 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Alright everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Tuesday, June 13th, second show today. Look at our news roundup this morning. So now we're on to some more serious things. And so we're going to talk about today about woke and wokeism. And Christianity, the relationship between the two, is one the only option to the other. This is one of the questions we'll be asking, we'll be referring to a particular article published in European Conservative magazine. European Conservative magazine, although seems to apply more to the US, but certainly applies to Europe as well. Anyway, we'll be talking about a particular article here called Believe in Believers. It was published in the European Conservative magazine that inspired the idea for this talk. So we'll basically be pitting the woke against Christianity and see how you choose between the two. And what do you need to choose between the two? Alright, so I came across this article. Oh, just to remind you, Super Chat, you can ask questions, questions pretty much about anything. And you can use the Super Chat feature both to ask a question, but also as part of that to support the show. The show is basically made possible by contributors like you. Those of you who listen live use the Super Chat, those of you who do not might be listening later on in a podcast on YouTube or somewhere. All of you can use PayPal or Patreon or subscribe stuff to support the show in one way or another. So please consider doing so as a reflection of the values hopefully you get from the show and why you listen to it. Alright, let's jump in. So this is an essay, it was written by a secular, somebody secular who's on the right, who kind of, you know, who believes, I guess, in certain of the principles of, or rejects, put it in the negative, rejects kind of much of the left, but also is not religious, secular. And it is struggling to, how do we fight woke? I mean, it's somebody who rejects woke, it won't stand up against woke. Once they eliminate woke, so it sees woke as their primary threat to modern society. And, well, how do you, how do you fight it? And this is kind of the subtitle, I guess, the punchy line of the essay. This is his, if you will, the summary of what he has to write. And by the way, I think this is a sentiment of you held by many people. It's a view held by many people on the right or more and more people on the right who are secular. We're talking about atheists or agnostics on the right. I think it's a view held by some objectivists. I think it's a view held by some people on this, on our chat, you know, I can think of several who believe that this view is absolutely right. So this is not just some wacky conservative somewhere in Europe mouthing off. But this resonated with me because I've, I've heard it said right here on the Iran Book Show by, by people on the chat. So not, not a foreign idea, but this is what it says. This is what he says. Those of us, and I quote, those of us committed to fighting back against the woke, must come to terms with the fact that only Christianity is potent enough to defeat the cult of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Nonbelievers need not convert, but it is time for us to get out of the way. End quote. So he says, look, we all agree woke is bad or all of us on this side all agree woke is bad. But the left has no, sorry, the secularists, the, the kind of what he calls rationalists. Those of us who believe in the scientific method, those of us who believe in reason, those of us who are children of the Enlightenment, those of us who believe in classical liberal ideas, we have no tools to fight against them. The school that has any chance of succeeding against the woke is Christianity is religion. In another segment he says only the uncompromising force of faith is potent enough to beat back the cult of diversity, equity, and inclusion. So the only way to beat the woke is to embrace faith. The only way to beat woke is to embrace Christianity. And he says, look, I know, you know, he says I'm an agnostic and you know, many of you are atheists and I'm not asking you to change your view about atheism. I'm not asking you to change your view about God. Yeah, you don't have to convert. But I want you to realize that the only way to challenge an ideology and entropic, entropic force of wokeism, entropic is interesting. We'll get back to that. The only way, the only way to fight it is to support those people actually have ideas that can replace woke. And the reason this really resonated with me, the reason this is so perfect, and this relates to entropic as well, is that he's right. He's right. He's right in the sense that the conventional classical liberal, the conventional altruistic, collectivistic centrist, or right winger who believes in free markets and generally cultural issues, but is completely secular has no, you know, as no tools by which to fight the replace entropic with disintegrating forces of wokeism. They really have nothing to offer people. They have no organized system of values. They have no integrated philosophical view of the world. They take bits and pieces here and there for what they find appealing. They take pieces bits in there from here and there of what they think is right. They reject God for good reason and justifiably and based on logic and reason. But then they completely embrace Christian morality. But they can't be too forceful about the implications of that morality because they don't know exactly why they're embracing Christian morality primarily because what else is there? They don't have a solid defense of their epistemology. They know there's something very wrong with religion, but can they defend their argument for reason? Not very strongly, not very effectively. Can they bring forward a real passion to pursue positive ideals? No. I mean, at the end of the day, they boiled down to a type of, I mean, he gives us an example as the new atheists. I mean, the new atheists were good guys when it came to atheism. But once you went outside of the scope of atheism, what does Richard Dawkins have to say? Once you go outside criticizing the nutty religionists, what do the new atheists actually have to say? Very little. They certainly have nothing new to say about morality. They have nothing new to say really about epistemology except malting some, you know, we love science kind of thing. To a large extent, when it comes to values, they become subjectivists. Or if you take Sam Harris, you know, just meditate over it. And I'm against meditation, but just, you know, there's no I, there is no you, there is no self, there is no free will. Are you going to defeat, woke with that? There's no there, there. I mean, at the end of the day, the new atheists leave us empty. There's no content. The content is beyond their opposition to religion. Again, which is good and true. What do they do? Where do they go? So the center left center right, the secularists more broadly in the culture. What arguments do they really have against woke? They, to a large extent, accept their subjectivism. Just like they don't really have that many arguments against religion, other than the metaphysical or maybe the epistemological ones, they basically accept their altruism. Does the secularists, can the secularists argue for a morality that does not take into account, I don't know, intersectionality? No, they certainly can argue that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, but can they argue about their knowledge of why that is? Can they be really passionate about it? Can they defend their position on what? Indeed, he is a woman and what is the role of a woman? Is there a difference between men and women? No, they're centrist, the middle of the road. They don't have too strong of a position on any one of these things. Do they have a political agenda? Can they improve the state of the world? Can they argue for liberty and freedom and God forbid capitalism? Well no, many of them are borderline socialists. Most of them are leftists. They have some, you know, like Sam Harris, some common sense around, I don't know, let's say guns and common sense about some other issues related to economics. There's certainly not communists and there's certainly not all out, you know, nationalized industry socialists. But what vision do they have? What ideals do they have to sell the people to replace the ideals of woke? Nothing, nothing. So what woke has done is taken many of the ideas of the, you know, the atheists, the new atheists, taken some of those ideas, taken the ideas of the popular philosophers of the 20th century, taken the ideas of the postmodernism and taken them to their logical conclusion. But they are of the same people. They are of the same brand. Can the new atheists, so the secularists really argue against, again, the altruism in intersectionality? Can they argue against the worship of suffering and worship of oppression that is so much part of woke culture? Can they argue against, you know, diversity, equity and inclusion? I mean, they can