 This topic that I sent to Joe was, I thought, the other socialisms kind of a nice ring to it, I think, the other socialisms. The reason I sent this topic to Joe was that for years I taught a course that I created, a new course at Loyola University where I used to teach called Capitalism and its Critics. And it was my way of getting some Austrian economics into the curriculum because they wouldn't go for a course called Austrian Economics, but I sort of did an end run around it. And I got the idea from James Q. Wilson, the famous political scientist, the late James Q. Wilson. He taught a course with the same title at Harvard Business School and then UCLA when he moved to UCLA. And he sent me a syllabus and it was a real heavy duty like the first week of the class you read the wealth of nations. And then the second week you read Das Kapital, all three volumes, Harvard Business School. But my course was not nearly that intense, but it was the same same idea. And so I had, so I had, you know, the beginning of it, I had socialism by von Mises, you know, the calculation debate and I would have the good guys and the bad guys. I would have them read parts of Marx and I put the whole communist manifesto and the syllabus and then topic after topic, you know, as it went on. And so after I covered, you know, the calculation debate and the great debates over socialism in the 20th century, the early 20th century, and the students I thought had a good handle on that, I moved on to other types of socialism. And the first type, you know, I looked at it chronologically and I thought, well, fascism was the next thing to come along. You know, once you get past, you know, Mises in the early days and the calculation, the early days of the calculation debate, then you had fascism to deal with and Hayek, Hayek wrote a good bit on that topic for a long time. He originally wrote an article in 1933, an essay called Nazi Socialism. And so I thought my students ought to know what fascism was. And it was kind of funny because I would spend a couple of classes on this and I would give them all these readings and they just could not get it through their head that fascism was fascism as the fascists described it because they had been taught that people like me were fascists and it just didn't compute. You know, they'd been hammered into their brains that me, Ron Paul, Lou Rockwell, Mises Institute, that's what fascism is. And I can still envision these young students coming up to me after about three classes on this topic and having them read all this. You know, what is fascism anyway? They just couldn't get through their heads. Anyway, Hayek wrote this essay in 1933 called Nazi Socialism. He said this, the socialist character of National Socialism, the Nazi National Socialism of Nazi movement, has been quite generally unrecognized. German businessmen who supported the Nazi party were incredibly short-sighted for they did not recognize the pervasive anti-capitalism that was at the heart of National Socialism. It kind of reminds me of current American businessmen who think they can be in bed with the government and there are no negative consequences ever in accepting subsidies and favors like that. And Hayek also further noted that the Nazi policy platform, and part of my reading list for this course was you can look it up on the web, just Google, I think it's the 1920, 25-point program of the Nazi party. You can find it on the web, you can find it on your phone. That was part of the reading list. If you want to know what Nazism was about, what they claimed to be about, what fascism, that version of fascism, well, there you have it. It's right there. And so Hayek noted about this. He said there was, quote, full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. The dominant feature was a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic. Individual profit-seeking, large-scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, international finance, loan capital, lending, bank lending, and the system of what they called interest slavery. Those were all words from this 25-point program of the Nazi party. And Hayek called the Nazi policy program a, quote, violent anti-capitalistic attack. And he goes on to say it is not even denied that many of the young men who today play a prominent part in the previous, had previously been communists or socialists. He wrote that in 1933 in Hayek did. And the common characteristic of all the German journalists at the time, he said, who supported the Nazis, quote, was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend, anti-liberal. Get the book Liberalism. It's for sale out here and it's also online. Misi's famous book Liberalism, explaining what classical liberalism is, probably a need of a rewrite today and maybe in a booklet form. I actually proposed that to Regnery Publishing, a version of liberalism, a modern day updated version of it, written for the millennial generation to go along with my socialism book. But they thought it was too academic sounding. They didn't go for it. But I still think there's a real need for your generation. I'm not a pair. He's over the hill. But I'm looking at the young students here to learn about these