 So much of the left today, I think, is not Marxist in the sense of that we understand Marx. They're Hegelian in their determinism, in their collectivism, and in the inevitability of history type of ideas. They're particularly in the collectivism and determinism. But the other thing that they have taken from Marx is the ideal of the end state. Although, no, I think they're worse than Marx when it comes to the ideal of the end state. So in the end state, according to Marx, all our material needs are taken care of at basically zero effort. And then what do we do with ourselves? Well, we do what we love to do. We learn to play the violin and I'll get back to violins in a minute. We learn to play the violin. We garden. We write poetry. We do the things we love doing. And maybe some of us love working, or some of us love inventing, or whatever. But we do those things. Now, I don't know what it even means that you love doing something when you completely determine. Maybe in this magical place, you're not determined anymore. I don't know. The modern left in some senses is much worse than Marx. The modern left is eager not for this process of dialectic over generations to get to some utopian state. The modern left wants equality now. They are radical egalitarians. They want equality of all things now. And it used to be that even egalitarians limited themselves to monetary egalitarianism. It's all about inequality. If only we took enough money from the rich and gave it to the poor, things would be better. But they want equal results now beyond just the monetary aspect of it. I'll give you a couple of examples in a few minutes. They committed to real equality. And equality, by the way, is metaphysically impossible because we're all different. So to achieve it, we have to suppress any form of ability. We have to reject any form of the exceptional. And we have to particularly do that according to critical race theory with those so-called races that are being oppressing others. So we have to attack white people, for example, because they have been in a position of oppressing. We have to attack heterosexual people because they are in a position of oppression. We need to somehow make heterosexuals and gay and transgender equal in what dimension exactly. It's not clear. It's not clear. Well, ideally for them, we would rather be just the same. This is why there's no difference between men and women. Although men can convert to being women and women can convert to being men. But there's no difference between women and women. And then there's no difference between men who converted to women and women who are always women. And there's this crazy notion of sameness, of egalitarianism, of equality. But again, it's full of contradictions. Completely illogical, completely in the face of the facts and biology and evidence and science doesn't matter. Just like facts didn't matter to mocks and angles. In that sense, they're moxes. In that sense, they're contians. Facts become irrelevant. What is relevant is at the end, emotions. That's all that can be. So what the left today is, is egalitarian in a sense of equality now, equality economically. Not through increased production and ultimately the revolution of the classes and the elimination, if you will, of the capitalist class. Never quite articulate how they're going to be eliminated. But today through the subjugation of the capital class, through turning the capital class into the slaves of everybody else, by confiscating their wealth, by confiscating the product of their labor and redistributing it. Because we want it now. Who has patience for the dialectic through history? We want it now. And while the fact that there is such thing as sex is true, there is no such thing as race. But it doesn't matter. The racists think there's such a thing as race. And the racists have been oppressing, white racists have been oppressing blacks forever. And now in the name of egalitarianism, it's time to flip it over on them. Induce guilt and flip it on them. So, the left today is so much more than Marxist and Marxism does not do them justice in a sense that they're much, much worse. Lennypikov has a chapter in the dim hypothesis about egalitarianism. And there's really nothing more evil than egalitarianism. It's worse than communism. And indeed, the most egalitarian regime, I think, in human history was Pol Pot in Cambodia. We use this example. We use this example in Equal is Unfair. And in Pol Pot's regime, they wanted equality now. Which meant shooting people who had an education, shooting people who were smarter, shooting people who had glasses. The killing fields of Cambodia was an attempt at equality. An attempt to establish and prepare and establish real equality. Not through the Marxist dialectic but through action. And that's real evil. Now, we're not quite at that point in the United States yet. In the West, we're willing to shoot people for their ability. But we are at the point where we want, in the name of some vague notion of equality, we're willing to ignore ability. I'll give you this example that I read, which I guess shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's still shocking when you read about it. So this is from the world of classical music. A world in which, as you know, if you followed the show, I love. And both the New York Times and the Washington Post have recently decried the lack of diversity in the nation's orchestras. So, you know, the data collected from 500 American orchestras for a 2016 study by the League of American Orchestras paints a starkly white picture when it comes to diversity in classical organizations. I guess Michael Andor Broder writes in the Washington Post. The proportion quo of non-white musicians represented in the orchestra force. And of African American and Hispanic Latino musicians in particular remains extremely low. And Broder endorses the call, quote, for white people and predominantly white organizations to do the work of uprooting this racism. We have tolerated and perpetuated systematic discrimination against black people, discrimination mirrored in the practices of orchestras and throughout our country. Now, wow, this ain't just systemic racism. In orchestras, how could this be? What's going on here? I mean, maybe, maybe the directors of these orchestras are racist and they don't accept musicians who are black or Hispanic. Now, there's, again, like all these things, there's some basis, historical basis in truth for this. It was very difficult in the 1950s and 1960s for a black classical musician to succeed. If you look at a phenomenal singer, I don't know if you know Nina Simone, Nina Simone, a phenomenal singer. But Nina Simone was trained as a classical musician. She was trained as a classical pianist. And she might have been able to make it as a classical pianist. But she was told not to even try. She could probably make it as a jazz musician, as a singer. But she was told not to even try to make it as a classical pianist, something she resented for the rest of her life. I mean, the number of black opera singers early on. I mean, it was a real big coup. And finally, a black opera singer could sing at the Metropolitan in New York. And there was some phenomenal, you know, one of my favorite opera singers, Leon Tyn Price. I mean, phenomenal opera singer was black. But that was very unusual. Today, they talk a lot about blackface. You know, people, whites, you know, acting on stage black