 I want to say something about protests. There was a question about objectivists protesting in the street, but also there was a question raised about the protest in Charlottesville. And I think it's an important and interesting question, and I'm going to bring up about the appropriateness of protest period and of whether protests are protected by free speech. And so I think when I did my Charlottesville show a couple of weeks ago, I even said during the show, I said something like, well, you know, the neo-Nazis have a right to protest, they have a right to free speech, right? And I'll defend their right for speech, right? I said something like that. And then Ankar Gandhi said, that's wrong, Iran. That's not Iran's view. And of course, Ankar's almost always right. And he was right here. Let me just find, I'm just looking for Iran's. And I was wrong. So that happens. So here's, let me find the quote, free speech. It's not there. All right, I can't find it. So it was in the lexicon and it's from a letter she wrote. It used to be here. Okay, but this is the point. Marching, demonstrating, holding up signs, swinging those signs. None of that is speech. None of that is speech. Speech is speech. Words coming out of your mouth. Letters written down in a book. It is not marching. It is not action. There is a distinct and important fundamental difference between action and speech. And in the law, there's a distinction between action and speech, right? The definition of speech has been expanded over time. So now, I don't know, in order to protect the right of strippers to strip in a strip joint, instead of just saying, well, people have a right because it's not, you know, they have a right to pursue their values and whether we think their rational values are not, we're going to protect that right. And I'm not going to get into the whole argument, but no, then we have to say, because there's a no understanding of individual rights and what they mean, but we still want to protect the right of a strip at the strip. They kind of get that that's the state shouldn't be stopping strippers from stripping. Then they say stripping is a form of expression and therefore, under the protection of free speech, we're going to protect stripping. I mean, that's nuts. That's insane. And marching demonstrating is an action. It's not speech and you don't have a right to do it. And imagine, imagine if everybody decided to exercise their right to demonstrate all at the same time, well, I'm going to go out into the street with our signs and get a march. I mean, we shut down everything. So as it is, you need a license. But who gives the license? Well, the government does. Why does it give licenses to some and not others? What if everybody wants a license on the same day in the same place? How does the government get to decide who should march and who shouldn't march? Now the government is turning it into speech because they're not allowing some people to express through speech in the demonstration what they believe and what they don't believe. You cannot have a right to obstruct traffic. You cannot have a right to shut down a park. You cannot have a right to interfere with my ability to go from point A to point B. Now, a lot of this has to do with the fact that there's public property. And, you know, people say it's public property. Therefore, it's, it's, you know, people should have a right to do to speak on public property. No, public property to the extent that it's there. We have to tolerate it. It shouldn't be there. It should be all private. But to extent that it's there, it's to facilitate individuals movement from point A to point B from this part of town to that part of town. Not to facilitate demonstrations. That's not the purpose of the property. You want to have a demonstration. Rent a hall. Buy a plot of land. Rent a stadium. So, you can do it on your property. This is the right to assemble. You don't have a right to assemble on private property. This is the right to assembly, which is in the, in the Constitution. That is the right to assemble on your property. Just like you have a right to speak on your radio station or radio station. Invited you to speak on a radio station. You least time to speak on. But you can't just demonstrate on public fairways, block traffic, disrupt people's lives. And as such, I don't think anybody should be allowed to march in streets and parks. So anyway, and, and therefore I don't see how it makes sense for objectives to do it. Now I have other objections to objectives during demonstrations. I just don't see the point. I think it's bad marketing. I think it's too soon. Too few of us. So even if, if you can legitimately do it, let's do a big rally at the, like, like one of Donald Trump's rallies and 35 people show up. Right. I mean, if you're going to do a big rally in on private property to make a point, then you've got to, you know, make a point. And the only way to make a point is if you can be on numbers and do numbers reflect truth in any way, the numbers are numbers. They're meaningful. It could be a PR thing. It could be a PR thing. Yeah. I mean, tea party protests with demonstrations to the extent that they went into the streets, they blocked traffic. You could make the case. The demonstrations against the government in places like Washington DC are okay. Or in state capitals on a state issue are okay. In a sense, if you think about the mall in Washington DC, it's almost built for that. Right. It's got that big space and you're standing in front of Congress and you're shaking your fist at Congress. We did that in the big tea party demonstration in DC in 2009, where