things. My students at Loyola, didn't I? Every year I would ask the class of upper-class economic students, at some point in your education, have you ever been asked to read the U.S. Constitution? And I'd always get zero, zero response. Nobody even bothered, let alone understanding the whole idea of limited government and so forth. Well, beginning back to Hayek in fascism, he goes on to say, all of the leading men of Italian and German fascism from Mussolini downward began as socialists and ended as fascists or Nazis. And of course, the German socialists called themselves national socialists to distinguish themselves from the Russian socialists who were international socialists. But they were all socialists. They all called themselves socialists. How the Nazi became equated with capitalists is probably because of the economic system, was they did allow private enterprise to exist, but it was controlled by the government. And they at least understood that they needed some kind of profit incentive to produce all those tanks and bombers and ammunition and all that, armaments and so forth. Okay, to go on to Mussolini. Mussolini himself, he wrote a book called Fascism, Doctrine and Institutions. And it was always kind of fun walking around campus when I was doing research on fascism. I was thinking of writing a book on it and I was carrying around these books, all these books on fascism. And so the other faculty at the university probably thought, well, naturally, there's Dealerinza walking around carrying books on fascism. He's probably thinking of using that next semester as his main textbook. But in his book he said, the fascist, this is Mussolini, no longer Hayek, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the state and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with the state. So you're only accepted as an individual if you agree with the state. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Today's US government, it is opposed to classical liberalism, which denied the state in the name of the individual. So he's right out there. They knew what classical liberalism was. Misi's book that's right around on the other side of this wall, liberalism, it's a frontal attack by Mussolini on those ideas in that book. They understood that they had to destroy those ideas first. In terms of destructionism that I talked about yesterday, that was the key target of destructionism, the ideas of classical liberalism, according to Mussolini himself. Who wrote, by the way, he wrote his autobiography, which I also read once upon a time. It sounds like the kind of assignment you might give to a third grader. Like, okay, kids, we're going to write, I know you're only eight or nine years old, but we're going to write a one-page autobiography and you give it a name. You give it a title. And Mussolini's autobiography was titled My Autobiography. Something like a nine-year-old would write an assignment. Anyway, My Autobiography. Well, he went on to say, but he was a pretty smart guy. And he was educated. And he said, that was probably because his speechwriter was an American, the American ambassador to Italy was his speechwriter. And he was kind of a dunce. And I think he ghost-wrote the autobiography. Mussolini said, the maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be a conformity with nature's plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to sacrifice the individual. So he's thinking of these animals like, what kind of animal can you think of that they mate and then they die a minute later? Like bees or something? Some kind of bees that you see on the Discovery Channel, special in Africa, something like that. That's what humans should be like. And he decried the classical liberal ideas to be dead. And he said, if the 19th century was the century of the individual, and then in parentheses he wrote, liberalism applies individualism, we are free to believe that this is the collective century. It's certainly true about that 20th century. And therefore the century of the state. If classical liberalism spells individualism, fascism spells government. That should all sound kind of familiar to you, shouldn't it? Okay. And so that's Mussolini. And he went on to bemoan the selfish pursuit of material prosperity. Fascism is a reaction against what he called the flaccid materialistic conception of happiness and said reject the economistic literature of the 18th century. And I presumably was referring to Adam Smith. Now as far as individualism goes, you should remember that in the first chapter of the road to serfdom, Hayek addresses this, there's a whole chapter on individualism. He says, all it is, all it means, all it ever meant was respect for the individual as a human being. That's all. It doesn't mean you advocate people living alone as individuals in an atomistic society and not cooperating with anybody else. It simply means human respect for other human beings as fellow human beings. End of story. That's what Hayek says in the first chapter. And so all of these socialists have rejected this because there are some human beings who don't deserve respect. They aren't there according to the fascists and the communists. We need to manipulate