you don't. If you only need to spend more money, which I am, but the government is not, I am individually, I get to choose how much money to spend on my healthcare. That's the moral issue. Who should decide? That's the question. Who should decide? How much money you should spend on healthcare? I say it's me, I should decide. I should make the choices. There are trade-offs in life. Should I buy a fancy car? Save money for my healthcare expenses. Should I buy a bigger home? Save money for healthcare expenses. No, you shouldn't have that choice. Choice is bad. We want a central planet to decide exactly what percentage of your income should be taken from you by force and what healthcare you should have access to, what healthcare you shouldn't have access to, when you should have an MRI, when you shouldn't have a MRI and all of that. You shouldn't get to choose. The bureaucrat should choose for you. The state should choose for you. The majority should choose for you. So this whole basis here is anti-individual choice because it's anti-rights. It's anti-human rights. It's anti-individual rights. The only human right that there is. The rights of the individual to be free, free of coercion. All right. They have problems. Everybody has problems. But overall, the healthcare experts will tell you the quality of care there is as good or better than it is in our country. Just not true. So what's the hurdle? Okay, I'll tell you exactly what's hurtless. The hurdle is exactly the same thing as in every other aspect of our lives. It's the power of money. That's it, right? And here again, this is not controversial. This is not controversial. So the money is the root of all evil. And if it's not money, then greed certainly is the root of all evil. And what is Bernie doing? He's playing right into that. And it's so easy to accept. And again, I don't know that you're gonna find many Americans who disagree with us. He says, yeah, the problem is the moneyed interests. The problem is money. Not that we haven't convinced enough people. Not, I don't know what excuse he can come up with. It's those evil corporations. It's the wealthy. It's money that's evil. Money, right? Money created by the producers. Wealth created by the producers. By the same corporations he's gonna vilify. Money is just a representation of that wealth. At least in a free society with free banking. Money. Money. All right, listen to this. Over the line. Somebody says it's not money, it's corruption. Well, but he implies that by allowing people to have their money, it's necessarily gonna corrupt. And the only way to stop the corruption is to stop the money flow. So what he wants to do is reduce the profits of the drug industry, for example, which don't have very high profits, don't have particularly high profits, relative to other industries. Reduce their profits. So they have less money to corrupt politics. I wanna do away with corruption. How do you do away with corruption? Get politicians out of healthcare. Get politicians out of business. Get politicians out of the economy. And then there's nothing to bribe them for because they have no favors to give. His solution is to take all the money that rich people have, to tax it away, to regulate it away, to control it away so that they have no political power. And at the same time, destroy, destroy their lives, all of our lives, really, and the economy of the United States. 20 years. The drug companies alone have spent four and a half billion dollars in 20 years on lobbying in campaign country. It doesn't seem like a lot, four and a half billion dollars in 20 years. That's what, 200 and something million a year, an industry that is constantly under attack that is massively regulated. Remember, over the last 20 years, they've probably spent a huge amount trying to fight for or against Obamacare. Many of them fought for Obamacare. For over the last 20 years, they've had multiple attempts, for example, George Bush, I think that's in the last 20 years, maybe not, George Bush, yeah, Bush would be in the last 20 years. Trying to increase Medicare, maybe they lobbied for it against it, I don't know. But this is an industry that is constantly in the crosshair politicians. I'm surprised they only spent 250 million a year on lobbying. One would think they would spend much more. Now, obviously they don't do a very good job at it because the general perception of them is that they're the bad guys. Now remember who drug companies are. Drug companies, these evil bastards, right? Remember who they are. I mean, second probably only to the oil industry. They're the givers of life. They're the givers of life. I mean, think of how many lives are saved every year because of the drugs drug companies have invented, produced, marketed, distributed, made available to all of us. Millions and millions of lives from chemotherapies that today are curing more and more cancers to, I don't know, I don't know if you believe in statins that reduce people's cholesterol, but we've seen a massive reduction in heart disease over the last few years to all kinds of rare diseases, to simple stuff like antibiotics and new antibiotics, to Advil, Aspen, and tons, tons, tons of other types of drugs. They are life givers. But note how he despises them. And it's not just that. Bernie Sanders despises producers. He despises the productive. He despises the people who actually work and change the world, who actually produce the life-giving stuff that makes our life better constantly. Whether it's tech companies, energy companies, drug companies, he despises them. And so do all these leftists and statists of every political bent. Hateful. We've got somebody already calling him a Jewish socialist. It's not enough to call him a socialist anymore. Now we have to call him Jewish socialist. Yeah, that gives it. This is on the chat. All right, let's keep listening. That's what we're up against. The knowledge, and I mock my words, within a short period of time, you will see TV ads in California, all over this country, demonizing Bernie Sanders. He wants to do this terrible thing to you. He wants to do that. Yeah, good. They're trying to defend themselves. They have unbelievable amounts of money and politicians are frightened of that power. Really, really, politicians are frightened of the drug companies. I mean, it's exactly the other way around. Exactly the other way around. By the way, for the anti-Semites watching this, I'm a capitalist Jew. If he's a socialist Jew, I'm a capitalist Jew. So I don't know, I don't know, you have a preference on what kind of Jew you like or what kind of Jews you hate. Yeah. Back in 2016, I got involved here in a little way with an effort on the part of the nurses to control the cost of prescription drugs in California. You may recall that effort. Yeah, so we want price controls. The nurses in California were behind an effort in California to control prices, price controls. Those have worked wonderfully throughout history. Price controls are one of the best, oh, brilliant, brilliant