I was I was one of the speakers. So again, I don't think you have the right to demonstrate. I don't think people should be demonstrating. I don't think objectively should be demonstrating. I don't think the fundamental activity that is going to generate an objective is revolution is demonstration. I think the fundamental activity is education, education, education. How we educate, what we used to educate. You don't educate through sound bites. You do marketing. You don't educate through demonstrations. You don't educate through numbers. You have to make an argument. You write books. You write articles. You give speeches. You give talks. You, yeah, you do some social media, but the social media is primarily to get people to your talks and your books and your, and your intellectual content. We are an intellectual movement. Now, when the day comes when we have to have a physical revolution, when we have to take up arms against the government, then yeah, then you take up arms against the government and try stopping us. But that's not demonstration. And that's not there. So, you know, so I ran road about this when the Nazis wanted to march in in Skopje. And in the end, she came, her point was this, you shouldn't allow demonstrations. If you allow demonstrations, you have to allow the Nazis to demonstrate. So once you allow demonstrations on public property, you should, you have to allow the Nazis to demonstrate. People you don't like to demonstrate as well. You can't discriminate once you allow it. So, so I think that once we allow demonstrations, and we do, then, you know, we should allow the Nazis to demonstrate as well. But the whole idea, I mean, think of the police. This is not what the police should be doing. This is a point Ankar emphasized to me, and I think he's absolutely right. This is not activity that police should be doing. You're putting the police in harm's way for what, to protect a bunch of Nazis. That's not their job. Again, the Nazis have a right to free speech on their private property in their radio shows, but they don't have a right to force themselves into my face when I'm going around shopping because it happens to be a public road. So think of the position you place the police in, and the police are being criticized, and I criticize the police. And I think you have to, because once you allow demonstrations, it's a police job to keep the peace. But now they have to defend Antifa. They have to defend Nazis. I mean, that's a horrible position to put police in. I love the police. And I don't want to put them in positions where they have to do this, like the drug war. You don't want to put, you know, you don't want to put police in a position where they are forced to enforce irrational laws, because only bad things are going to happen. And this is the case, this is the case in, now, it's true. Bookly, it's semi-private property. Bookly gets to decide what to do on its property. Assume it was a private university. They can allow demonstrations on private property. But then they have to be liable for the outcome, and they have to police it properly. And they have to be responsible. So it's campus police has to be engaged. So on-call enlightened me, and I wanted to enlighten you. I'm against protests. And suddenly, I'm against objectivist protests, even though I have to admit I participated in one, which was the Ilya protests. So at the end of the day, I just don't think they do much good. And again, the phenomena of protest is a phenomena of obstruction. It's a phenomena of rights violation. You know, you're violating my rights by blocking my ability to pass through, to go about my daily business. The quote about the Nazis is in, I think, the column. They end in column or it's in a letter. But it used to be in the lexicon, but for some reason right now it's not in the lexicon. I don't know how that happened. But it was in the lexicon. Let's shift topics. Let me take this question from Clifton. I am mostly objectivist, but is it okay to believe in a higher power? God, a non-interventionist God, kind of like deism. I was raised a milk toast presbyterian, not evangelical. So a moderate belief in divinity, but not an act of divinity. You were raised Jewish. So how do you reconcile your childhood religion with objectivism? I ask this in good faith and pondering. So look, you're asking me if it's okay to believe? Yeah, I mean, you have to answer that question on me. It's not compatible with objectivism. You cannot believe in a divinity and have a completely integrated, completely committed view of objectivism. Because objectivism rejects faith. It rejects that which there is no evidence for. And God can only be believed in through faith. There is no evidence for God. There certainly is no proof for God, but there's not even evidence for God. There's nothing. It requires sheer, blind faith. So we are advocates for reason. You can't reason God because, again, there's no evidence. Reason requires evidence. So to be an objectivist, fully integrated, fully committed with a complete understanding, you have to abandon religion in all its forms, even its deist form. Now, having said that, I still think you can hold a lot of good things from objectivism and still believe in God. And I know a lot of people who do. Again, I don't think it's right. I don't think it's good. I don't think it's objectivist, but it's better than nothing, right? It's better than just being religious. So whatever you can take from objectivism, whatever you can integrate from objectivism, whatever you can understand in objectivism, and if emotionally you can't give up on God or whatever, right? It's