 So there is a new sub-stack. You know, I like sub-stacks. I've often recommended sub-stacks. I'm not recommending this one, although it's a good one if you want to follow what's going on among the intellectuals of what I call the new right, or what they call the new right. The sub-stack is called post-liberal order. So one word, post-liberal order. And it is a sub-stack, which is basically like a blog where people, intellectuals are writing, run by some of the leading intellectuals of what's called the new right. This is the post-liberal right, so the anti-liberal right, liberal meaning, individual freedom. So not liberal in the sense of left, but in the sense of classical liberal, or any kind of liberal. Liberal meaning support for individual liberty. This is the anti-liberal right. This is what they're writing. And you'll find here quite a few pretty prominent, if you follow this stuff, most of you probably don't, but pretty prominent writers on the right. You know, some of the, probably the most well-known now is a guy named Patrick Deneen. I think as a political science professor at Notre Dame University, a Catholic, and he wrote a book about the failure of liberalism, the failure of liberalism. And that's not just leftist liberalism, but includes classical liberalism. So Patrick Deneen, one of the most influential voices on the right today, again, at the intellectual level. And then the second guy, who I'm actually going to read chunks of his, one of his articles to you, is a guy named Adrian Vermillion. Adrian Vermillion is a law professor, a law professor at Harvard of all places. And he is a rising star within what's called the Federalist Society. He's a rising star on the right. He advocates for a common good interpretation of the Constitution. He believes that originalism is wrong. The textualism is wrong. That the whole concept of individual rights is wrong. That we need to read the Constitution from the perspective of what is in the common good. And again, completely rejects the idea of individualism, completely rejects the idea of individual rights. Now he wrote Vermillion, who is, again, very influential and a real rising star among legal scholars on the right. Harvard University. It's not often that you get somebody on the right at Harvard, so he's taken very seriously as a consequence. So the name of this article that he wrote is the party of nature. The party of nature. And really what these post-liberal order people are advocating for is to go beyond the Democratic Party, who they reject, of course, completely, but go beyond the Republican Party and either capture the Republican Party and make it better, or start a new party, which, you know, he is calling the party of nature, but his ideal is to convert the Republican Party to be the party of nature. Now, let me just say, pat myself on the back for a change. In 2009, I gave a talk celebrating Einran's famous talk Apollo and Dianesis. I gave the talk at the Fort Hall Forum in Boston in commemoration of 40 years, and she gave her Fort Hall Forum talk on Apollo and Dianesis. Jeff, thank you. That's great. That gets us much closer to the goal we need to be at. Really, really appreciate that. Thanks for the support, and I will check out the question in a minute. So I gave a talk, and at the end of the talk, I laid out what I viewed as the biggest threat to American freedom. And I said that I believed that authoritarianism would come to America. From somebody who figured out how to unite two Dianesean, if you remember Einran Starks, Apollo versus Dianesean, two Dianesean elements, if they could combine it, they could form the kind of coalition that would allow authoritarianism to rise in America. And the two elements I believed that you needed to combine was environmentalism to capture the religionists of the left, because I believe environmentalism is a religion of the left, and Christianity, the religion of the right. And if you could combine Christianity with environmentalism, if you could run on a plaque that was pro-environment and pro-Christian, pro-evangelical, you could dominate and you could establish yourself as an authoritarian. And I called in 2009 the biggest threat to the U.S. future, that combination of religion, Christianity, Christian religion, and environmentalism. And that's exactly what Vermillion is calling for. The party of nature is a call for combining Christian teaching, in his case Catholic, but they don't have to be Catholic, they're basically Christian, with a respect and a preservation of nature and limitations on what people should be allowed to. And he adds to all this, something really important into the mix, a populist economic framework, an economic framework that again would appeal to many on the left and many of Trump voters on the right to again create a new coalition. Leftist economics when it comes to things like labor and trade, leftist agenda when it comes to the environment, at least somewhat left, not all the way left, but somewhat left, and wrap yourself around with a flag and with a cross. And that's a winning agenda. And that's a scary agenda, a very scary agenda. Let me read you some passages and I hope you'll suffer through this. But I think this is important because I think these are the most prolific and I think most influential, most important thinkers on the right today, whether we like it or not. He says the left is commonly seen as the party of environmental regulation and overrides libertarian claims of property rights as to land and other economic resources and their uses. Yet it expects the human being, which it treats as a blank scroll on which the autonomous individual will can write whatever life plan it pleases. So it wants to regulate nature, but it leaves the individual free to do what he wants, God forbid. It sees the human body itself as a plastic mold to be formed through surgical modification into whatever shape or age or gender, the body gnostic inhabitant fancies, the anthropological equivalent of corporate strip mining that ruins the natural landscape in the name of economic utility. I guess Vermillion, if he had his way, would ban plastic surgery. So God forbid we allow human beings to change themselves, but we don't allow, this is the left, don't allow them to change nature. He says the left is less radically libertarian with respect to the relationship between nature and the human person, but technocratic and statist with respect to a broad range of what are called a commonly seen as environmental issues. Now he goes to conventional right. He says a conventional right is also inconsistent, just about different things. It opposes the plastic refashioning of the human person at will and claims to respect its nature, human nature, although he says in parentheses its practice often bellies its theories. But on other dimensions, it hardly defends the integrity of nature, gripped by classical liberalism, the real enemy, and dominated by corporate lobbyists. It's for the most part reflexively opposed, opposes public action that protects endangered species, controls pollution and toxic substances or mitigates the pace and effect of climate change. In those domains, it supports manipulation and distortion of nature for short