kind of say, you know, this is distorted, this has gone too far. This is not ideal. But what is the alternative vision that they have to offer? Because they accept the moral code. They accept it's okay to sacrifice the able to the suffering to the people who are not able. They fundamentally accept the need for, you know, some affirmative action. It's just not go too far. You know, some diversity, equity, I mean, can they fight against equity or equality? Equality of outcome, equality of opportunity. Again, most of these people are on the left. So the woke are just an extension of the secularist centrists. I would say to use the dim hypothesis terminology of Lenin-Pikov, again, you know, this is just me using the terminology whether I'm right or not. You will have to judge if you've read his book. His book is the dim hypothesis, dim standing for disintegration, integration and misintegration. The woke are D2s. They're completely disintegrate. They have no integrating principles. They have no integrating ideology other than altruism. But they're ultimately fragmentation, ultimate subjectivist, ultimate worshipers of suffering and oppression. It is a completely disintegrated ideology. And in that sense, I completely agree when he talks about them as a entropic force, entropy. Entropy is about disintegration, the breakup of order. It's about chaos. They are, to the extent this means anything, they're agents of chaos. No order. They want to see things broken. It's not about really the whole woke phenomena. It's not really about helping anybody. Just like altruism, it's not ultimately about helping anybody. The woke phenomena and altruism are ultimately about knocking down the able. They're ultimately about hooding the successful, the rational, the productive, or in the case of critical race theory and critical race theory and its implied racism, knocking down anybody who's not an oppressed minority, anybody who happens to have white skin. The whole agenda is a fragment in disintegrating everybody against everybody. Everybody is the enemy of everybody, ideology. It's the ultimate what Dr. Peacock called D2, complete fragmentation, complete disintegration. And the regular atheists, the centrists, they're just a little bit disintegrated. They're just a little bit fragmented. They don't take their altruism too seriously. They don't take their epistemological subjectivism too seriously, just up to a point. They don't go too far. So they kind of do what, again, in his framework would be a D1. But if D1 can't really fight a D2, the D2s are just taking what they believe to a greater consistency. And only ultimately, you know, alternatives to a D2, as we'll see, are I an M. M is misintegration. That is integrating your concepts, your ideas, your view of history, your view of morality around something, around something, around a principle. And integration is a wonderful thing. So integration would be integrating all this principle around a true principle. That's I. That is integration around a true principle. The primacy of reality, the efficacy of reason, the primacy of the individual. A misintegration would be organizing everything, everything in the world around the primacy of another being. And most Americans are not, don't integrate everything around that. That's why Leonard Peake of course, they're kind of M1s. They're kind of soft religionists. But to really combat the complete, crazy, subjectivist anything goes. Smash everything. There is no truth. There is no right. There is no wrong. There is no man. There is no woman. There are no facts. There is no reality. Everything is social constructs. And what we ultimately want is just the egalitarianism, you know, total equality, which is a D2 ideology. The only, the one way to combat that is to offer people, because people hate that. People reject that. You're seeing that a little bit with woke. And I think that will only intensify. But people want something to believe in instead of this. They need something to integrate. They're not going to accept, well, everything, everything is fragmented. Everything is all over the place. You know, but, no, no, no, you shouldn't believe that. You shouldn't believe in things that are just a little bit subjective, a little bit fragmented, a little bit disintegrated. Don't believe in it. Don't take it to the extreme. Nobody, nobody's convinced by that. And in that sense, he's right. But if I come to you and say, there is a better way to live. There is a just way to live. There's a wholesome way to live. There's an ideal out there that you can achieve. I mean, that ideal is Jesus, or that ideal is Christianity, or that ideal is a life with God. And you have to give up yourself. But you have to, you know, there's only one being who's ever properly sacrificed and that's Jesus. And what you need to do is commit to this cause of religion and thoroughly immerse yourself in that. And it explains everything. You're confused about gender. We've got an explanation on how to deal with that. Just watch Matt Walsh. You're confused about your place in the world. Don't worry. We have a solution for that. We have answers for all these things. And it's not just answers. The answers that are filled with passion and ideology and they're filled with a sense of camaraderie and certainty. Oh, you guys, you're completely confused. I know you're wandering around in a total fog of DEI. We have certainty. Religion provides us with the truth. And it is a powerful force against woke. It's a powerful force against disintegration. And it can be successful. Indeed, I think it will be successful. If I had a bet right now on who wins in the long run, woke or Christianity, I'd put my money in Christianity or some form of Christianity. People ultimately want to understand. They ultimately want answers. And most importantly, they ultimately want guidance. Woke doesn't give you guidance. Woke, everybody turns against everybody. Everybody is against everybody. You might think you're right now at the top of the heap because you are particularly oppressed. You're black and gay and poor. Yeah, but that guy over there, they're trans. Oh, immediately you drop below them. They become higher in the hierarchy. It's a hierarchy of misery, I guess. A hierarchy of claims against the other based on oppression, based on misery. And the religionist comes in and says, well, that's all nonsense. The only standard is the standard of God. The only standard is the standard dictated by the holy books. All this other stuff is nonsense. We can give you certainty. You don't have to now wonder where you belong in the hierarchy. The hierarchy is gone. The only hierarchy that matters is God, Jesus, and in you. It gives comfort to people. It undoes the angst associated with all the uncertainty and all the subjective nature of things and the entropy, the disintegration. And it's, it works. I mean, you know, so between the two, if you're going to fight woke, a mealy-mouthed, milk toast philosophy of the center philosophy and quotes because it's not really philosophy, it's not going to win. It's not going to be successful. To fight woke, you need values. You need principles. And you need a set of beliefs. And you need to be adamant about those beliefs. And the only alternative that the author, and I think most people out there in the world can see to woke is ultimately is some form of religion. Some form of M2, some form of alternative, alternative integration. Now, what's the problem with this? Because, but I think it's true. That is the problems with it, but I think it's true. Like all dualities, it's a false alternative. Well, here there are three alternatives and they're all false. The real alternative to D and to M is I. The real alternative to woke and religion is objectivism or a philosophy. A philosophy of reason and a philosophy of individualism. A philosophy that indeed does have values to offer. Does have an objective morality to offer. Does have a truly revolutionary and alternative morality both to the woke and to the Christians. It's true that the secularists don't have that. They don't have anything to offer. If they want to talk morality, then they just adopt the Christian views. If they want to talk epistemology, they adopt the woke views. It's rare. There are very few voices out there other than objectivist voices that actually have something to offer that is new, that is fresh, that is inspiring and that actually combats both forms of irrationality. The author of this article writes, the woke are entirely united institutionally and ideologically by the irrationality of their beliefs. And then he quotes, and this is very telling, that he's quote, Kurdish Yavin, who's man. Pretty nasty author, intellectual. Quote, nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unfodable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army. Now notice how well that applies to somebody like Trump or so much of it. To believe in nonsense is an unfodable demonstration of loyalty. Can't forge that. It serves as a political uniform. Truth is boring. Now no, when the author says, the