still going to make your life better at the margin. It's still going to make you better. Now, I think at some point you're going to have to resolve the contradiction. But I know a lot of people who sign the emails to me Christian objectivist. Now, I think that's a contradiction in terms that I don't think you can be a Christian objectivist. But I'd rather there be some people out there in the world who are Christian objectivists than everybody be a Christian Christian. That is a little bit of objectivism can go a long way. And partially is your kids are going to be more open to objectivism because your view of religion is going to be more mild and less significant and you're going to teach them more positive values from objectivism. So that's my view. But it's not. You cannot integrate God into objectivism as a system of philosophy where everything is integrated into everything else. And you're putting something in that is not integratable. So here's a question. So here's a question. Somebody I know from swing dancing has turned out to be not just a communist but a Stalin apologist. He once said the gulags I assume deserve the kulaks. The kulaks deserved worse. What if anything should I do? It's painful to even see him a dancer. But I don't want to give up this activity I love. I mean, I don't think you should give up the activity, but I think you should stay away from him. And you should shun him. And you should make it known to him and to anybody else you interact with that you shun him. You should just have nothing to do with a person like that. That's so evil. That's such an evasion. I mean, assuming he's an intelligent educated person and the fact that he knows what the kulaks deserves suggest he is or didn't deserve. Yeah, you can't have any kind of relationship with a person like that, in my view. Just one more point to Clifton's issue about my Judaism. So I was raised Judaism, you know, in various periods of my life, more strictly religious than other periods of life, more secular and less religious. But I became an atheist at a very young age, somewhere between six and seven. I just, you know, in a sense woke up one morning and said, this is nonsense. And I'm not going to believe this anymore. And that was it. And it was gone. And never. I mean, really, honestly, because I've told you when I make mistakes and I acknowledge my errors and my ignorance and my stuff. Never have I questioned that fact. So never has religion ever been tempting in any kind of way for me. So that that is just I don't get it. I don't get the need for it. I don't get how you can integrate it with how you can be. I can be rational in so much of your life and yet need this in some way. It's just, it's just, I don't get it. Right. Psychologically, philosophically, I just don't understand it. Okay, let's look for some questions here. If somebody is able-bodied, young, depressed person, able-bodied, young, depressed, not in prison, determined, ill. Is it right to use force to restrain this person if he attempts suicide? Up to a point. Right. Up to a point. So because so many people change their mind about suicide and suicide is obviously irreversible in a way that nothing else in life is. I think just like you would use force on somebody. Let's say somebody is walking the street and the truck is coming in and going to run him over and you pull him out of the way. You're using force on him, but that's not initiation of force. I would do the same thing to prevent a person from committing suicide the first time. But if somebody is committed to it, if somebody really wants to commit suicide, I would not stop them the second time. And I think people have a right to commit suicide. But certainly if you're an innocent bystander and somebody looks like to talk him out of it, but even use force to prevent him once. But if this is the second time somebody is really interested in ending their life, certainly you shouldn't prevent them from doing it. And yeah, you know, and I don't know if somebody said that 100% of survivors jumping off Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco say they regretted it on the way down. I didn't know anybody survived that jump or the cold water once they got down at the down into the ocean. Wow, to survive that jump. That's that's something is academia a feasible first career aspiration for young driven students. I definitely think it's feasible. You know, and I think it's desirable if you're so inclined. But you have to understand the work it entails the price that it takes on your psychology on your on your life on, you know, the kind of experiences you have. And you have to be willing to put up with it and you have to be willing to put up with a lot of irrationality, a lot of colleagues that are that are, you know, adherence to philosophies that you will abhor. You're going to have to be judged by people you don't respect. So it's hard. It's hard. But once you get 10 you can do what you want. And, and I think you'll learn a lot and if you go into it with the right attitude, then I think you have an opportunity really learn a lot and actually find colleagues who are decent. Find the things that you can actually learn, not focus on the negatives but focus on the positives and I think you can. I think you can benefit from it tremendously. So I don't know the people who go into academia that I know I don't think regretted it. And so I would ask this question to Greg Salamieri and Ben Bear and uncle God say, you know, and they're all doing a lot, a lot with what they studied, right? They might not be tenured track faculty members at some top university, but they're doing