them. When I was, years ago when I got into all this fascist literature and I read all these books, I was thinking of writing a book on it and I never got around to writing the book on it. But I did write a Wall Street Journal article. It was when the Clinton health plan was being debated years ago. Before Obamacare, there was a push to create something called Hillary care when Clinton became president. And all during the campaign, they kept talking health care, health care, health care, health care, but they had no details whatsoever of what they wanted to do with health care. And then after he was in, Clinton gave his first State of the Union speech where he laid it out. He said, this is what we're going to do. And he said, well, there are going to be seven political appointees that are going to be in charge of different aspects of the medical care system. You know, there's one will be in charge of medical schools than the nursing schools and the medical technologies are. Seven political appointees. And then we're going to, we're going to create these sort of in industry level organizations, government organizations that will run the medical schools and will run the nursing schools and we're running a new government bureaucracies. And when I sat there listening to Clinton's speech, it sounded familiar. I heard this before. And where I heard it before was it was almost identical to the way in which Mussolini organized Italian industry into cooperatives. There was an insurance cooperative, a steel industry cooperative, you know, on and on and on. So I wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. They gave it the title, Clinton Health Plan Salutes Italy's Past. And I quoted all these fascist authors, like the ones I just, some of them that I just mentioned, explaining what a great idea this would be to organize medical care this way. And then in the last paragraph, I revealed who I was quoting. I didn't say who they were. It's just some Italian guy, you know, on the top. And it was, you know, all Mussolini's buddies that were saying this. And Clinton got Franco Modigliani, the Nobel Prize-winning economist to try to out-Italian me in the letters column. He wrote a letter to the editor and he said, Bill Clinton will not make the same mistake that Mussolini did. Mussolini's mistake is he delegated too much power. Bill Clinton is not going to make that mistake. And so all of our friends ganged on. The journal at the time, the editorial page, I think, was run by John Fund who had worked at the Cato Institute. So he published a barrage of letters, ridiculing and making fun of Modigliani for saying these things. And that was a lot of fun. So all this reading of all these books on fascism kind of paid off. And I had a little fun with the Wall Street Journal as far as that goes. Okay, now, German, the German National Socialism, there's a book called Three Years of World Revolution by German author Paul Lynch about German fascism. It says pretty much the same things that similar to Mussolini did. He condemns the English liberalism. He used the word English liberalism as a classical embodiment which was adopted by the spokesman of the German bourgeoisie in the 50s, 60s, and 70s of the 19th century. So he's saying that liberalism, the Missessian liberalism was alive and well in Germany in the 1850s, 60s, and 70s. And that was a bad thing. He was saying German libertarianism, German liberalism was a bad thing. It must be destroyed, says Paul Lynch. He says these standards are old fashioned. Freedom, freedom is old fashioned. Freedom, schmiedem. What has to be done now is to get rid of these inherited political ideas and to assist in the growth of a new conception of the state and society. And this fear also, socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism. And then of course, the Nazi program, as I mentioned, the 25 point program, I already mentioned some of the things in that. And one of my favorite quotes from Hitler himself in Mein Kampf, he says, the Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities as such. It's pretty much saying, you know, or people are kind of dumb. You know, they're not the greatest in mental qualities. But what they're really great at, he said, is in the extent of his willingness to put his, all his abilities in the service of the community, he willingly subordinates his own ego to the community. And if the hour demands even sacrifices it. He's willing to die for the community. But even though he's kind of dumb, I guess you'd have to be kind of dumb, right, to sacrifice for the community. So he was right about that. And so I'll leave it there as far as the Nazi program. I mentioned that if you were to look it up, you'll find that much of it is very similar to the Roosevelt's New Deal as far as that's concerned. And so, you know, as far as other socialisms are concerned, fascism is another socialism. All the 20th century fascists started out, including Mussolini as socialists. They always called themselves socialist, national socialism. And it's just a slight variation in my view of socialism. And I recommend Lou Rockwell's book on fascism and capitalism. I assume it's for sale, isn't it, Lou? It's at the