 Okay, so back when I was a student, the object of this club in Harvard was predominantly minority. Was it? Yes. Wait, was this? Well, 1989. Okay, interesting. Yes, and now the thing is, I actually, I went around and I started buying used copies of the virtue of selfishness. I can't think of the black people saying, read this. And when they read the essay on racism, a lot of them, okay, this is great, the part about individualism. But then they're saying, why does she spend so much time attacking the black leaders at that time? And so I got two questions. One, people respond to me, why did she attack it up so much? And the second thing is, what is it that she did or said at that time when black people were fighting against the government? They know it might be essay, but was there anything else that I should have mentioned at that time? Well, I mean, I'm getting questions. I've never gotten before. This is great. These are good questions. I mean, it really boils down to what did I do about the civil rights movement and to what extent did she fight on the side of the civil rights movement? And she didn't do much other than the essay on racism. And if I had a criticize as I ran in terms of the areas she focused on during that period, because she was writing extensively in the 1960s about issues, political issues. I think it's sad that she didn't write more about civil rights. I think she should. I think it was a bigger issue than I think she realized. And I think it boils down to she thought racism was such a disgusting, ridiculous, horrible thing that nobody could take it seriously. That it wasn't a big deal because, you know, it's just so stupid. And I don't think she had full realization of what was going on in the South and what had gone on in the South during Jim Crow, during the Jim Crow area. I mean, think of it. She came as a 21-year-old from Russia. Her focus was primarily in communism and fighting communism. She then went to L.A. or Chicago, then L.A., then back to New York. She never lived in the South. She never experienced the South. She never knew the South. I'm sure she's here and there. I mean, at least once that we know of encountered anti-Semitism. She knew it existed. And Josh, she lived through World War II. She said on one occasion, she said she never considered herself a Jew except in the face of anti-Semitism. Then she would probably state that she was Jewish when she faced an anti-Semitism. She once had somebody in her home talk positively about Hitler. She got furious and kicked the person out of the house. So I don't think she fully understood how much a part of American history was. And I think during that period, if you lived in the North, I think it was around, but I think it was suppressed a lot of what was going on in the South and a lot of what had happened since reconstruction. So her focus was really collectivism versus individualism. And again, racism is so obvious, right? It's so simple in her mind. And I think correctly so. What more do you write after you write her essay on racism? She laid it out. That's it. I wish she'd applied it more to the issues going on in the South. I wish she had acknowledged more the evils of what was going on down there and condemned them more strongly and more. But I think her orientation was much more towards communism, much more towards the threat of statism and collectivism. And that's the specific conflict between individualism and collectivism. I think she felt like by writing the essay on racism, he covered it. But I agree with you. I wish you would have done more on that. And she condemns the leaders because what she sees in them is the collectives. And she can't let them get away with it. But it's just that when a lot of folks when they came to the paragraph where she condemned the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yeah, but she condemns only one aspect of it, right? She condemns one aspect of it. And that is a condemnable. I still condemn it. And I wish we got rid of it, right? It's the one aspect that says that you can't discriminate. And that's wrong. You should be allowed to discriminate. But, you know, but again, I think the reason people are so object to that is because collectivism is deeply ingrained in so many people. It's their fault, right? If you're an individualist, you don't believe in the government forcing discrimination or anti-discrimination of people. You leave people free. She saw that as the bigger threat, I guess. And I think it was the bigger threat, right? It is the bigger threat. And at the end of the day, it's the collectivism that has led, I think, America back to racism. I think racism is an issue again in America. But I think it's an issue again in America because we've been so collectivistic. And I think to some extent that part of the Civil Rights Act has led us back towards more racism. Because the reverse racism, in a sense that they're left by latching onto identity politics and by using that aspect of the Civil Rights Act for their identity politics, has led people on their right to say, oh, you want to play identity politics? We can do that too, right? And that's, you know, some white Americans are doing that in a sense of, you know, we're white. And this is important. I mean, it's all primitive, barbaric, collectivistic nonsense. And I, man, identified it as such. And I think she felt that that was enough now. But I do think that it turns out Civil Rights were more important looking backwards. And there was a lot more to say about the Civil Rights movement. And there was a lot more positives in people like Martin Luther King's in spite of the negative aspects to what they did. And she could have focused on that. And again, it's like, you know what I mean? You wrote very little about religion. Because she didn't think religion was a force in American politics. Until the very end, in the last few years of her life, she realized religion was a big force. But I think in the 60s and 70s, when she was writing most of the stuff, early 70s, religion was dead. I mean, religion was unimportant. Who cared about religion? So she didn't write much about religion. Because racism is dead and the big mistake is reverse racism. Because racism is finished. I mean, racism is stupid. Nobody will be a racist. So I don't think she fully appreciates the power of racism and tribalism in that form, that really, really primitive form of collectivism and its power. And I don't think she fully realized how religious America was. Again, she was. She didn't visit the South often. She didn't realize how religious, how powerful religion was in America. And she didn't see. I don't think she saw the turn to religion that was coming. And she saw it in 76. She certainly saw it in 1980. She refused to vote for Ronald Reagan because she said, Ronald Reagan will bring religion into the heart of the Republican Party or make religion integral to the Republican Party. And she was right. Whatever you think about Ronald Reagan, that he did. And that has destroyed the Republican Party. So the Republican Party now is not the party of liberty, not the party of freedom, not the party of even a little bit of capitalism. It's the party of Donald Trump. Which is exactly opposite of that. And that's Ronald Reagan's fault. And she would condemn Reagan for that today. But that's, you know, so, you know, she didn't see everything. Or she didn't see that everything. I mean, she saw everything because she commented on racism. She commented on religion. But she didn't see them in that maybe in the fullest, the starting, you know, future context she couldn't have. And maybe she could have commented. And she should have, I think, commented more on civil rights and racism. And actually, at least we're trying to do more of that. Because particularly now with the rise of racism in America, I think, increased racism in America, we're trying to comment more on those kind of issues. And there's a huge backlash. A lot of people don't like us commenting on these issues. Interesting. All right. Thank you. There is only one antidote to racism, the philosophy of individualism and its political, economic, corollary laissez-faire capitalism. Individualism regards man, every man, as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation, or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights. And that a group as such has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. I hope you're hearing. If you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...