a lot with the knowledge that they gained and the skills that they gained by going through academia and you do learn things. You learn things from studying philosophers you don't agree with you have to study philosophers, you don't agree with if you're going to study philosophy. And confronting colleagues who you disagree with. So generally, absolutely, I think it's a it's a legitimate first career and and a valid first career and a possible first career and potentially an enjoy. I mean, I was an academic and it was it was tough. There were parts of it that were tough and I had to study for exams that I thought was stupid. I had to tolerate classes where I thought the professor was it was was an idiot. But you know, I got through it. And at the end of the day, you know, but in any job in any profession, you have to tolerate people you don't like. And sometimes your boss is a joke. So OK, you said we should declare war on radical Islamic totalitarianism. Should we declare war on white supremacist terrorists now that they're killing people and encouraging it? No, you don't declare war on a on somebody internally. This is not a police. This is not a military issue. This is a police issue. It's criminal to incite for violence. It's criminal to organize and and plan violent activities. And the police should take these threats seriously and, you know, infiltrate some of these movements and monitor them and do what it does. Like with other potentially violent things like I don't know, organized crime and other things. But this is a police action that, you know, internally you don't declare war. So if all the Muslims lived in the United States, then it wouldn't be a war with them. It would be a police action against those who are. I mean, unless there's a revolution and then and then the army gets involved, but it's not a revolution. These are just and it's a small group at this point. And the same is true on the left. These are relatively the ones that are using violence are relatively small groups. They have large groups of people who are apologists for them, particularly on the left. And unfortunately, on the right on the on the right, it's people in power, but that are often apologists for them. But it's a small group that is actually violent and the police can handle them. And it's not. I don't see it as a problem. I think the police are probably doing a lot. They might now need to do more. But I'm sure that I'm sure the police and the FBI are monitoring racist websites and alt-right chat groups and going to their meetings and collecting names and doing things like that. That's what these people do, right? What extent should websites that people that people like Dylan Roof read be censored or prosecuted unless they explicitly inciting for violence? They have free speech. You know, just like we allow people who are. We have a communist, this guy from the dancing group who's a communist. The same that we have people who are Nazis or fascists. As long as they're not inciting for violence or committing violence, they have a right to hold and distribute those ideas. And, you know, some ideas I think are going to be regulated, if you will, by Google and YouTube. You might not like it when they do it because they might choose our ideas as well. But as long as they're going after Nazis, I don't have any problem with that. I think it's completely legitimate for a private company to say certain ideas are unacceptable to us. And as long as that's consistent with their shareholders, that's fine. And the idea that some people have, that the government should step in and force YouTube to monetize my videos is ridiculous. One of the reasons YouTube won't monetize my videos on terrorism is because advertisers don't want to advertise on my shows about terrorism. It's not even YouTube's decision. It's the advertiser's decision. Now you want to tell advertisers they have to advertise on shows they disagree with? Really? Is that what we want to go in America? So I find people taking positions, people who call themselves objective, are taking positions that I find very strange. We should regulate these. We should nationalize them. We should force them to allow all points of view. I mean, I shouldn't say that completely because I, in Rand, believed that in radio and television at the time, there was legitimacy to having equal because everything was such a mess, right? I actually don't see the need today for that. If YouTube and Google don't allow me, then I will find venture capitalists to fund a competitor that will give us a voice. These are not the things that concern me. And the fact that they are banning Nazis, I wouldn't want Nazis on a platform I created. And I would do a lot more to ban Islamists. I would do a lot more to ban Islamists to ban the Islamic totalitarians. I would do a lot more to ban them. Not, again, not from the government as much as from these private entities. If the government declared war, then it could do a lot of things. War on the Islamists, where it's organized, it's funded, there's governments behind it. There's no government behind the neo-Nazis in America or behind the KKK. There's no way to go to war against. You don't actually go to war against an ideology. You go to war against its representatives. And war is against countries. So you have to go to war with Saudi Arabia and Iran. You have to go to war against the representatives of this ideology. So you can't go to war against an ideology internal to your own country. Okay, let me just take these two last two questions. And then I want to give you a positive recommendation, positive value recommendation. People