Mises Institute here. And among others. And the next thing I had my students look at, you know, we went through the great calculation debates and all that. And then I had them study fascism a little bit. Then cultural Marxism. I read some of the literature of cultural Marxism. And among the authors there are the famous Antonio Gromsky, Lukak, which is spelled L-U-K-A-C-S, Herbert Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Brecht. These are all names of the so-called cultural Marxists. And these were academics. These were Marxists in Europe who were disappointed and upset that the Marxist revolutions didn't really catch on. The working class didn't really want to take control of factories and run them. All they wanted was better wages and working conditions. They didn't want to destroy society and have some sort of utopian world. And so they were upset about that. So they started their own institute. It was originally called the Institute for Marxism. But I suspect their PR person told them better cool it with the Marxism because the world knows now that Stalin is the people in the name of Marxism and maybe you don't want to be associated with that. So they changed the name to the Institute for Social Research. And this is the Frankfurt School. It's the famous Frankfurt School, as it was known. And basically some of the key ideas are Gromsky himself, the Italian. He was known for the long march to the institutions, indicating no violent revolution, take over all the institutions of society, which they pretty much have today. And so you must essentially destroy these existing institutions and then run them yourselves in a different way, including the universities, the media, publishing, movies, religion, family, national sovereignty. These are all targets of the early cultural Marxists who came about, we're talking the 1940s when they became prominent, they came to the United States. Some of them fled Nazi Germany and ended up getting prestigious positions at Columbia and in schools, Ivy League schools. And many of them eventually moved, they moved to Santa Barbara, California in the 50s. And you can imagine how beautiful Santa Barbara must have been in the 50s before all the population and the pollution and everything. And they were just miserable people who hated everything about American society. They're living in Santa Barbara, they have well-paying academic jobs, they can write whatever they want to write, they get publishing contracts, they're getting invited to give speeches at the Ivy League schools all the time, and they just hate life. They just, everything they wrote was, they hate consumerism, they hate Americans, they hate just everything. You know, criticize, criticize, criticize. And that's why they created critical theory. Yeah, that's what critical theory is and critical theory is why you have all these university majors with the word studies in them. You know, if a major has the word studies, you know it's a bunch of BS. Pretty much a socialist BS, you know. Some of you, I told my class that and some young lady in the back said, well my major has the word studies in it. And I didn't, I don't know if, it was maybe it opened her eyes a little bit to what she was taking out there. But that's what this comes from. There was a left-wing lawyer, I taught in a business school, it was run by Jesuits, so they hired 10 or 12 left-wing lawyers to make sure that the students did learn too much about markets and capitalism. And as one, she created a new course called critical theory. And this was probably 20 years ago. And I asked her, what's the intellectual background? Is it philosophy? What is sociology? And she just said, no, we just criticize people like you. Which is true. And so over the years she produced all these students and all they knew how to do was complain. The other professors, not just me, but the other professors, they would talk about these kids and they'd just complain about everything. And they didn't know how to structure an argument, they couldn't debate. They didn't know how to debate intelligently or they had real trouble following the logic of economic theory. But they complained about everything and they thought they were educated because they complained about it. That's what critical theory, at least that that institution turned out to be. It's probably a little more high-brow than other institutions, but this woman's class apparently wasn't very rigorous. So they decided they needed a new class theory. The old Marxian class theory didn't work out too well. The working class didn't want to violent revolutions in Europe. And so the Marxian class theory of the conflict between the working class and the capitalist class had to be replaced. So the new theory basically is the oppressor class versus the oppressed. And the oppressor class is basically white heterosexual males and the oppressed is everybody else. That's the way I see it. I'm not the only one that sees it that way. If you just look around the world and read what they say, that's pretty much what the new class warfare is. And their thinking was, well, the working class is not enough. It's not enough votes or not enough people to get our socialist