woke are entirely united institutionally and ideologically by the rationality of their beliefs. Wait a minute. Isn't that true of Christianity? Isn't what unifies them institutionally and ideologically is irrationality on all these guys fundamentally irrational? I mean, that's what unites woke and Christianity is the fact that both are completely nonsensical. Complete BS to put it, you know, one believes in a mythology of racial identity or gender identity. One believes in 98 genders. What is more ridiculous to believe in 98 genders than to believe in our holy trinity? Or the transfiguration of Christ or whatever it is that you're eating the body and you're drinking the blood of Christ. What is more irrational that you can be all three and one? I mean, any Christian believes that Jesus rose from the dead is that more believable than anything a woke person says? Is there more rationality really in Christian ideology than in woke ideology? They're both irrational. They're both nonsense. And for both of them, the irrationality and the nonsense are the organizing principle, the organizing tool. And yes, Christianity is a alternative to woke. Ultimately, I think it might land up being the most powerful alternative to woke. But then it's just a question of who you want to violate your rights? In what way do you want to violate your rights to be violated? But both the rights violating, both irrational, both will want to mess up the minds of your children, both are destructive to sexuality, one by denying it and one by denying it, denying it by eliminating its identity. The one has been tried as a governing ideology. It's not like we haven't tried Christianity as a governing ideology. We got to dark ages as a consequence. We got inquisitions. We got some of the bloodiest wars in all of human history. Over what? Over whether it really is a trinity or whether the thing you put in your mouth in a Catholic service is really Christ's body or not or whether it's just a metaphor. It literally killed millions of people over issues like that. Now, woke is unbelievably destructive. It is a destruction of the ability to think. It's a destruction of ability to identify proper categories. It is destructive in business because it raises people up in spite of the fact that they have, not based on their ability to put it that way. It's destructive to children. It brainwashes them with complete nonsense about sexuality and gender. It does real damage to many children who do this, you know, hormone therapy or whatever over trans issues. It's destructive and unjust in so many parts of our lives. And it's going to, you know, some of its elements are going to in insidious, horrible ways implant themselves in our culture in ways that are going to be almost impossible to uproot. So, you know, it's going to just become part of the culture. DEI offices at universities taking into account. I mean, we've always had a certain affirmative action. We've always had some diversity, but it's just become, it's become now obsessive. And that is going to implant itself, whether it exactly, you know, constitutes the same form as it does today. I doubt it. But a lot of these bad ideas are going to be institutionalized into what we do. But a lot of it is just going to go away. A lot of it is so silly and ridiculous and counterintuitive for most people that it's going to be rejected. And you see that in so many places. You see support for Desantis trying to reject it from the state of Florida. You see it in bill after bill in different places around the country that are limiting treatment of children over the gender dysphoria, supposedly. You see it in the way cities vote to reverse policies of, I don't know, defund the police and really the ridiculous extremes of some of what this movement has demanded. And you see it in the Supreme Court probably rejecting much of DEI, probably in a case that's coming before them with the God of Hobbit. And the reason, and this is part of the reason why while I hate Woken, it's horrible and it's destructive and it's unjust and it's something we should all be fighting against. I'm not as worried about it as I'm worried about other things. Because I don't think it'll last, not in this form. I mean the basic idea is we'll be out there. This disintegrated view of the world is going to be out there. It's not going to go away. It's modern philosophy realized in policy and in cultural debates. It latches on to real issues and then morphs them into weird, nonsensical policy suggestions that nobody really buys or very few people really buy. Some people are kind of guilted into supporting, but nobody really believes it. How many people in the world today believe that they are 98 genders? It's just not a reality to 99. something percent of the population. But the alternative irrationality, the alternative dogmatism, the alternative view is very palatable to indeed a majority of people. It's still true that a majority of people in the United States are religious. A majority of people in the United States are Christian. Well, you know, they form a whole variety of different denominations that don't agree with one another in any interpretation of anything. They all agree on the supremacy of a God on the power of Jesus in your life and you know Jesus take the wheel or whatever and all of that. So I'm much more worried about an ideology that is positioned to cross-shulk and to defeat the subjectivism of the left in the name of religion because they're already in the culture, they're already well established, they're already a majority. And even the minority that maybe has rejected Christianity doesn't view it as that bad. I mean several times the author of this article says Christianity is the basis of Western civilization and almost everybody believes that. I mean I believe Western civilization was created with the rejection of Christianity. Western civilization emerges in the Renaissance with the secularization of Christianity with the discovery of Greece, with the discovery of beauty, with the discovery of sculptures of naked men and women, exact opposite of what the Christians would have, with the discovery of the heroic individual. Yes, I know a Christianity individual could find salvation wippy, find salvation in mysticism, find salvation in a God that doesn't exist, find salvation in an afterlife that is not there. In this world what's made the West, what's made Western civilization, what's made it unique, what's made it free, what's made it capitalist to the extent that it is is the rejection of Christianity, an embrace of reason. Now what the woke has done is they reject Christianity and they reject reason. But of course Christianity of course already rejected reason. Fundamentally at its core it's a rejection of reason. Yes they can pretend they have logical proofs for God, yes they can pretend that they stand by logic and reason but they don't. The very nature of the religion, the very epistemological nature of faith is a rejection through and through of reason. Certainly of egoism. Christianity is not Western civilization. The secularizing forces from their renaissance through the enlightenment of what created the material and the spiritual wealth that we enjoy. Do we have enjoyed since then? It is that secularizing force, not a secularizing force of subjectivism and anything goes and 98 genders and 98 this and 98 that. No, the secularizing force of reason, the secularizing force of individualism, the secularizing force of this world, this mind, this person that is not subjugated to a God, that is not subjugated to a myth, that is not subjugated to irrationality. That is what has made the Western world the Western world. One of the biggest missions that we must embrace is to free the concept of Western civilization from Christianity, to separate them. Indeed to identify as I think is true, Christianity as the enemy of the West. The enemy of the Western world. The enemy of Western civilization. And if you get that, then it's obvious that Putin is the enemy. Putin represents, just as an aside, Putin represents the reactionary forces of Christianity reacting against the West. Again, reacting against what seems like a secular West. Now the secular West has been hijacked by, again, anti-Western forces that are much more similar to religion than they are to what West really represents. And this is why the religious right is so sympathetic to Putin is because he represents religion, which they view as the only alternative to the crazy woke left. And therefore they view Putin as fighting for them in this great battle between Christianity and woke. But that's not the battle. The battle is between Western values, the Enlightenment values, the secular values of reason and individualism. The real battle is the battle of those ideas. And religion and woke. It's a two-front battle. I for one think woke is so ridiculous, so absurd, while it will have a foothold in America. The real enemy and the enemy, the long-term enemy and the enemy that is most likely to destroy us is religion. Religion on the right. Woke, you could