strategies. There was a ballot item in one state here in California. Do you know how much the drug companies alone spent at the feet of that effort? They spent $131 million. Good, good, yay for the drug companies. We didn't get price controls. Something that I believe should be unconstitutional is horrific in terms of its consequences and outcomes. The drug companies saved California from a horrible, horrible mistake. A ballot item in one state. All right, last year, the top 10 drug companies made $69 billion. Is that a lot? I don't know, $69 billion. It sounds like a lot, but is that a lot? I don't know. Again, average profitability. Drug companies are not more profitable than any other business in the United States. On average, they're very average in that sense. A week ago, I went to Canada with a number of Americans who were dealing with diabetes. We bought insulin in Windsor, Ontario for one 10th of the price, 10% of the price, same exact product, being charged in America. So here's another example of just a blatant lie. I mean, it's a sophisticated lie. That's what makes it hard. Really, he bought it for one 10th of the price. Now, it's true, drugs are cheap in Canada. Canada uses coercion against drug companies in order to get low prices. Drug companies don't make money in Canada. Drug companies don't make money anywhere in the world, except the United States. It's why, relatively speaking, drug prices are high in the United States and low everywhere else because all the funding of R&D has to be produced from consumers in the United States and maybe placed like Switzerland and a few other free countries because other countries basically use coercion in order to drive the price close, not completely to a profit margin of zero, but very close to a profit margin of zero. So if you're gonna make money so that you can invest in R&D, you have to make it in the US. Have to make it in the US. So yes, drug prices in the United States are higher than drug prices in Canada, but at 10th, does that make any sense? Is that real? Well, no. First, he's quoting a list price in the United States, a list price that nobody actually pays. And this is one of the convoluted parts of the American healthcare system. The American healthcare system is completely messed up. It's completely screwed up. One of the convoluted parts of it is the fact that we have no visibility into actual pricing because primarily because of Medicare but also because of the way insurance companies are regulated because of the way drug companies are regulated because of the way pharmacies are regulated and all the middlemen are regulated. We don't actually know what a drug costs. We can't actually negotiate with our pharmacists for a price. We can't negotiate without, it's hard enough to negotiate with our doctors and suddenly almost impossible with the hospital. That is, so that is a consequence of state involvement in the healthcare sector. So you don't know exactly what the insulin costs and what is the insulin cost to the average consumer versus what his list price is. And then there are all kinds of insulin. All kinds of insulin. So I did, I don't know, 20 minutes of research because I wanted to understand why insulin is 10% is 90% cheap in Canada than in the US. So this is just what I've discovered in less than 20 minutes of research, not deep research, granted. Turns out that different types of insulin, some is very cheap, some is much more expensive. I don't know what he's comparing. Is he comparing apples to apples? No. He's comparing apples to, you know, oranges or different types of apples. Some apples being very expensive apples. And these are the kind of numbers they throw at you and what are you supposed to say? What are you supposed to say? And yet it's complete and utter dishonesty. It's complete and utter dishonesty and he knows it. He knows, this is a charade. I mean, I guess all politicians do it, but he's mastered it because he's been a politician. People think of him as an outsider. People think of him as this radical. No, he's just a politician who's been out for a very long time. So he's good at it. He's good at throwing these things out. By the way, 57% of all R&D spending on drugs in the world globally is spent in the United States. 57%, we're not 57% of the world. Even our economy is not 57% of the world economy. We pay a lot for drugs because nobody else will and the drug companies have to make whatever profit they make here because they don't make any profit in Canada. They don't make any profit anywhere else. And there are no drug companies in Canada. They're all here in Switzerland who happen to be the two freest countries when it comes to healthcare. That's why they have the drug companies. And those two countries overwhelmingly support the R&D of everybody else. And indeed, I've always said, I think it's something like 75% of all healthcare innovation happens in the U.S. Now don't hold me to that number because I don't know exactly where it comes from. A medical researcher once told me that and I can't find complete verification of it but it makes sense to me. 75%. Imagine if you socialized healthcare in the United States, if you made it Medicare. So drug companies couldn't make any profits in the U.S. Doctors would have to follow government guidelines on the kind of research they did, the kind of products they produced, the kind of treatments they gave. Everything would be dictated by the government. What do you think would happen to innovation in healthcare? I mean, there's no question. We know exactly what would happen. It's happened in France, it's happened in Germany, it's happened in Europe. It plummets, it basically disappears. And who would suffer the whole world? So what is happening today is that the entire world including by the way the Cuban healthcare system which many socialists rave about, the Cuban healthcare system, free ride, free ride. They get a free ride off of American innovation that happens in America, funded mostly by private money. Now, yes, the basic research is funded by government because they've crowded out all private money. But the actual application is all private money. If you destroy that private market, if you destroy the ability of doctors to innovate, to experiment, to try new things, not only will Americans suffer, everybody in the world will suffer. Everybody in the world from poor kids in Africa, to wealthy Europeans, to wealthy, to poor Chinese, to everybody in the world benefits from innovations produced by the relative, relative free market in healthcare that exists in the United States. Take that away. Everybody is worse off, not just Americans. So you Europeans out there, you Asians out there, you Africans out there, I'm missing some continents, you Australians out there, you should be rooting against Medicare for All or any other kind of socialized system to ever come to the United States. 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, whims, 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 broads.