revolution. We need more than just the people in the factories. And so if you break it down this way, the oppressors and the oppressed, well, then we can convince all women that they're oppressed. All minorities are oppressed, all, then, everybody, every group that you can categorize people into that you're being oppressed by the white supremacists as they tell us all day long, every day now in the United States, day in and day out, if you disagree with them. As I said in my talk yesterday, I was reading the news in the morning before I left and there's a whoopee Goldberg, this hideous woman on TV, calling 500 young conservative students at their conference in DC, Nazis. There's name calling, Nazis. They have armbands, they have swastika armbands down there as they listened to all the speakers at this Turning Point USA conference. So they invented a new class theory and they invented critical theory, which has swept the universities and they also wanted to, part of their theory was, one of the reasons why, among the reasons why they had trouble with Marxist revolutions in Europe was that people were too attached to Christianity, too attached to Western civilization, which is a broad topic, and too attached to family, the nuclear family. And so that, in my opinion, is why you see the founders of Black Lives Matter who call themselves trained Marxists, right in their literature on their website, say, destroying the nuclear family as one of their objectives, that's what they want to do. And so you see that sort of thing, the attacks on religion. And so they understood that, you know, if people are too attached to religion and see God as their savior, well, then government cannot be their savior. You only have one savior. You don't want a competing savior. You need us to be your savior. And so hence the attacks on religion, especially Christianity. Okay, Western civilization, everything we see in today's world is an attack on some aspect of Western civilization. When they had the riots in the U.S. two years ago, I was still working in Baltimore, and one of the very first statues they pulled down was the one of Christopher Columbus in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore. They threw it in the water, in the Columbus statue. It's in the Little Italy section of Baltimore. And they've torn down the Jefferson statue, the Lincoln statue, and they've gone after him because he didn't treat the Indians very well. That's what I've read anyway, that he executed 38 Sioux Indians after it. And there was a Sioux uprising because the U.S. government once again shafted the Indians. They took 400 acres of their land. They didn't pay for it. And the Indians didn't like that. And so they waged war and they hanged through it. And apparently, the lefties got wind of that. And so now they're tearing down Lincoln statues for that. So they wanted to, a part of the argument also is to destroy traditional sexual morals because that would be a way of destroying Christianity. And so that's a lot of what you see today in that regard. It was written in the 1940s as sort of the game plan. To go about this. And free speech must be destroyed. And this is a result of Herbert Marcuse's now famous essay called Repressive Tolerance, where he argued that free speech is a tool of the oppressor class to keep down the oppressed. And therefore only the oppressed deserve to have free speech. So if someone like myself or Tom Wood, let's say, shows up on a college campus and there's a riot and he set the buildings on fire and things like that and chased us out of town. Which happened to Charles Murray at the School in Vermont, Middlebury College in Vermont. I don't know if you remember this. A couple of years ago, Charles Murray, his daughter graduated from Middlebury College. And so a political science professor invited him to the college and so a political science professor invited him to give a talk on his latest book on labor markets. And Murray is a PhD political scientist from MIT. And so he's a very big name in political science. And there was a riot, a student riot. As soon as he stood up, they started screaming at him. And some young punk grabbed the female professor's hair, the female professor who invited him. And he started screaming at her and jerked it so hard that he injured her neck and she had to be taken out in an ambulance. And then they left town in a car and they were chased by cars out of town. And so these students were convinced they were taking the moral high road in doing this because Charles Murray was a representative of the oppressor class and the oppressor class does not deserve free speech. Only the oppressed deserve free speech. The socialist ideologues who run the universities, that is, not people who are genuinely oppressed, like the children of Tiger Woods who just became a billionaire. I'm a golfer, so I was left Tiger Woods. I doubt that his son is oppressed even though he's a minority, as far as that goes. But he is, according to the definition of the people who run universities like Middlebury College. So destroy free speech. The first round across is maybe 15 years ago one of my students was explaining to me why this theory that had been