argue, is religion on the left. But it's not a religion in the sense that it's not really integrated. This secular author writes, let me just see, he writes... There's some way where he writes that we must submit. I want to get that quote. I can't find it out. Okay, he says, standing upon the peak of rational science, we see only atomic, both in our stars and in each other, a star dust. While reflecting on the pillars of creation might fulfill some of the grandeur an all man seeks. It provides no meaning. Familiar from Jordan Peterson? No meaning. The occasional moral nihilist of sufficient self-agency might be able to survive and avoid of his own creation. So if you lose God, you survive and avoid. And what he means by moral nihilist is somebody who has no meaning. There's lost meaning. But it's still moral. It's still not going to blow up stuff. But it's lost all meaning. Using refrains about being the universe, expiring itself and absolving itself of free will to race individuality. But this is never and will never satisfy an entire society. Indeed, that's true. It will never satisfy anybody, never mind an entire society. But this is kind of gibberish you get from Sam Harris and other secularists. No meaning. Emptiness. That can't win. But then he continues. Man is a religious animal who will demand refuge from the pains of spiritual and social isolation. With a morality that to use the phrase popularized by Jonathan Haid in his book, The Righteous Mind, will first bind him with infinite choice and then bind him to a community. So man needs morality. Man needs ideas. Man needs an ideal. He's not a religious animal, but he's a philosophical animal. Man needs a philosophy. And what the secularist centrists have is nothing to offer. And ultimately what the woke have is nothing to offer. It has to collapse. It has to kill itself. So as many secularists believe that they can provide this with new rational story that retains the guiding moral principle of religion but has enough clarity and force to overcome wokeism and put us back onto the path toward the end of history. But note, a new rational story that retains the guiding moral principles of religion. As long as you retain the guiding principles of religion, you're going nowhere. You're stuck. He says that attempting to engage in a great embarrassment of modernity. I agree. It's embarrassing. I can't use reason to discover morality, but reason, not faith, is my guide. Well, wait a minute. Where did you get your morality from? We cannot create a new culture on our own. Spinning the tapestry of guidelines necessary for a new type of morality in society by disregarding instinct and relying on pure intelligence. We in the West live amongst the bones of the Christian God. And the past hundred years are being defined by those who thought they could shape those bones into tools through reason and will. Here he's talking about communists and fascists as if they represent reason. We can't win not with a secularist, not with a religious, and certainly not with a woke. Let me see where's this line. He basically says, what the secularist must do is submit. Reminds me of Islam. You must submit. See, he says this is a cough of sheer pragmatism. Secularism cannot write a new rational story. Certainly not one that converts a critical mass of Christian right while also taking on the woke left politically and ideologically. Attempting to subvert, or sermonize to our allies, will spawn them. For secularist opposed to wokeism, that only leaves one option. Submission, there it is. For secularist opposed to wokeism, that only leaves one option left. Submission. I'm not arguing that everyone must go back to church. Though Christianity can be beautiful, even to a non-believer. Conferred veracity and the necessity of belief should be made by the faithful and taken seriously. But non-believers need to acknowledge the reality of our situation. We just can't win. We just cannot win. The reality here is, you know, that what he's calling for us is not to be enslaved to the irrationality of the left, but to be enslaved to the irrationality of the right, not to submit our independent judgment, a reason, a rationality, a morality to the craziness of the left, but to submit it to the craziness of the right, not to be ruled over by the left, but better to be ruled over by the right. And for those of us who do not want to be ruled over, for those of us who do not want to submit, or those who want to live independent, rational lives, basically what he's saying is maybe you can do that, maybe. I'm not sure he thinks you can actually do it. But maybe you can do that. But the reality is, you can't win. And in this, he might be true. This, it might be true. The question is, how much of your soul are you willing to lose in order to gain political power? How much of your soul are you willing to lose in order to get rid of wokeism? How much of your soul are you willing to lose to win a political fight? And I say, victory's nice and I'd like to win, but it's much more important to me to live with integrity. Christianity is fundamentally an evil ideology. It's an ideology that is destructive to human life. And every era in human history that is dominated by Christianity has been a period in history that has been destructive. It's only the secularization. It's only the movement towards the secular and movement towards reason and individualism that has led to the wealth and the grandeur that is Western civilization today. The left is clearly trying to destroy all that. The woke would destroy everything that has been achieved. But that, you know, the alternative to that cannot be a return to the primitivism of the Dark Ages. It cannot be a return to the religionists. And, you know, you come back and you say, by the founding fathers who were religious, the founding fathers were religious in a period where religion was on the decline. The founding fathers were religious as religion was becoming less and less relevant to life. The founding fathers were already very close to being willing to give up on that religion completely. And as a consequence, religion didn't play a big role in the founding of America. The principles on which this country was built the liberty and freedom that we have are not built on religious principles. They're built on Lockean principles. They're built on Enlightenment principles. They're built on principles that respect the individual and the individual's mind. But we've lived through that. We're now further ahead. The scientific revolution has progressed. We've seen the wonders that are created from freedom and from using reason and from using the mind to now to go backwards towards religion. It's not going to be, it's not going to be tame. It's not going to be easy. It's not going to be nice. It's not going to be founding father religion. It's likely to be much more brutal, much more controlled than any of the religions today actually stand for liberty and freedom for individualism for the founding principles of this country? No, not really. And you can see that in how, you know, maybe during the Tea Party they all mouth the right things about, oh, the Constitution, but as soon as, as soon as that didn't lead to success now they're ready to burn the Constitution. So, no, don't get caught up in this false promise, in this false alternative. The alternative to both wokeism and religion. The alternative to both wokeism and Christianity. The alternative to both left and right. The alternative to all collectivism. And by the way, the essay is filled with collectivism. The alternative to all irrationality, all nonsense is rationality, reason and individualism. Don't give that up for political power. Don't give up to defeat, all that up to defeat the momentary enemy. That could be the Christianity will win. And it's likely Christianity will win. I guess then we'll only have one enemy to fight. Maybe it'll be a little easier for us. Okay, that is my rant for today. Let's take some questions. Super chat questions. By the way, let me just see who the author was. I don't think I told you who the author of the article was because that's kind of unfair to do. There it is. I didn't preserve the name of the author. Let me find a link and get you the author of the article. It's called Believe in Believers. Believe in Believers. In the European Conservative Magazine. And the author is Evan Riggs. Evan Riggs. Only article is written for this particular magazine. He's a London based conservative commentator and a communications director for the new cultural forum and ideas beyond borders. All right, Evan. Disagree completely. All right. We're going to go to super chat. We're way behind. We don't have that many people listening live so maybe that's the reason. But we are 500 dollars behind where our goal is. And we've got a lot of questions. A lot of 10, $5 questions. So let me ask this. Please consider, if you can, and if this is enough of a value to you, $50 or $100 so we can kind of chip away at the goal. We do really have to make these goals. But at the end of the day, value for