Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Horseshoe Political Theory -- What is it? What it Gets Wrong?; Reviews | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Horseshoe Political Theory -- What is it? What it Gets Wrong?; Reviews | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Oh, a lot of fundamental principals. I'll lead them. I
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: should sell interest and individual ones. This is the show,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: all right, everybody, welcome to your one book show on
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: this Sunday, February fifteenth. Hope everybody's had a fantastic Valentine's
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Day weekend and you ready to get back to uh politics.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: We talked about love, romantic love yesterday. Hopefully you enjoyed
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: that show. If you haven't had a chance to listen,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: it's it's on YouTube, it's it's on your podcast, should
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: be on your podcast app. So take a listen. Hopefully,
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: hopefully you enjoy that. All right, let's jump in. Before
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: we do that, let me remind you of my seminar
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: in London February twenty eighth, sent to London from one
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: to five to five and then dinner. After that, we'll
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: be talking about capitalism. It's titled in Defensive Profit, White Besparity,
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Need No Permission. You can find information about it on
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: my website. You're on bookshow dot com. I think it'd
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: be fun, you know, I think you learn a lot
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: about capitalism. We'll learn a lot of details, a lot
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: of a lot of the history. We're talking about model case.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: But really we'll talk about the history and what makes
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: capitalism capitalism, what makes it unique, what makes it special,
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: why we don't live in capitalism today. I mean some
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: of it, you know, I think some of it you
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: won't know. It'll just be a deep dive into the
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: topic for four hours. Feel fee to join and ask questions.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: So if you have any questions about capitalism, any thoughts,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: any doubts, any any places where you feel a little
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: unsure about capitalism, this is a great opportunity to ask
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: and to inquire and to dig deeper again live in
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: person in London, somewhere central London. It'll be on February
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: twenty eighth, your on bookshow dot com. Just scroll down
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: to where the events section are click on the link
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: for this particular event. That'll take you to an ever
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Bright page where you can register and buy a ticket.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: So do that. The sooner that you do it, the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: better for me, at least, because that way I know
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: how many people are coming, and I can plan, and
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: I can I can get us an appropriate room, appropriate facility,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: so that and then I can let you know about
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: where it's going to be exactly February twenty eighth, this
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: is Saturday. Yeah, all right, let's jump in. She probably
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: all heard of the shoehorse his theory of politics. There's
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: been a lot of talk of it over the last
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: few years. The idea basically is, look when you actually
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: look at the right and the left at their extremes
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: at the you know, at the far right and the
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: far left. When you look at the far right and
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: the far left, what'd you see, at least in terms
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: of outcome, what you see in terms of technique, in
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: terms of their strategies political strategies, what you see is
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: something very very similar. I mean, both seem to be
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: striving towards authoritarianism, some form of one party rule or
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: one party dominance. You know, both at the very extreme,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: if you look at communism and fascism or Nazism at
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: that level, both have a secret police that monitors everything
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: you say and do. They both repress speech, They're anti
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: First Amendment. They they both have a tendency towards the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: culture personality. Where it was Lenin o Stalin or Hitler
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: or Mussolini, there's a culture personality associated with it. This
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: state control. In both, the state is all powerful and
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: there's repression of the opposition and violent repression, violent repression
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: of the opposition. So this is like a shoe horse, right,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: So the two edges are like similar in terms of
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: political strategies. And what's kind of at the other side
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: of the shoe horses, what would call liberal democracy right,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: liberal democracies is here them. Further you move to the right,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: the more you to the right or to the left,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: the more you become authoritarian, the more you become repressive,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: the more inclined you are towards violence. And it's the
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: theory associated with a French philosopher from the nineteen Road
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies, Jean Pierre fa I f a
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: ye fa ye fa ye. I don't know how you
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: pronounce it in French, Jean Pierre Faye. And you know,
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: he argued the tutalitarian movements from left and right basically
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: mirrored each other in their political strategies. Again, in their
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: political strategies more than traditional linear model. Linear model would
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: be left right on a continuum, and left and right
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: at the far edges are completely the opposite of one another.