drilled, apparently it drilled into his head since preschool. And it was sort of an eye-opener to me that all of a sudden, the students in my classroom, they knew nothing about the arguments about free speech. They never heard, John Stuart Mill, who's that? They never heard of the arguments for free speech, but they knew they understood the argument against free speech. And I asked one of them, the first time I asked them, well, if I walked into downtown Baltimore and some black guy calls me a hunky, does that harm the entire white race? Because that's what they were saying. And so nobody's advocating racial slurs or anything like that. But they were, what they were talking about as well, like when Walter Block came to my campus and gave an invited talk, and gave a sort of state-of-the-art talk on the economics of discrimination and about how if I'm a discriminating employer and say I pay men more than women because I'm a misogynist, then I create a profit opportunity for my competitors who can, if I pay the man 100 grand and the woman 50 grand, my competitor can pay the woman 70 grand. And if she's equally productive as the man and can produce more than 100,000 a year for me in revenue, he probably makes a lot of money, he makes $30,000. So there's a profit incentive. And all Walter did was explain how competition in the marketplace reduces discrimination, penalizes sex discrimination, race discrimination. And his dissertation chairman at Columbia, Gary Becker, was known for that. He won the Nobel Prize and they cited his work on such things as the economics of discrimination. He wrote the first book on that. It was his doctoral dissertation in Chicago in the 50s. And so the communists, well, Jesuits, communists, what's the difference? Who ran Loyola, smeared in libel in Walter over that. And so this attacks on free speech are said to harm minorities. It's not about the dingbats who make racial slurs and things like that. It's this sort of thing. It's this sort of thing of making a case for capitalism and challenging the sacred idea that black people cannot make it in America because racism is so bad. No matter what you do, you're doomed. That's what they want to teach the young black students and my former employer. And here comes Walter Block saying, well, no, not necessarily. You know, you can work your way out despite all of this. And there are thousands and thousands of examples. They don't tolerate it. They smeared in libel Walter and me since I invited him for doing that. But we did sort of get back at them in a way. We wrote about 20 articles on lourockwell.com and Walter and I spent probably a total of 15 hours on WBAL Radio in Baltimore, the biggest radio station in the area up there lambasting these people. Maybe really popular with my employer at the time. But I had no choice. I had to do it. Because that's another part of this. Name calling, that became a part of it. Also, Markuza also wrote a book called Eros and Civilization and the advice he gave college students which probably popular advice today as it was in the 1960s, he said, don't work, have sex. That was a famous slogan. I think it's a t-shirt with that. That's good advice for a young person. It works. The third thing I'll mention another type of socialism is what I call watermelonism. Watermelon is green on the outside, red on the inside. And so I had my students read, I had them read some of the founding fathers of environmentalism like Barry Commoner. I don't know if anybody here has heard of Barry Commoner, but he was one of the real high priests of environmentalism in the 60s and 70s. And what I'm going to do at the time I have left is there's a publication by the Competitive Enterprise Institute called Wrong Again, 50 Years of Failed Eco-Pocalyptic Predictions. It was published by the CEI a couple years ago. And it's a collection of actual articles, Time Magazine, New York Times, Reprints. It's not an essay. It's just a collection of reprints of articles on environmental issues beginning in the 70s. And they have a common theme. Here's one of the first ones in their collection is the forecast. This is 1967, Dyer Famine forecast by 1975. And they quote Paul Ehrlich, who was a bug scientist, an entomologist at Stanford. But somehow they call him a population biologist. His job at Stanford was an entomologist. They study bugs. But anyway, and he became quite the celebrity. He said this, the population of the United States is already too big. Birth control may have to be accompanied by making it involuntary and by putting sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water and that the Roman Catholic Church should be pressured into going along with routine measures of population control. Sounds like Bill Gates could have written that. But that was Paul Ehrlich in 1967. And he was one of the founding fathers of the modern environmental movement. And by the way, I distinguish between a conservationist and an environmentalist. Conservationist is somebody who's genuinely interested in conserving wildlife and nature and so forth. An environmentalist is a communist ideologue hiding behind the guise of Mother Earth. That's my sort of crude definition of environmental. That's the way