value, you can support the show at any amount. But if you want to ask a question, just because of the number of questions, try to make it a $20 question or above so that we kind of limit the number. I will get to all the $5 and $10 questions as well. I promise. I promise. All right. Let's see. John. If you claim the best market is unregulated then why is there a concept of market failure in economics? Why do economists not realize this is a bogus concept? Well, I mean, why don't they? Because they have a rotten methodology and they have a rotten science. The science is rotten from within. Why do they have a concept of perfect competition which is completely bogus and there is no such thing? Why do they have such a concept as market monopolies? Why do they have such a concept as, what is it? God. The production function that they take so seriously. I mean, much of modern economics is, I don't know, what's the technical term? Nonsense. And market failure, I think, is one of those nonsensical things. The Austrian school of economics, which is, I think, the white school of economics, even though it's modern practitioners, are not always very good. But the Austrian school of economics, von Mises, Menge, von Bevek, don't conceive of a concept of market failure. Indeed, I think Mises would call you a socialist if you talked about market failure. It's not true that all economists talk about market failure. It's true that the most respected ones do, but the most respected ones are the ones responsible for inflation, for deficits, for a rotten economic growth, for taxes, for the state of the U.S. economy and the state of the global economy, which is not very good. So, just because something is taught in your textbooks in economics doesn't make it right. Now, you know, almost always when you look at what they call market failure and you dig deeper and peel the onion, what you discover is government failure, government policies that have failed, regulations that have failed, and almost always the solution to market failure resulting from regulation is more regulation, cause the next failure, more regulations. I described this process back in the 60s and 70s, but it's alive and well and accelerated in the modern era. But this is how it works. Again, Mises Haslet described this process back then, way back, even higher. So, you know, economics is filled with bogus concepts, with package deals and with stolen concepts and frozen concepts. It's just bad conceptual thinking. It's not a very good, not a very good field, not a field that is imbued with enough first-handed thinking and rationality. So, yeah, so I think that's why... Oh, I did want to say something else about market failure. What does it even mean? So, let's say, I don't know, let's say you know, a lot of investment flows into the dot-com companies and then there's a big stock market crash and a lot of the dot-com companies go bust. And economists were, market failure? Well, was it? There's a speculative boom always, market failure. Failure about what's standard? By standard of perfect knowledge? By standard of knowing exactly which completely new technological companies will succeed and which won't? By the standard of knowing exactly how much investment is in the sector? We saw it. So, there's some platonic and generally, economics is filled with this. There's some platonic standard of an ideal market, remember? Perfect competition. Everybody's the same. Nobody has more knowledge, nobody has more ability or products look exactly the same. A whole more genius. No profits. Well, yeah, everything's a failure that's platonic nonsense. It's bad. It's a bad outcome. So, relative to some God that can somehow predict everything and get everything right and create perfection. Yeah, there's failure. But that's not the right standard. It's not the right standard. Is liberty messy in some sense? Yeah. When we're free in a free market, companies, maybe whole industries are going to fail sometimes. Yeah. They call it the creative destruction. Maybe I'm not a huge fan of that terminology but yeah, sometimes, whole industries go away. Do people make bad investments? Yes. The companies make bad investments. Yes. So what? How can you avoid that? So, there is no such thing as market failure. Market process. Some of it's beneficial. Some of it's not. Some winners, some lose. But it's the only thing consistent with liberty. It's the only thing consistent with freedom and it's the process that creates the best results, the most wealth, the highest standard of living, the highest quality of life, the longest life. Thank you, John. Uptin is looking forward to Okon after missing it the past few years, the most benevolent place on earth. Absolutely. Looking forward to it as well. And thank you for your note on AI. I saw that email. I'll do a segment of that because I don't completely agree with you. I think there's some important observations there that need to be expressed. I'll do that. Ragnar, also $50. Thank you, Ragnar. That's $50. That brought us much closer to the goal. We're now only $400 short. So we need a few more Uptins than Ragnar's to get us to where we need to be. Ragnar says, your argument of why Ragnar does it wishes to satirize both right and left. Yeah. Look forward to talking later this week about that project of yours. Andrew says, narcissists pick at others and then accuse others of irrationality when they get angry. They'll see they'll say you're being emotional. Narcissists pick at others and then accuse others of irrationality when they get angry. They say you're being emotional. Like, that's wrong per se. What do you equate taking something personally wow. Something grammatically is very wrong with the question Andrew. Andrew's questions are usually more grammatically correct. What do you something about their equate taking something personally with irrationality? Yes, I mean, taking something personally viewing it from a personal perspective is a is definitely a rejection from how the conventional view is a view objectivity. Think about objectivity is a spark. Objectivity for them, not for us is spark. It's devoid of emotion, devoid of values, devoid of own person. You know, Adam Smith talks about morality is, you have to imagine a third person outside of yourself doesn't have the motive, doesn't have the values, doesn't have what's important to you. So he's not going to be emotional about the issue. And he gets to evaluate what should be done. And that's true morality perspective of an observer, third person who is by definition not you, not with your values and that's completely upside down. Everything is personal. Everything should be personal. Everything is my life my death. Good for me bad for me promotes my life a threat to my life. That doesn't mean I should be emotional. It means I should care. It means I'm likely to be more passionate. But it also means that's what objectivity means. Objectivity means the relationship of me to reality. The threat that it represents to my values. In reality, objectively based on facts the facts of my values and the facts of what's going on. So taking stuff personally is being objective. Again don't equate taking personally to being an emotionalist, an emotionalist. That is definitely bad. That is definitely bad. Let's see we got 65 people watching live right now which is on the low end. I thought having wokeism in the title would get more people life. Curious. Maybe they didn't like the just the position of Christianity with wokeism. Hard to tell what drives people to come on live on art. Short videos it's easier. Put it on Musk in the title like a video we just released and people flock to it. Maybe that's what I should do. But for some reason putting woke in the title doesn't work for me. Maybe the audience has learnt. 