like those. Anthem was my first novel of Ayn Rand and I read at a young age. It is such a powerful short novel. Why is it not promoted? More often compared to Adler Shrugged and Founded. That's just not true. I mean, Anthem is heavily promoted. Primarily the young adults, primarily the high school kids. It's our biggest essay contest by far is the Anthem essay contest. We distribute more Anthem books. The high school teachers to teach through our books to teachers program than Fountain and Adler Shrugged combined. Now, we don't talk a lot about Anthem and we don't. Oh, by the way, there's a whole course on Anthem on ALI campus. So all of that is evidence that we actually emphasize Anthem a lot. I will say this. Anthem is less philosophical. There's this philosophical content in it. There's still a lot, but there's less. As compared to Adler Shrugged suddenly and even to the Fountain hit. Okay, last one. I've forgotten what or if Rand said anything specific about the demarcation between philosophy and science. She did. I mean, but I can't, but I'm not going to tell you exactly what it is. Let me find the answer to that and get back to you. But yeah, she absolutely did and there is a clear demarcation. And then there's of course the physical sciences and the human sciences. But philosophy is the science that studies the fundamentals. Studies the fundamentals that make science possible. The fundamentals that make everything else possible. So it asks the question of what is knowledge? Until you answer the question of what is knowledge, you can't do science. So philosophy studies the questions that needs to be answered so you can do the sciences across the room. But she had a, there is a better answer to that and a finer answer to that. Just a couple of recommendations. I'm going to make this quick. This has been a long session. I just noticed that in Orange County there's a play being put on and I don't know if this particular plays any good. This particular performance of it is any good. I'm going to try and go see it in October. But the play is excellent and the movie based on the play is brilliant. And it's called 12 Angry Men. It's an old movie. There are two versions. There are two versions. There's a newer version and an old movie. Definitely watch the old version. The version made in the 50s with Henry Fonda. And it's got a bunch of very famous actors whose names I don't have in front of me right now. But Henry Fonda is in it. And if you want a movie about epistemology, if you want a movie about epistemology, this is it. I mean, it's about what is evidence? What is proof? How do we know what we know? What is certainty? How do we achieve certainty? How do you convince somebody else that they're wrong? Fascinating. And it integrates that with psychology because the movie is a jury. It's a play, really, because it's all filmed in one room. And it's a jury. And I think it's a motor case. And the kid is, I think, a Hispanic kid. And, yeah, it's... Greg mentions on the chat, Greg Salimieri mentions that he uses this movie to teach intro philosophy classes. And I can see why. I can see why. This is a great movie to show the importance of epistemology and the importance of evidence and facts and knowledge. But it's also really good psychologically. So what you have is a motor case. And the whole movie is in the courtroom, not in the courtroom, in the jury room. 12 angry men, 12 men, right? 12 men. And the first vote, I think, when they have to vote on innocence and guilty, 11 voting guilty and one innocent. And the guy who votes innocent kind of says, look, I'm not convincing he's innocent. But I think we should discuss it. I think we should think about it. I don't think we should... We shouldn't just jump to conclusions here. Let's think about it. Everybody else is convinced. They're absolutely convinced. Let's just do it. We're all convinced we want to get home. And each one has a different personality. And each one has a different psychology. And each one relates to the facts in a different way. So you can get their particular, if you will, psychopistemology. And the Henry Fonda character says, wait a minute. I'm not sure the kid is guilty. I'm not sure he's not. But I want to think about this. And I want to really look at the evidence. And I want us to discuss it. And I want it to integrate it. And I want to really think it through. And it's really terrific. And the conflicts and how the people come around to different positions. And how they argue and convince each other and so on. And how... I mean, it's relevant to today because some of them are racist or biased in certain ways. And maybe not even... Some of the... I think one of them is a racist, but others are more biased. So the kid's Hispanic. So that influences them somewhat. It's really, really, really a good drama. It's... Yeah, I'm really glad Greg teaches it in Intro to Philosophy class. It just fits perfectly. I used to use movies in some of my finance classes. I'll tell you which ones one day. There's another... There are very few movies. Very few movies whose theme is epistemological. Very few movies whose theme is epistemological. That's one. The only other one I can think of right now is The Miracle Worker. Which is one of my top five movies or top ten movies or whatever of all time. It's just a brilliant movie in so many respects because it's wonderful, beautifully acted. And it deals with what is... Concept formations, what is knowledge? How do we attain knowledge? The role of the senses. And it's so emotionally satisfying but wrenching. And I don't know if you know the story, but it's about a girl who can't