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: The whole shoe bends, and they appear to be, you know,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: on certain dimensions, very very to one another. Uh. And
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: again the the the idea here is to recognize that
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: the ideological differences they claim, but the strategies are the same. Right,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: they reject liberal democracy, they both justify violence in the
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: name of some kind of utopia, some kind of some
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: kind of ideal. They both distrusted institutions promote ideological conformity.
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: And they both claim uh, you know, absolutism. Uh uh,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: political absolutism. And that was that that means, you know,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: ultimately authoritarianism. So you know, that's kind of the theory.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: And when you look at it, it it it, you know,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: kind of makes sense. Yeah, it seems like these things
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: are true. Right. Fay came to the for Yeah, maybe
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: it came to this after studying Nazi Germany and Soviet
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: Union's joint invasion of Poland. So I'm reading from an
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: article about him. Although these regimes were ideologically different, will
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: get to that in a little bit, their escalations towards
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: authoritarianism followed a similar pattern. In both cases, the leaders
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: of the regime sought to stifle political descent, eliminate threats.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: They continued power, and upon observing the similarities and the
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: strategies employed by each regime, Fay began to Greek consider
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: his understanding of the ideological spectrum. Faye deduced that like
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: a horseshoe, the left and right extremes of the continuum
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: bend towards one another as their distance from the center,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the center here being some kind of liberal democracy increases. Now,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: critics of theoshoe theories say, yeah, but the problem is
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: that when applied to fundamental values this is from this
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: article and believes associated with each ideological extreme, horseshoe theory
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: loses its perceived validity. Right, So the theory behind the
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: left and right a different. They say they're completely different,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: that there's no similarity to it. This is how this
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: article describes the difference, which is it just shows you
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: how ignorant and stupid. This is from the Vandable political view.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: So this is from Vannible University. Just shows you as
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: stupid people are. The theoretical priorities of the left and
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: right inherently opposed one another. Egalitarian economics and progressive policies.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: That's the left cannot exist alongside lazo fae economics and
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: conservative policies. And and here what you see is how
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: damaging the left and right spectrum is to I think
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: people's understanding of politics, to their understanding of the ideology
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: behind In what world is Nazi Germany loes a fake
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: economics an he just basic understanding of what was going
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: on in Nazi Germany in terms of economics, knows that
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Nazi Germany was a completely controlled economy, and it was
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: a status economy. And the essence of fascism is state
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: control of the economy. There is pseudo private property, but
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: there's certainly nothing nothing, nothing even approaching if there's really
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: no recognition of private property. Everything ultimately is the states,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: and the states let you pretend that you have private property,
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: but he controls it, tells you what you can and
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: cannot do with it. So the problem, the whole problem
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: with the left and right ideology is it lumps together
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: on the right fascism, Nazism, and less of faic capitalism.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: And that's a disaster for us, the advocates for las
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: a fik capitalism. This is why we must not must
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: not be on the right. We are not of the right.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: We're not on the right now. I think when i
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: Ran thought of the right, she thought of the right
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: as individual rights, and and you know, capitalism, that is
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the right, and there was some hope for that definition
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: of right maybe in the sixties and seventies. But I
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: think she was wrong. I think that she knew that
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: the conservatives of the time, who pretended to be poor
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: individual rights, would really and that that view of the
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: right was bound to go away, to disappear, to to
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: to be gone. And therefore what's left then on the
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: right is fascism, Nazism and all those forms of statism.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: We cannot associate with that. So we cannot be on
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: the right. And yes, we cannot be on the left.