65 people what would it be? I don't know suddenly 10 bucks each from the people watching right now would actually get us over 10 bucks from people who haven't contributed anything today, including this morning would get us over the threshold. So please consider, you can use a sticker you don't have to ask a question. But ask questions, $20 a question though. Thoughts on the phrase okay boomer. Is it ageism or do you think that generation deserves it? Oh it's certainly ageism. It's stupid. It's definitely too old to count. You're too old to matter. Nobody deserves that. And it's a generalization. It's a collectivistic statement. It's completely irrational. It's definitely ageism. It's a dismissive of something because of his age. When things should be exactly the other way around. Hopefully some of us as we as we age we gain wisdom age should be associated with more wisdom with more experience and people should I think respect that rather than dismiss it by okay boomer. It's also completely irrational. It's not dealing with any content. Frank says can you talk about the controversial, volatile graduation of CUNY law student Fatima Muhammad. I hope she fails a bar exam. I mean Fatima Muhammad in her graduation test basically in her what do you call it, valedictorian graduation speech basically slammed Israel made all kind of accusations against Israel that are completely unfounded. Israel is killing people left and right. This isn't a valedictorian speech. Let me see if there are any excerpts from it. I have a story. Anyway, she expressed these horrible views anti-Israel views anti-American views. I mean violently vehemently anti-American. America is basically a system of oppression part of the problem with CUNY law is it emboldens the system of oppression and she talks about systems of oppression created to feed an empire America with a ravenous appetite for destruction and violence. Institutions created to intimidate, bully and censor and stifle the voices of those who resist. So she is a typical far out leftist who hates America who hates Israel, who hates values who hates virtues who is you know she in of itself is I don't know how religious she is. I think she is. She wears a headscarf. So she is quite Muslim and quite religious and takes a Islam seriously but is embraced kind of the far left critique of America and Israel and wrapped it up in the victim mentality of a Muslim that feels like the world is against them and yeah I mean it's horrible and it's horrible that she was allowed to give this kind of valedictorian speech filled with hatred filled with vile but it's not surprising the administration spoke out of both sides of their mouths in a sense some when she finished the speech clapped and cheered her but then in press releases after the fact they maybe because the donors disapproved she was condemned and attacked by university administrators so the university administrator didn't know exactly what to do with her but the bottom line is it's disgusting it's despicable that these ideas are alive and well in American universities today Linda thank you she says hey this is boomer money I like boomer money absolutely that's ageism thank you thank you Linda then Andrew says how does the debate over free will factor into fears about AI I mean suddenly if yeah it's really hard because I think that the fact that most of these technologists don't believe in free will leads them to believe that machines can just be like human beings there's no difference between them give them enough computational power and they are human beings and as a consequence to that you know but it's kind of funny because they also think machines have choices human beings don't but I think if you don't believe in human free will then you have a very simplistic view of what human intelligence actually is and it's much easier to imagine that it's just 0's and 1's it's much easier to imagine that we could create the equivalent of a human mind with silicon but then you do have this I mean you do have this challenge that they seem to think that the computer will wake up what does that even mean if there's no free will what does being awake mean and then will attack us why if it has no free will why would it choose to attack us and wouldn't it just follow the logic of the algorithm now they claim the logic of the algorithm might be to attack us cure cancer one way to eliminate cancer from the world is to kill all human beings and animals maybe but that seems silly and it also seems like it should be easy to put in godwills against that and since we as human beings do have free will if human beings do have free will then human beings have the capacity to stop computers stop AI from doing what they think they're going to be doing now again you know let me just because there's a question in the chat I mean I do not believe that artificial intelligence as it is viewed today zeroes and ones and electrons and silicon is going to be conscious and it's going to have free will you know again I think that both are tied to life in a thousand years in a hundred years I mean maybe there will be creating forms of life potentially with consciousness and free will and potentially with computing power in the brains far greater than human beings have today I actually think more likely than that is you know some kind of transhumanist type idea where you know kind of their lawn musk interlink I think that's what it's called New Orleans where we implant the computing power into our brain and we directly leverage supercomputers connect them directly to our brain so why speculate on what's going to happen a hundred or a thousand years from now when we merge biology with silicon yeah all bets are off but am I worried no why would I worry that's for ten thousand years from now that's a thousand years from now human beings will also be smarter then they'll have more experience and again they'll be connected to faster better computers we can worry about the things that we can predict given the state of technology today and chat GPT was predictable the next iteration is predictable the next five iterations might be predictable none of those iterations involve waking up none of those iterations involve now I've seen people talking about creating computers by linking up in a test you by linking up brain cells now you know now it's kind of sounding like biology meets electronics I mean now it sounds kind of interesting but you know the chat GPT is not going to wake up doesn't have consciousness it's not going to take over the world Clark says how does places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality no I mean he wasn't maintaining his neutrality he was taking sides decided the Christians my view is I don't take neutrality epochs in both their houses I'll fight them all bring them on bring them on hop a camel all right we've made a lot of progress we're only about $350 short maybe $340 with the latest $10 I said only $20 questions guys $20 it'll get a lot easier and I'll bug you a lot less if we just do $20 questions and we get to the goal or we get at least closer to the goal enough $5 and $10 right but thank you at the same time oh I'm saying to me not to you frustration is with me not with you you know if we had 120 people watching right now live simultaneously it would be a lot easier to get to a goal so I've got to figure out how to get more live a larger live audience there's Adam kind of helping me helping me get over my my angst let's see what is Adam Adam says let's make the goal keep up these shows that shine the light brightly and difference between objective and that of collectivism in all its evil forms especially religion thank you Adam I really appreciate that appreciate this as well that was $200 guys so now we're just at $146 so that's certainly doable $720 questions should just do $7 good $20 questions and we're there alright Hopper Campbell I think Chris Christie is trying to make a name for himself by being the only GOP candidate with the balls to go after Trump will this inspire the Republicans to go hard on Trump as well you know I do think that's Christie's modus operandi that's his strategy I applaud him for it I think it's good for Republicans to have Christie there I think partially what it does though is because he's doing it others might feel like they don't have to others might just wait to see what kind of impact it has now if Christie lands some jabs and hits Trump in the jaw and it really starts hurting Trump in the polls or with supporters or with people out there maybe others will start doing it but maybe they'll just let Christie beat up on Trump and they'll just stand on the sidelines hard to really tell what the strategy would be I think if Christie starts claiming in the polls because of this if Christie actually you know it looks like he's a real candidate because of it then they might say maybe attacking Trump is a good strategy and maybe then they'll do it but very hard for me to predict what Republican candidates would do I'm so not kind of in the mode context of thinking politically in that way I don't know what the base what the people who vote in the primaries what do they want right now it looks like they just want Trump they don't care they even want Trump knowing he's probably going to lose in the general election and that's the point everybody should be making again Donald the loser Trump Trump's nickname should be I'll repeat this Trump's nickname should be loser the loser and I think that if that gets picked up by Christie and others if they start repeating it over and over again is really you want to he lost over and over again this is what you want you want us to lose the House, the Senate and the White House to Biden I mean this guy lost to Biden what a joke if that were the message I think that's a message the Republican base can get that's a message the Republican base will create question marks in the minds of the Republican base voting after him as a liar as a criminal as a bad president as whatever won't help won't help none of the base see him that way the only thing that I think can really get them is he's not electable he's a loser and he lost your Senate he lost the House and he'll lose this that would be the strategy I would advise any political candidate in the Republican running for president right now as a Republican nobody will accept it I fear but that's