it is turned out. So you don't have to, if you're a conservationist, you don't have to call yourself environmentalist and associate yourself with Paul Ehrlich. You could associate yourself with a much better type of person. So that was one of the opening salvos. And this inerlich was funded by something called the Club of Rome, which is sort of linked in with the World Economic Forum and this crowd today. They're sort of all the same gang that were run by billionaires. April 16th, 1970, headline, Boston Globe, scientists predicts a new ice age by the 21st century. October 6th, 1970, Dr. Ehrlich, outspoken ecologist to speak, the oceans will be dead in 10 years. He said, and this is 1970. So by 1980, there'd be no fish in the ocean, Paul Ehrlich was saying. Back in those days, they were saying pollution was blocking the sun and it was therefore going to cause a massive cool down of the earth in a new ice age. And we've made tremendous progress spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, year in and year out, in pollution control. And now that we don't have hardly any dirt up there blocking the sun, it's even worse because we've got global warming now. And so we succeeded in getting rid of the problem that they cited in the 60s and 70s. But there's still a problem. And of course, the answer to all of this is always we need to get rid of the existing economic system and adopt socialism. I quoted Robert Heilbrunner yesterday in his famous, among some of us, article After Communism, The New Yorker Magazine in 1990, where he said socialism must be adopted to deal with the ecological crisis. And that has been their motto. NASA scientists say, in the next 50 years, fine dust man constantly puts in the atmosphere could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. So a new ice age is coming. And this went on for a long time. Here's a January 29th, 1974 article. Space satellites show new ice age coming fast. This is 1974. So it's just around the corner. Time magazine, June 24th, 1974. Another ice age question mark. It says this, telltale signs are everywhere from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland. Think about that. There's ice in Iceland. Could you imagine? To the southward migration of armadillos from the Midwest. So you see an armadillo in South Carolina. That's proof positive that another ice age is coming. Time magazine was saying. Washington Post, great perils to life. Just ahead. Turning page here. 1990s. This is 1990. Associated Press headline. No end in sight to the 30 year cooling trend. That's 1990. Well, all during this time, like I said, the environmentalists were saying, the solution to, if you want to avoid a new ice age and we all freeze to death, we need to destroy the economic system that's creating all this pollution and adopt socialism. In 1990 with no success, they began in the mid 1960s. So 25 years of this propaganda didn't work. So they had to try something else. So here's a Miami, Miami, Florida newspaper, June 24th, 1988. 1988 is on the way to be the hottest ever as world temperatures are up sharply. So they moved on. They rotated on a dime as the saying goes. December 12th, 1988. The Today Show. Prepare for a long hot summers. Okay. September 26th, 1988 article. There's a threat to the Maldives because of global warming melting the ice. Sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands in the next 30 years. Salon magazine, 1989. New York City's west side highway will be underwater by 2019. Any New Yorkers here? Have you swim across the west side highway lately? Taking a kayak? Oh, you probably take a boat. You'd have to take a boat. Swim there. It's too cold. Yeah. March 20th, 2000. Associated Press articles. Snow falls are now just a thing of the past. Associated Press. The Guardian. This is a 2004 U.S. edition. Britain will be like Siberia in 20 years. Okay. 2008. Al Gore predicted the north polar ice cap will be gone. No ice in the north pole by the year 2013. Al Gore. There's a picture of him there. He's still fat and ugly as ever. I saw him on TV the other day. And then the renowned astrophysicist and climatologist Prince Charles in 2009 said there are just 96 months to save the world. So that would bring it to the year 2017. The world was going to end. According to Prince Charles. And then the former prime minister of England, Gordon Brown on October 20th 2009 said, quote, we have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe. I guess that's where this woman AOC got her 12 years. Gordon Brown thought 50 days in the world is going to end. And so once again, of course it's global warming. To avoid global warming we need to destroy the existing economic system and adopt some form of socialism and social planning. And of course at that point by the end of all these articles that they're reading from it changed again to climate change. So now it's climate change. So whether if the climate gets hotter or colder, it doesn't matter. The solution is always we're going to destroy capitalism and adopt socialism. And so that's what we have about watermelonism as a form of socialism. And I guess we're out of time and the dictator will no longer let me have Q&A, so class dismissed.