see and can't hear. So she doesn't have the sense of sight or the sense of hearing. And she's formed really no concepts and she acts like an animal. And she has no ideas and she can't really get into it in any kind of sense. And then she gets a teacher, it's based on the true story. And on a play. And she gets a teacher and actually... I don't know, I heard an interview with the actress who plays the kid. Who plays the child who's deaf and blind and of course can't speak. I just heard an interview with her which was fascinating because she also played her on stage. And she won the Oscar as a child actress. She won the Oscar for it. And it's a real story of Ellen Keller and it's just a terrific story. And it's a beautiful movie and the acting is just amazing. So one of my favorite movies. Those two are my favorite kind of epistemological movies. I think Inherit the Wind is also deals with epistemology but it deals more with the ridiculous nature of religion. I don't know, I just don't get the same... I love the movie. One of my favorites. One of my top movies. But it just doesn't jump to me as an epistemological movie in the same way as Miracle Work and 12 Agri Men do. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should see it again. So I'd recommend those two. And I know some of you really like my classical music recommendations. I know a lot of you don't like it. I know that a lot of you don't like these positive value segments because a lot of you drop off on blog talking. You can tell when people drop off and everybody drops off once I start talking about this. So I thought I'd just recommend a composer who I think is pretty well known. But if you're just getting into classical music, then Brahms. Brahms is an amazing composer. A romantic composer. Just everything he wrote is good. Everything. Everything he wrote is good. And some of what he wrote is sublime. It's just out of this world. And he saw I would recommend his two piano concertos piano concerto one and two. I would recommend his violin concerto. He's got a double concerto for I can't show violin and cello something like that. And then he has a symphony is a fantastic my favorite symphony of his. If you really want to get into a real romantic symphony gets swept away is his fourth symphony. Symphony number four only wrote four. So his fourth but all of them are good. And his first is probably his most famous. My favorite is his fourth. I also love his chamber music. His chamber music is magnificent. His trios piano trios are just sublime is his sonatas for piano and violin. Amazing. So so Brahms, you know, expand your horizons. We've done Tchaikovsky. We've done Rachmaninoff Brahms. There's a lot. There's a lot of composers. I would just say this almost anything written in the 19th century, particularly middle. Right. Towards, you know, I don't know from 1820. From from Beethoven from Beethoven on up until, I don't know, Mahler, Wagner. So so Mahler is hard. I still like Mahler, but it's hard. Wagner is hard. I still like Wagner, but he's hard. But anything before Mahler and Wagner Brahms is in it. Brahms is anything between Beethoven and Brahms. Everything between Beethoven and Brahms is amazing. Anything between Beethoven and Brahms is enjoyable. I mean, there's just amazing music. And then in the late 19th century, early 20th century, there's a lot of really, really good stuff. A lot of really, really good, good music as well. But there you have to, there you're running a risk. You can't just automatically listen to something because it could be awful. And sometimes, and sometimes it is. But anything between Beethoven and Brahms is going to be enjoyable. Anything. Mark Twain once said, according to Josh points out, Mark Twain once said that Wagner is better than it sounds. And there's a sense in which that's, I mean, that's a pun, right? Sounds better. Whatever, right? Because Wagner is sound. It is better than it sounds. It better than it sounds the first time. There's certain composers that you have to listen to more than once to gain appreciation for. Wagner is one of them. Mahler is another one of them. You have to listen many times. The melodies are very complex and they're just hard to follow. But they are truly beautiful. A lot of their music is fantastic and sublime. All right. Thanks, everybody. I hope you enjoyed some of my ramblings on some of these issues. If I said anything wrong, then please don't blame I in Rand. It's all my fault. And those of you who know more than me, if I said anything wrong, please correct me. All right. Have a great day. Have a great week. I am off to Chicago tomorrow. And then actually the next, let me just say this, the next Living Objectivism podcast or show will be from Europe. So I will be leaving for Europe on Sunday and spending three weeks in Europe. So I expect to do shows from wonderful places like Tbilisi, Baku. That will be an interesting one. Baku, Paris, maybe, yeah, definitely Vienna, Copenhagen, and Kiev. So that'll be the list of my shows. And many of those will be Living Objectivism. And I'll tell you a little bit of my travels, what's going on, what I'm doing. I'm not sure those will be on Facebook. I might have to rely there on Blog Talk Radio. I don't want to see, but hopefully we'll do them with both platforms. All right. Thank you all. Thanks all for listening. Thanks for following me. Follow me on Twitter. Follow me on Facebook and share, share, share. The only thing that counts on social media is sharing. If you want the show to grow on social media and everywhere else, please share it. All right. Good night, everybody. I will talk to you soon.