the that's what I would suggest though by the way Fox News has reached out to me so who knows we'll see maybe somebody does want my advice we'll see I've got a phone call with them tomorrow morning I'll let you know how it goes Liam I can understand the universe always existing but biological matter always existing seems bizarre why would that be the case maybe we'll find better answers than well that's just the way it is well biological matter hasn't always existed I don't think anybody claims that biological matter is a certain combination of non biological matter so biological matter somehow formed we don't know exactly how but in what is that and we don't know what made it biological how that happened and maybe there is biological matter in the universe that always has been I don't know but it's not necessary it could be a combination a feature of non biological matter combined a particular formulation but I'm speculating James Taylor says would you rather live in New York or Boston when was the last time you took a subway probably in New York I've already lived in Boston probably in New York New York is more exciting more interesting Boston is colder as well I like Boston but I think I'd like to experience life in New York I've never done that probably never will but an experience of living a couple of years in New York would be fun I think it's got so much to offer such a great city in spite of everything when was the last time I took a subway I think in New York maybe a couple of years ago I had to go down to what do you call it downtown where the World Trade Center used to be and it really is difficult to get there by taxi it's very expensive takes a long time lots of traffic best way is to go there by subway I haven't been in a Boston subway man since I was a boy since I was a teenager I don't think Adam says suppose you were Christian and suppose you were woke but I repeat myself what unites them is the nonsense what unites them is the irrationality what unites them is the authoritarian epistemology or the woke you could argue I mean in a sense doesn't have an epistemology but yeah that's what unites them is unreason $136 guys very doable with a few just six and a half and a bit more $20 questions Michael says does Christianity make people not use their minds and explain all the bumpkins that populate most of the country yeah I mean yeah why would you use your mind truth is revealed truth is not discovered and it's not about truth seeking it's not about using your mind it's about believing it's about having faith and you know some people use their minds and some people you know do that but most of you you just have to believe you just have to have faith and trust and basically at the end of the day do what you're told so yes I think it very much explains the bumpkin nature but you know a secularist like woke or bumpkins too right because they have abandoned the mind in the name of something else we live in a culture unfortunately that's the logic is that it has a man in the mind Michael says I notice a lot of mystics talk of Jews because they associate Jews with the world in us yeah they associate Jews with the world in us but they also associate Jews with otherness and mystics a tribal and it's my tribe versus your tribe and Jews are a different tribe Jews in particular are more of this worldly tribe but a different tribe nonetheless and a tribe that's successful it's always best to hate success a likely explanation Shahzad asked a likely explanation for how the building blocks of biology matter first formed was by lightning strikes in the ocean yeah there was some what do they call it a soup there's some kind of primordial soup of molecules and carbon and different features maybe it was in the ocean or in a pond or in something like that and lightning strikers so they're just igniting it creating some kind of activity that created molecules were created that were then the basis for life people have tried to do this in a laboratory and have not been able to mimic it so we still don't have a definitive and we still can replicate we still have just hypotheses likely explanations people might think Christianity is less dangerous than wokeism but they drop the context of Christian history less evil is wokeism compared to the enslaving women as breeding tanks with anti-abortion I agree anti-abortion is just as destructive as the worst things that the woke people do I mean this is the thing about makes I think objective is unique is we are pro-abortion we're not we're not just you know we're pro-womens right to have an abortion not choice not this and we view an anti-abortion perspective as an anti-life perspective an anti-abortion perspective as an anti-rights perspective an anti-abortion perspective as a you know perspective of enslaving women this is a big issue for us this is not a minor issue big issue fine rent it was not just a side issue because it goes to heart of individual rights it goes to heart of the pursuit of happiness it goes to heart of individualism pursuit of happiness pursuit of happiness that's what it goes to heart of not your average algorithm as the unphilosophical majority among men are the ones whose helpless dependent on the errors dominant ideas do you foresee economic collapse and civil disobedience ensuing I don't see it anytime soon I mean we're slowly seeing more civil disobedience I think but maybe maybe what happens is you have economic collapse and you have a rise of an authoritarian you have not civil disobedience but civil obedience in some ways that scares me more you know imagine a charismatic smart religious wrapped in a flag I mean that is to me that kind of that can generate civil obedience and therefore authoritarianism and I fear that that's more likely given the low state of thinking and you know the high degree of tribalism there's a good chance that that will be the outcome that comes about perhaps at some point yes I don't think anytime soon U.S. economy is still robust still incredibly flexible and resilient is a word a lot of people use but it is it's amazingly resilient alright we're $116 short maybe $111 now that we just got five bucks for merit events it's $111 short you know keep asking questions maybe we'll get our goal Uptin and again remember value for value right in part of what is part of what makes Christianity seem like a viable alternative the failure to make take ideas seriously that is the West cannot conceive how Christianity could again rise to have real consequences well I think some people in the West yes I mean the secularists the middle of the road centrists so basically secular I think that's right I think they can't really conceive of Christianity as a threat of Christianity as rising up again they don't really have a sense of history they think all Christians are these moderate nice go to church on Sunday but just act like a normal human being the rest of the time and they don't know what Christianity is a dominant political religion would be right that I don't think they have a concept of what a righteous Christian looks like in political power Richard said what guest do you have coming up on the show you know I don't know but a few that are gonna come up in the next few weeks I just don't know what to order and I don't have it from schedule we will have Amish to come and talk and do a view of on COVID on the COVID response and the vaccines and the vaccines that you know insanity with regard to you know the people claiming vaccines are killing us we'll talk about that we'll talk about maybe what happens and the next time it happens to what extent has anybody learned anything you know and we'll talk about other kind of biological threats to America because one of his expertise is in biological warfare so we'll do that Amish we've also got Jim Lennox who is a philosophy professor from the University of Pittsburgh a specialist in philosophy of science especially in biology and I really want to go with Jim I want to talk about biology I want to talk about evolution I want to talk about evolutionary psychology I think he's a great resource for all of that so Jim Lennox I'm excited to have Jim he was very friendly with Alan God health who passed away a few years ago and was a philosopher and was a statillion scholar and who knew I ran I think Jim knew I ran anyway Jim is not retired but a really good good guy and I think his thoughts on evolution are really interesting so that's his area of expertise so those two I'm also going to try to get heavy bin swanger well I'm sure I will get heavy bin swanger heavy bin swanger, we'll get Jean heavy his wife we've got a long list a long list that kind of got a little disrupted because I was traveling and now I'm back and now we should go with you know pretty much almost every Thursday in an interview with a few exceptions like maybe this Thursday thank you Richard Andrew the new atheist are just like others in viewing morality mystically yes is there something special about morality that makes that subject hard to conceive of as scientific or is it because it hasn't historically