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: That's why the left right is not appropriate for us.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: I'll get to my alternative to the Houshoe theory. It's
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: called the I call it the Arrow theory, the arrow
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: arrow theory of political alignment. We'll talk about it in
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: a minute. So, you know, so the Hushie theory is
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: criticized by saying, look, the the the differences ideologically are significant. Now,
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: I think the horseshoe advocates like Faye would would say, well, look, yeah,
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: it's true the different right. We're not suggesting that ideologically
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: they're the same, but we're suggesting that the ideology, whatever
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: it is, drives them to the same type of political strategies,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: to the same type of authoritarianism. But again they're completely
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: missing the mark. So here's a continuation in this article.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: An alternative application of horseshoe theory encourages not the examination
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: of the content of particular policy preferences, but instead the
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: strategies used in the implementation. So this is about the strategy,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: not the content. But here's what they're missing. The missing
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: the deep fundamental, metaphysical, really similarity between the left and
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: the right. Suddenly, at these extremes that ideologically they are
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: are fundamentally similar. They apply this differently. So there are
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: differences ideologically, but the differences are far smaller than what
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: conventional political thinkers think because they don't think it fundamentals.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: So let's put that aside for a minute, and let's
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: look at what makes the left the left. What is
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: the characteristic of the left? What is the underlying philosophy
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: of the modern far left? What makes a leftist a leftist?
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: What is the what are they striving towards? What is
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: the modern left about? And I think the thing that
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: characterizes the left more than anything else is egalitarianism. It's
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: the striving towards equality of outcome for all. And they've
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: taken this beyond just a Marxist equality of outcome, a
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: Marxist equality of outcome vis a vis economics, to a
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: equality of outcome across all human outcomes. They want weo equality,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: we all be the same. There's a scene in a
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: movie that's made about pots pop Pott's killing fields. It's
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: I forget the name of the movie. It's a movie
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: made by Angelina Juli. Maybe one of you will remind
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: me of the name. Anyway. There's a scene in it
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: that over the loudspeakers as they're in these work camps
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: that are trying to bring the city is down to
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: the level of the of the of the farmers and
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: drive out any education they might have, to drive out
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: anything that might make them extraordinary. There's a whole thing
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: on the loudspeakers, constantly going the individual is nothing, The
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: individual is meaningless. The individual means nothing. There's no you know,
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: you are just one in this amorphous collective. You're all
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: the same in every respect. And of course, the kami
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: Wus were famous in killing people because of their education,
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: killing people because the glasses, killing people because they were
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: good in any kind of field, in any kind of field. Yes,
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: thank you, Mirs Love who seems to always have the
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: answers to my questions. The movie is called First They
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: Killed My Father. First, They Killed My Father. I recommend
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: the movie it is. I mean, it's horrific, but it's
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: very powerful, it's very well made, good funds. You're in
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: agially for making it. It's a difficult movie to make.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: It's rare that communism or egalitarianism U that the far
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: left is criticized in our movie making, criticized in our
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: movie making, and and you know, good for making this.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: It's Uh, it's a good movie. It's well made, it's powerful,
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: and I think it captures I mean, it could have
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: been more explicit, the pieces of it that could have
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: been a little bit more explicsive, but I think it
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: basically captures the horror, certainly, But it captures the ideology
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: of the Kama Rouge and and and and how evil
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: it is and how horrific it is to the human beings.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: This is an ideology for ants, and theology maybe for bees,
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: but certainly not in ideology for human beings. So the
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: far left once equality of outcome, they want equality for everybody,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: and to do that, they look at the past and
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: they say some groups have been discriminated against relative to others.
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: Some groups have power, some groups have more more economically,
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: more culturally, more political, politically, they need to be brought down,
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: while the groups that have less economically, culturally, politically, and
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: in every other dimension need to be brought up so
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: that we can achieve a a an equality. But it's
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: much easier to bring people down, as the Kame Rouge discovered,
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: as Paul pot figured out pretty easily, it's much easier
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: to bring people down than to bring people up. It's
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: much easier to destroy than to create. And once you
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: establish a gather, chimanis, once you establish equality, there is
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: no bringing up, bringing up, creating, building, producing that is
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: that is a characteristic individual, not the group, not the
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: collective in any kind of way. So it's impossible to
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: really bring it up. So what the what the steam
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: Left advocates for is identity. Paul takes organized the round
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: oppress or oppressed power quote relationships. But the power relationships
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: are just just power. Just you can fill in economic inequality, cultural,
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: any kind of inequality can can fit into the power.
