 But let's start with, let's start with Facebook and of course Facebook and capitalism are related. So Facebook announced, I think it was today, that they are banning a whole slew of people from their platform. They are taking them off. Louis Farrakhan, who is the leader of the nation of Islam. Alex Jones, Laura Luma, who I've never heard of, but I guess a conservative Jewish activist. A pro-white politician, Paul Neyland, Milo, of course, and Paul Joseph Watson, who is a conspiracy theorist, have all been banned today from Facebook. And I mean, I don't like any of these people, but I think it's a mistake for Facebook to get involved in banning them. I think it's Facebook treating us like children, telling its customers that they can't make choices for themselves, that they can't make kind of decisions for themselves. Now, I don't know exactly where their line is. I would suddenly ban certain people and I've said this before. I don't think it's easy to decide where the line is exactly. But I mean, I find this a little ridiculous. I mean, Milo is an obnoxious jerk. Anybody who pedals conspiracy theories is pretty obviously peddling conspiracy theories. And anybody, any intelligent person would know this and avoid them. You know, just ignore them. The idea that Facebook is not going to police, police is the wrong word. Who on the fringes is okay and who is not? Who is on the fringe? You know, I'm probably on the fringe for Facebook in many regards. On the issues, for example, of Islam, I might be as radical as some of these people that have been banned, although they banned a lot of other people. And, you know, let people make choices about these things. Like individuals decide about these things. Have clear guidelines. I've been talking about this for a while. Clear objective guidelines of what you can and cannot do on Facebook. What you can and cannot say on Facebook. And if people violate them, fine, get rid of them. And maybe all of these people have violated the terms. But it strikes me that if that's the case, the terms are too narrow. And again, it's not to defend anything any of these people have said. I mean, Luciferrocan is despicable. Alex Jones is despicable. I don't really know the rest. Milo. Milo is just ridiculous. I don't take Milo particularly seriously. But if Facebook wanted to treat its customers as adults, it would let them make these kind of decisions and not try to make decisions for us, for the users, for the customers. So I think it's sad. And this is only going to increase, increase calls to regulate Facebook and the calls are coming from the left and the calls are coming from the right for somewhat different reasons. But my guess is that a bunch of leftists have been banned here, although the predominant number of people on the right, which brings up an interesting question, right? There are a lot of people out there who say, Iran, right means pro-individual rights free market people. And left means the status to all of them, every single one of them. So if that were right, if that were true, right, if that's how you wanted to find left and right, then how would you define Alex Jones? Would you say he's on the left? But then nobody would know what you were talking about. And is Alex Jones the same in that sense as Louis Farrakhan? I mean maybe they've used at the end of the day are very similar, but they attract completely different people coming from completely different backgrounds, orientations, perspectives. There's something different about them. What would you do with white nationalists? Are they on the left? Are they on the right? Well, if the status is all on the left, then they'd be on the left. But are they the same as kind of communists focused on so-called economic injustice? No, I mean I think there are differences between status of the left and status of the right. And today almost everybody on the left and on the right are status. And it's useful to talk about left and right, not to talk about left and right in terms of left are the bad guys, right are the good guys. But between left and right is two forms of evil, two forms of statism, two forms of bad. One more focused on Marxist ideologies and in the more modern trend of identity politics and post-modernism. And the other, more focused on nationalism of statism with a nationalist bent to it, on racism, on anti-Semitism, but just broadly kind of statism that's focused on the nation or the race or some other category. But there's usefulness in separating the different types of status. And given the popular usage of left and right, that's what left and that's what right is. And we, me at least, I don't know about you guys, but I am neither left nor right. I'm an individualist. I'm not a status of the left. I'm not a collectivist of the left. I'm not a status collectivist of the right either. I'm neither left nor right. Those categories, you know, have lost all meaning in the modern context. Maybe they never had meaning. I don't know, but they certainly don't have meaning today in pro-individual rights versus anti-individual rights. That's out. We're the pro-individual rights people. I am anyway. And everybody else's anti, of the people that are anti, some fall into the bucket of left and some fall into the bucket of right. That's the way I use the terms today. I'm claiming, somebody's asking what I'm claiming, I'm claiming Alex Jones as a statist, nationalist, racist, conspiracy theorist, general wacko of the right. I mean, maybe I'm wrong about one of those particulars. Maybe he's not nationalist. Maybe he's not a racist. I don't know. But he's a wacko of the right. I think there's no question about that. So Facebook, I think Facebook is wrong to do this. I think it's bad for its customers and it's bad politically for its image. I think it is succumbed to pressure primarily from certain leftist groups, primarily from people who are concerned with hate speech, people who are concerned with so-called hate speech, people who are concerned with people's feelings, people who are concerned with the leftist agenda of silencing voices. And it's sad that it succumbed to that. On the other hand, and I have to reiterate, it has every right to do it. Their platform, they get the ciders on it. They drop me tomorrow. They drop me tomorrow. It's their platform. They get to decide, I don't have a long-term contract with Facebook. I've not signed anything with them. I agree to their terms and conditions. I think I've fulfilled them, but it's not. There's no binding contract here. Their platform, their property rights, their freedom to decide who is in their platform and who is not. It's a business decision. It's a political decision. Unfortunately, in modern American economic life, we have to consider as business owners, we have to consider the political consequences of what we do. I think at the end of the day, a bad decision, a decision that's going to lead to further pressure, further discussion, further engagement in the idea of breaking them up. And I would not be surprised at all if you'll see a coalition of Republicans and Democrats with Donald Trump supporting them to go after the social media companies and break them up. Oh my God, somebody on YouTube put me in three brackets. That three brackets connotes a Jew. Yeah, guess what? I'm actually Jewish. Okay, so that's what I have to say about Facebook. I've talked a lot about it in the past. If you have specific questions about Facebook, I'm happy to answer them. But I think it really is, as I said, a bad business decision. But this is not censorship. Only the government can censor. You can only censor by use of force. You can only censor. Only the government has the ability to censor you, not allowing somebody to use your platform within their rights. Might not be a right decision. Might not be a good decision. Might not even be a moral decision. But certainly within their rights legally. And therefore they should be left alone. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broods.