run economic benefit. The party of nature in contrast to both left and right believes that plants, animals, the human body, the landscape, even the climate all have a real and objective inner integrity. Unchosen by man, of course not, it's chosen by God, that man is obligated to respect, tend and if necessary repair. The aim is neither a mechanistic exploitation of nature nor a wooden opposition to any human development of nature, but rather an integral development that harmonizes human structures, machines and lives with a landscape and its non human inhabitants. So he calls for human stewardship of nature. This is God's nature. We've got to protect it. That's what God created us for. He writes, part of the stewardship is prudence, the circumstantial judgment of the good gardener who can shape, structure and prune the garden in more than one way while remaining true to the nature of the landscape of flora and fauna. In his charge, he's a central planner who wants to run environmental policy and sculpt it and mold it in some go figure. He goes on about the party of nature. It would be a party that takes seriously its obligation to protect both endangered species and endangered sexes. This is against trans, but also against gay, against gay marriage. He writes it will oppose strip mining and poisoning both of the landscape economic benefit and of the human body for willful self self expression. It will support the natural family, which is to say the extended multi generational family. In all its aspects, economic, social and legal family, of course being central rate. It will support employment and labor, healthy and safe conditions of work and quote, just wages, just wages, woke wages, I guess. It will support legal protection of days of rest. No working on Sunday guys. All the stores need to be shut on Sunday. Feast days and Sabbath days against encroachment of the market, evil market. It will oppose the throwaway culture you consumers you on both economic and social issues. It will oppose low wage, no benefit gig employment and while also opposing abortion, surrogacy, prostitution and pornography. In all these cases because it opposes treating human beings as disposable commodified object as mere factors of production. I don't know if you guys are paying attention to this stuff. This is heavy stuff. So there's socialists. They oppose low wage, no benefit gig employment, for example. So the status in economics and the status in human social issues, abortion, surrogacy, prostitution, pornography. He quotes Pope Francis, since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. So if you care about nature, if you're an environmentalist, then you have to be anti-abortion. Christianity and environmentalism come together. Dark age is 2.0, absolutely. This is where the right is heading. Hegelian synthesis, agree. This is where the right is heading. This is where the world is heading until unless we can get a rational right together. Unless we can get people who can actually defend markets, can actually defend capitalism, capitalism can actually defend individual freedom. I mean, this is one part of the new right. The other part of the new right is Jom Khazani and the whole national conservative movement that doesn't believe in individualism. He debated me on individualism versus conservatism. They have rejected completely individualism, the sanctity of the individual, the sanctity of individual rights, the purpose of government as defending rights. And you want to tell me the left is worse than that? Equally evil and bad. But that is much more intellectual, much more saleable to the American people, much more a topic we can all rally around than wokeism and intersectionality. This is the real danger to America and to our future. This is what I'm fighting against. You can join me or not. But this is what I'm fighting against. This is the corruption. So in 2022, I intend to fight against the new right and I intend to devote a lot of shows to the new right. I intend to keep an eye on this sub-stack and keep attacking the sub-stack. Nature must be commanded, not shepherded. Nature must be molded to serve human needs. Yes, of course, the left distorts human liberty and turns it into subjectivism. And of course, the left is not individualistic because it does not base this individualism on reason. It's a rejection of reason. But what the right wants to do, it wants to dump individualism because the left has misapplied it. It wants to dump individual rights because the left has stolen the concept of rights. In the name of what? In the name of central planning every aspect of our lives. In the name of a dark age's morality, a dark age's political system, a dark age's view of life. In the name of barbarism. In the name of the dark ages. Now this is a right that must be defeated. This is a right that must be fought on intellectual grounds. This is a right that must be taken seriously and engaged with seriously. This is not, you know, bap's ridiculous stupidity. These are people who are going to have a profound impact on America in the decades to come. And it's a rejection of reason wholeheartedly just like the left rejects reason. And the left rejects reason for the sake of individual subjectivism. Of course not really individual because they reject individualism as well. The subjectivism at the end is that the priests of wokeism decide what the subjective feeling we should all have. They reject that for their own subjectivism. The subjectivism of the Pope, the subjectivism of God, the subjectivism of some mythological creature that they channel through some kind of revelation. So we have a subjectivist left and a subjectivist right. The only difference is the subjectivist right has a long history behind it. And it has a principle by which they integrate around. Whereas the subjectivist left is completely disintegrated. It is, in Lenin-Pikov's terms, a D2 in dim terms, not Lenin-Pikov's terms, complete D2s. And this right, the right I'm just talking about is M2. This is the kind of integration that will lead us towards authoritarianism. Of course all religion is subjectivism. Given that there's no God, the only way you know what God once thinks feels is by your own emotion. So 2022 we're going to fight on this show. We're going to talk a lot about the new right. We're going to talk a lot about Trump. And we're going to talk a lot about the left and its disastrous policies for the United States. We're going to talk about the political party in power and how it's undermining our liberties and undermining our freedoms at every opportunity. And we're going to talk about a lot of positive stuff. So I intend to do more, a lot more Iran's rules for life. I'm going to talk a lot more about the objectivist political theory, a lot more about what an objectivist world would look like. So we want what capitalism is, how it works, what are the good stuff, technological innovation, technological progress. So we will talk about a lot of the positives as a counter to all of these horrific negatives. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Brook show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com. I go to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.