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: Power is an amorphous term that they can use in
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: any way they want. But the basic idea is you
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: identify groups that are pressed. They now are the good guys.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: They're the ones you want to support. Any group that
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: has more than these oppressed groups have, they're the ones
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: you want to destroy. They're the ones you want to
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: bring down. Kill in the kill, destroy, murder, annihilate, as
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: the Kame Rouge did, and that ultimately the outcome needs
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: to be equality, egolativiism, everybody being the same. And to
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: do that, many many people have to die, many many
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: people have to die. There's just no way, not there's
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: no way to achieve that goal. Stalin understood that. Lenin
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: understood that you have to break some eggs to build
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: an omelet, and and suddenly, and and and suddenly, Paul
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: Pott understood that. But but look, the do the Antifa
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: guys understand this absolutely understanding. When they get political power,
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: that is what they will do. That is what they
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: will do, right. They will use whatever power they have
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: to destroy the people that they believe need to be destroyed.
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: They will crush those who stand out in any kind
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: of way who don't buy into this egalitarian mythical utopia.
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: I love this. We've got out egalitarian on board, and
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: he writes a more people must be controlled. Wooh, you
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: see the authoritarianism there. You see how how you know unapologetic,
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: you know, consistent? It is that is the fall left.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: The fall left is a a thiritarian. It is dictatorial.
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: It is about secret police, it is about speech codes.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: It is about cancel culture in the sense of canceling,
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: not just finding somebody, but canceling people, getting rid of them.
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: They're non existent. Again, I refer you to the Kame
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: Rouge or Stalin for examples of that. So fundamentally, the
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: far left are collectivists. Collectivists who like to believe that
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: they view all of mankind as one collective, one collective,
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: where with all of mankind, those collectives, all of mankind
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: being that one collective being ultimately, But in order to
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: get there, in order to get to the point where
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: all the mankind is one collective borg, one collective, equal
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: in everything, in order to get there, well, we have
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: to treat other smaller collectives differently so that we can
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: equate them. So the Jews need to be treated differently
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: than you know, I don't know, the Blacks or any
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: other kind of minority. Jews don't count as a minority,
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: or you know, the whites need to be different. You're
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: treated differently than people are brown skin. So they're very
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: much about race, very much about racial ideology, about identity politics.
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: The rich category that needs to be different, treated differently
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: than the poor. The rich need to be brought down
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: to the level of the poor, because that's the only
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: way everybody can be the same. So while the egalitarians
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: view everybody as ultimately in their ideal equal, they have
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: to differentiate between groups, between collectives in order to get there.
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: In order to achieve that utopia. Again, utopia is a collectivistic,
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: anti individualistic, I mean rejection, complete rejection of the individual,
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: the individual doesn't exist, and the elevation of the grand
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: collective over everything else. And again, in or to achieve that,
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: we need we need to treat different collectives differently in
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: order to get to that end. To get to that end,
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: so that's the left, that's the evil of the left.
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: What characterizes the evil of the far right? She could say,
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: the real fundamental difference between the left and the right
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: is the left egalitarians and the right are believe in hierarchy.
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: They believe in inequality. They reject the galitarianism. They believe
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: some groups of people are better, deserve more power, deserve
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: more rights, deserve to rule over others, that some are
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: better morally, some are better intellectually, some are better, and
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: therefore they must rule the others. They believe in the
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: same kind of identity politics, but their identity politics, the rights.
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: Identity politics is not for the purpose of semigalitarian utopia.
