 Thoughts on policy suing Amazon for antitrust? I mean, I think it's horrible that they sued them on antitrust, I don't believe in antitrust, I don't believe in antitrust laws. I guess when you're in a corner, you use whatever legal mechanisms you have and antitrust is a legal mechanism that a lot of Silicon Valley companies have used over the years. So I understand why they used it. I'm saddened by the fact that they used it. I'd like to see antitrust put into the trash bin of history. Ein Rand, I think once said that that should be the first law that is repealed, antitrust laws because it is so anti-American, anti-achievement, anti-success. So I think it's sad that Paula did that. I think the whole Paula, Amazon, Apple, Google situation is, it's interesting. I mean, I actually hope that it reaches trial because I'd like to get more of the evidence. Amazon, by the way, today replied to Paula. And again, I don't have any inside information. I haven't talked to Amy Peacock who's at Paula. I don't have, I don't know. But Amazon's rebuttal to Paula is devastating. And Apple today basically seconded what Amazon wrote. And according to Amazon, and this was just according to Amazon, I don't know what's actually going on. But according to Amazon, Paula had been warned in advance direct quotes that clearly are violent, clearly inside violence were sent to Paula and Amazon requested that they be pulled down. Amazon did a real piece of work today in answering the Paula lawsuit. Now again, all we're seeing is bits and pieces of the big picture. It's gonna be really interesting, really interesting to see the actual lawsuit and all the different filings and everything that goes on there. But so it's hard to comment, but based on the Amazon filing, I don't see why Amazon was wrong to do what it did. I don't see why Amazon would be sued. But again, this is why we have a code of law to figure this out. Okay, we have another Paula question. I agree that private companies can remove anyone they please from their platform. But what we witnessed was Paula seems like a systemic silencing of dissent, which sets a dangerous precedent, thoughts. I don't see as there's a systemic silencing of dissent. There's plenty of dissent. There's no shortage of dissent on Twitter and Facebook. I mean, I go on Facebook every day. I do dissenting pieces. I mean, all summer. I went after BLM as racist. There's critical race theory as racist. I just said it again. It's on YouTube. Now granted, I don't have hundreds of thousands, but I know a lot of people who do have hundreds of thousands and say this. The biggest critic of critical race theory is active on Twitter. He hasn't been banned as far as I know. There's plenty of dissent in America. There's plenty of opportunities to dissent. There are plenty of platforms to dissent on. Now, there was a serious case of violence committed, an attempt to influence our electors in deciding, in finalizing the selection of presidents. This is a serious offense. What happened January 6th in Washington, DC? If, and I'm saying just if, I don't know if this is true. If Paula, people on Paula use the platform to organize it, use the platform to facilitate it, and use the platform to express the violent views about certain people and certain groups. And Paula, when warned by its contractors, by people he'd add a contract with, to get rid of this, to do something about it, and it refused, if that is the story, and I don't know that that is the story. Then Apple and Google and Amazon are completely with in reason to do that. And this is not a silencing of everybody. This is not a, this is not systemic, other than these are the, what do you call it? They all have a contractual relationship with a company that they at least suspect did something that was bad. And they ostracize that company. And not just bad, but that violates their contract with them. So they all walked away at the same time. But the fact that they all did it at the same time only suggests that they have very similar standards and that those standards were at least perceived to have been violated. 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, Brute. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego, it's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share, and you can support the show at youronbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals, and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe, because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go, easy. Do one or all of those, please.