been done no I mean Aristotle certainly I think tried to do it scientifically but I think his efforts were flawed I think great so I think what happened is basically morality was captured by captured by Christianity morality was captured by Christianity and sadly kind of the Neoplatonists dominated ancient Greece you know and dominated the better Aristotelian philosophies and brought in Neoplatonism combined with Christianity became the force and you know and Christianity brought with it this adherence to altruism and really for 2000 years that hasn't been challenged and partially it hasn't been challenged because to conceive of and present and offer a new morality requires a genius a genius to ground it a genius to explain it a genius to articulate it to discover it it doesn't just happen coming out of the renaissance secular forces were just too weak to be able to discard religious morality completely and they didn't have anything to replace it with they had an inclination of the direction of how you would replace it and that you can see in the Declaration of Independence with the pursuit of happiness and in individualism implicit in much of the Enlightenment but they didn't have a morality to replace it with and it took a genius the genius of Ayn Rand to give us an alternative to give us an alternative and so you can't so the until you get Ayn Rand there's just what are they going to do what are they going to embrace now now she's here now we have now we have an alternative morality it really is an alternative it's an alternative that can be defended in reason on facts on biology, on nature and you know now it's a now it's a question of how much courage and how much intellectual integrity people have we will see Apollo asked your favorite molecular biologist of all time I didn't know I don't know that I can name a molecular biologist I mean right now I like what's the name because I just read a book about her the woman who did the CRISPR from Berkeley and you know and I like the guys who turns out that he was a horrible human being but a great scientist a guy who discovered the double helix shape of the Watson of the DNA but other than that I don't really know molecular biologist answers there I don't know where the answer is anyway it was Megan what was the name of the woman who came up with CRISPR I don't know if any of you know but I've got the books on my Kindle on my iPad alright we were short $71 alright Michael part one suppose country one is free some companies in country one want to get resources and set up shop in country two but country two isn't governed well do the companies in country one have the right to set up shop in country two does country one have the right to invade country two so the companies can operate no I mean no you you don't have a right to demand that somebody else defend defend what you would like to do you know in the future your rights have not been violated yes you know okay your rights have been violated to some extent by the fact that you cannot let's say country two keeps you out that you cannot go to country two and start a business I don't think those are the kind of rights violations that the government should get involved in I mean militarily I don't want to send my kid to die to risk his life so that you can do business in China so we should go to war with China because you want to do business there no so if China steals your business arguably the US government should definitely intervene and do something about it I don't think quite going to war is the right answer but do something about it but it cannot be that I have to think about clearly more what is the principle here it cannot be that your intended actions an action denied by another country there is a meaning to having a border there is a meaning to where does your government protect your rights it protects your rights within the border unless you know you are being you know physically attacked or threatened but just your inability to enter someone else is not a legitimate enough reason not a good enough reason to go to war not from the perspective of the other country but from the perspective of putting your own citizens at risk I think that's the right answer Shah is about for $20 bringing us down to only $51 short what is your favorite at least or least favorite fictional AI oh my favorite AI I don't know what you mean by favorite AI my favorite fiction that has AI in it is the Terminator movies I really like those movies I think they're smart movies I think they're really innovative movies I think the philosophical theme of Terminator 2 is really really good so I can't say that AI is my favorite but the movie portraying AI is my favorite um so that is one you know Space Odyssey 2001 Hal was the first AI kind of I think I have encountered in a movie and is very well done and is very spooky and scary the whole movie is spooky and weird but Hal is very powerful there are a lot of most of the other AI movies I found pretty silly now there are some modern ones where people fall in love with AI their AI but I haven't seen those movies so I probably should watch some of those movies because they're probably going to be more referenced culturally now that AI is big so I should probably watch them but a lot of these other movies I just don't I don't love but yeah Space Odyssey 2001 and Terminator Maribands, the principal soup with protein and RNA building blocks spontaneously generated was simulated by Miller-Ory experiment so did they produce life what was the they simulated what the soup but then did they figure out how this soup generated you know a single cell living organism I don't think so but I'm curious I mean you know much more about this than I do so I apologize I wonder if the answer to your original question about my favorite molecular biologist was Maribands that's what you meant by the answers right in front of you interesting no life okay thanks yeah that's what I thought so that's the next step the next step is to actually be able to take the soup and create life in it somehow that would be that would be really really really cool really cool alright well only $35 away from the go home we're so close so close a dowie llama what am I I can't read I'm drowsy that's why I can't read alright have you seen any Andrew Huberman's videos he is a neuroscientist who's been getting more popular on YouTube I have not I assume you recommend him that's why you're mentioning him I will I will take a look I will take a look I have to copy paste this because otherwise I'm not going to remember there it is um Apollo Zeus I ma'am I think you got a fan here Apollo Zeus says have you done the review of unromantics yet by Megan Rivers I haven't done the review yet it's downloaded it's next on my Kindle so I will be reading it in the weeks to come and I will do a review of it I promise and I know I'm really really slow on these things and I know I promised a number of times that I will stop being slow on these things and I haven't lived up to my promises so I'm not going to promise anything right now but you know I'm I'm going to work on it I'm going to work on it things are in flux right now stuff is happening and I hope to be able to devote more time to the show and devote more time to catching up and getting all this stuff done all this stuff done all right we're still $35 short we were like $40 short on the on the news thing this morning so together we're like $70 short yeah I was hoping we'd get a $700 today to kind of make up the gap from the morning but you know $650 is good so thank you it's super generous I appreciate the value for value I think it's particularly good given that we didn't have a huge live audience today those of you who do not watch live who would like to support the show you can do show you know again offering value for value you can do so by hitting the applause button in YouTube and you can be a supporter there you can also become a member of the Iran Book Show by clicking join down there becoming a member I recommend becoming a member at $5 not more than that because YouTube takes quite a bit of the membership fee and then if you'd like to support the Iran Book Show with more than $5 then I'd recommend using Patreon or www.uranbrookshow.com which is PayPal or any other means that you can think of we can facilitate to you know to basically support the show so yes any one of those means will be amazing thank you to all of you thank you Adam for stepping in with the $200 it's very much appreciated and for all your support for the show thank you to everybody who asked the question and put some money behind it and thank you for all of you for listening and being here and participating and I will see you all tomorrow morning sometime tomorrow I'm not sure what time it's going to be maybe it'll be in the afternoon oh there's Adam just getting us over everyone please tell someone to read out the shrug find one person and tell them to read out the shrug and I think ultimately we win thank you Adam again thank you everybody Adam put us over the goal and I will see you all tomorrow