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: Their identity politics is. They will tell you just a
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: reflection reality, just the recognition of the fact that they
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: are different and therefore deserve different things. So whites are
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: different than blacks, different than Jews, different than Hispanics, different
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: than Asians, and rich are different than the bourgeois, different
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: than than the poor, and that all these categories are
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: just like. The left beliefs that there's someone inherent. They
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: could be molded and shifted, but they're mostly inherent. I
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: mean marks believe that the bourgeois the bourgeois. It's very
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: difficult to change the bourgeois into a into a proletarian. Indeed,
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: that's why communism has to engage in significant breaking of
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: eggs in order to create that omelet. Omeletti is pure equality,
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: but some people can never be equal and it can
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: never you know, become politarian and accept that consciousness, and
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: therefore they must be exterminated. The right believes very similar
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: that these groups are and that the solution to that
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: is not to strive to want some kind of equality
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: in the future, but that some groups rule of other groups,
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: that some groups control and have power of other groups,
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: and that that power should be recognized in the law,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: in the system government. That is what Nazism does to
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: the Aryan race over all other races and places Jews
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: right at the bottom. There. So there's a hierarchy, and
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: you have different you're going to be treated differently. And
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: then some groups are so offensive, just like with the left,
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: some groups are so offensive it can never change, their
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: identity is encoded in their genes. Then those groups need
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: to be wiped out, just like the far left believes.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: So the difference is one is committed degalitarianism as an
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: ideal in a utopia and identity politics is a means
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: to getting there. The other believes in hierarchy as it's utopia,
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: the rule of some over others as a utopia, and
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: identity politics is the way it will always be in
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: the way it's always been. They will say, we are realists,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: we are connected to reality. You know, they call themselves
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: race realists. We know some people are better than others,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: so we give those people power over the people who
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: are not so good. And that being better is not
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: just about intelligence, about morality, it's about culture, it's about
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: economic ability, it's about everything. So one is for hierarchy
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: and one is for eglativianism. Both. What do they both share,
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: but they both shift fundamentally, is what do they do there? Uh?
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: I did that wrong. They both share the fact that
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: they're both collectivists, which is the fundamental They interpret collectivism
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: differently in terms of which groups of which, and they
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: strive for different utopia. One is a utopia of higherarchy.
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: Now there's a utopia of equality. But they both share
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: the same means, and they both share the same fundamental.
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: Metaphysical view of man, the medical physical view of man
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: is that man qui individual does not exist. The man,
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: by his very nature, is part of a collective, and
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: that collective is the political but moral purpose of life.
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: There is no individual consciousness, there's only group consciousness. There
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: is no individual morality, there's only group morality. The purpose
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: of the individual is too serve to serve the collective.
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: All right, I'm just gonna say this, candle, if you
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: don't stop on the chat like dominating the chapter where
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: you are, I will I will ban you from the chat.
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: I'll put you on twenty four hours yesterday this time
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: I'll just ban you completely. So either moderate your usage
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: of the chat with your nonsense, or I'm just gonna
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: bang you from the chat. So that's the alternative you have.
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: But if you continue in the path, you know what
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: will happen. All right, back to this, I'm just trying
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: to do some clean up operations here, and Mils Love
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: there is what position to ban you when I ask
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: him to do so. Yeah, some of you might have
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: Candor already blocked, so you might not be seeing his
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: endless chats. So the fundamentally you could view the horseshoe
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: theory as in a sense correct. We'll get to its
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: real flaw in that both edges and everything leading up
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: to the edge, the whole project of the right and
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: the whole project of the left are collectivistic projects. The right,
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: even in its more moderate forms, is built on tradition.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: Tradition is inherently collectivistic. Whose tradition, oh, tradition, who's ow
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: What about the individual who's going to break out of
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: that tradition? What about the individual wants to live his
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: own life the way he sees fit, separate from your tradition. So,
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: even away from the edges, the right is inherently collectivistic.
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: The whole Conservative project, in spite of the claiming to
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: be founding fathers and individual rights and the declaration dependence
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: and all that, But the very nature of the word cervitism.