by painting them some black. Well, that's what happened forever with, you know, Aida or Othello to a large extent because blacks were not allowed into these classical musical positions. But that's the 50s and 60s and maybe the 70s. But you see, this is what orchestras have done, not so much because of race, but because of the lack of women in orchestra. Women were also discriminated against. In the 1970s, under 6% of classical musicians in orchestras were women. And as a result of that, orchestras adopted something quite revolutionary. In order to try to figure out were they being discriminatory. Anybody know out there what orchestras do today to make sure they don't discriminate? That they're not discriminated against women and then they're not discriminating against minorities. What do they do? If you've ever seen a TV show or movie about somebody auditioning, they have blind auditions. So when a musician plays for the judges for a role, they play behind a curtain. The judges cannot see if it is a man or a woman and what the color of the skin is. They don't even have the name so that they don't know originally the intent was sex, the sex of the player. The auditions are blind behind a curtain. Now as a consequence of this blind audition process, the number of women in orchestras has grown dramatically. From 6% in 1970 to a third of the Boston Symphony Orchestra and half of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. Blind auditions have changed the face of American orchestras. It took whatever bias there was out of it, which is beautiful, but it's still true. They're made about 1.8% of players in top ensembles were black and only 2.5% were Latino. And this must be caused by racism because whenever the proportions of a group in a particular field are smaller than the proportion they have in the population, it must be systemic racism. But here we've taken a precaution to make it sure that it's not racism and that there you have it. It must be racism. Now nobody's bothered by the fact that that same kind of racism seems to happen in basketball with 70% of the players are African Americans. That's I think in the NFL. Now I'm sure they would have an argument saying something like, yes, you know, kids don't get trained in classical instruments because they go to bad schools and the schools don't have music classes because they don't have a budget and that's racist and then they, you know, the parents don't have enough money to send to private schools. They turn it into an economic issue. But then it's an economic issue. It's not a racist issue. And, you know, they don't mention the fact that maybe maybe black kids are more attracted to their heroes who happen to be pop stars. Black Americans are far more represented in the pop music industry than others. It turns out that Asians are overrepresented in orchestras because why? Because Asian parents think it's important to send their kids to study classical music. Is that a racial thing? Is that in their genes? Is that discrimination? That's what Asian parents do. Maybe because they have a deeper respect for the source of Western civilization that black culture doesn't, the culture within the black community. It's not race. It's culture. It's culture. It's culture. If you want more blacks to play in orchestras, here's I'm going to say something horrific, raise the culture of black communities. It used to be that orchestras were dominated by Eastern European and Jewish musicians. Most of those musicians did not come from wealthy families. They came from poor families. But they came from poor families that happened of value music. That happened to think that it was important. That devoted resources to getting their kids a musical education. The same is true of most of these Asians. They don't come from wealthy families. They come from families that value education and value music. This kind of music, classical music. Now, jazz is not superior, but blacks dominate jazz. Great. Is that because jazz is racist against whites? I mean, the whole thing is insane. Black culture values jazz. Asian culture values classical music. It's the culture. Now, I wish I lived in a world where hip-hop didn't exist, where jazz was prevalent but even more prevalent than jazz was classical music. And that everybody had an appreciation for classical music and understood its beauty, its inspiration. And maybe such a world can never exist, but I wish a world in that world. And in a world like that where everybody was like that, because everybody was an individual, they weren't being determined by the ethnic group and their race and the particular neighborhood they brought up. There would be probably much more diverse orchestras, because I don't think it's inherent. The blacks can't play the violin. It's unfortunate that blacks have chosen not to play the classical violin. There's nothing inherent about it. I mean, there used to be a period where every Jewish kid grew up wanting to play the violin. Now, that's through Asians. But that's not anything to do with genes and everything to do with culture and choices. And particularly here, culture, particularly among the parents, the choices the parents make, not the child. Because to become a world-class musician, you have to start really young. And that's a parent's choice, not the kid's choice. Unfortunately, for the black community, black leadership and black intellectuals have promoted a rejection of western civilization, a rejection of so-called whiteness. We saw that when I talked about that chart about what is whiteness. Whiteness is individuality. Whiteness is the scientific method. Whiteness is classical music. So, of course, you're not going to get classical musician. If you're disincentivized, so radically, into going into classical music, because it's white. Thank God that Leontine Price, the great opera singer, did not reject opera because it was, quote, white. It was just classical music. It was just great. It just is. Great. Now, what is truly shocking here is not these complaints. Not even the arguments that this is based on racism, because those are easy to deal with, because it's a blind test. What do you think the solution proposed is? What do you think the solution proposed is? The solution is to get rid of blind tests. The solution is to get rid of the curtain, so that we can discriminate against Asians. So that we can discriminate against people with white skin. So that we can put aside ability, indeed, penalize ability, and work towards equality of outcome. Not equality of outcome in the quality of the playing, equality of outcome in the pretense regarding the quality of playing. And this is, of course, affirmative action what we have across the board. Affirmative action is quotas. Affirmative action is egalitarianism. Affirmative action is a form of penalizing ability. Affirmative action is about elevating those who have not earned the elevation. So that is one example of this kind of egalitarianism. Not quite at the level of breaking LeBron James' legs in order to play basketball with him. Not quite at the level of shooting people who have tapping away glasses, but it's on that path. 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 despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Alright, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, so I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at yourunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.