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: What are they trying to conserve a certain, you know,
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: way of life, but of whom, not of an individual.
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: The very nature of the emphasis on tradition, and the
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: very inclination they have towards nationalism. They're collectivists of one
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: form or another. And then if you take the left,
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: the same thing is true. The social democrats, the various
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: types of you know, leftists all share. Maybe they don't
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: want complete equality, they want some equality, they want to
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: don't want complete redistribution of wealth. They don't want to penalize.
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: They don't literally penalize everybody. They just want to penalize
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: some and a little bit, not a lot. And all
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: of this but everything is in the context of this
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: group versus that group, and how the group's going to
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: end up, and how the groups in this way or
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: in that way. They're all collectivists. They all talk about
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: the rich and the poor at the very minimum on
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: the left. On the right, they all talk about us
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: and them the other, the immigrants, the foreigners, and you know,
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: as you get more and more towards the racist elements,
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: the Jews, the non whites, whatever, right, but it's fundamentally
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: the same. They both focused on identity politics. That's extreme,
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: but as you move in the identity gets fuzzy. But
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: the collectives, the collectivism at the heart of it, are
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: still there. And there's nobody here, nobody here, nobody on
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: the whole horseshoe who actually has an understanding of individual rights,
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: a freedom of liberty and what it actually means. It
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: doesn't converge into freedom, liberty, individual rights. That's not a spectrum.
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: There's collectivism, collectivism, a little bit less collectivism over here,
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: but it's still collectivism. And this is the problem with
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: left and right, Democrats, Republicans is you know, we don't
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: get a move, a systemic, fundamental, continuous move, no matter
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: who gets elected towards individualism, towards individual rights, towards freedom,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: towards liberty. That move just doesn't happen politically because we're
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: stuck in a context of collectivism. We have to take
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: care of the poor, we have to take care of
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: the old we bought into one way or the other.
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: The collectivistic premises that both left and right share the
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: individual his liberty, his freedom doesn't matter, doesn't count, and
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: that's everybody, even the best people on the horseshoe are
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: out there. So what we need is something else. What
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: we need is a different vision of what that political
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: spectrum looks like. So if you have to have an image,
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: think of an arrow, think an arrow, errow. At the
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: tip of the arrow is individualism. Individualism, that's the head,
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: that's the what do you call that, the bit at
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: the at the tip of the arrow, which is the shop,
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: the shop bit, that's individualism. And you're moving away from
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: individualism by various levels. But once you at some point
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: you know you're dominated by collectivism. And at that point
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: they're these feathers, right, that's the branch off of the arrow.
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: The arrowhead is individualism. The other side, where you've got
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: feathers the arrow, there's just one tip that is liberty,
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: that is the declaration of independence, that is individual rights.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: Luzzific capitalism. Luzzific capitalism is the tip of the arrow.
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: The other side, you've got feathers. You've got the branching
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: out like this, right, one branch is fascism, one branch
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: is socialism. There's communism, there's Nazism. They're all collectivists. They
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: just have different spins on it. One's the kame Rouge.
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: You disagreed with Stalin, who did it a little bit
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: different than Mao, but they're all basically the same. And
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: then on the that's on the left side of the feathers,
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: and on the right side the feathers are you know,
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: Mussolini and Stalin and Fanco. Right, Fanco didn't kill as
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: many people as either Massolini as Hitler. Still a bad guy,
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: still fascist, Still collectivist, individualism, collectivism. And once you recognize
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: the evil of collectivism, once you recognize that the inherent
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: evil of collectivism is its negation of the individual, is
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: that it's going against reality, it's going against nature, it's
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: going against the nature of man. That it rejects reason,
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: rationality because reason and rationality can only be a feature
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: of the individual. That inherently, collectivism must be mystical in
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: some respect, a secular mysticism, a belief in the consciousness
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: of the politarian, or the consciousness of all blacks, or
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: the consciousness of all whites, or the consciousness of all Jews,
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: which the right often shares. We saw that in the
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: video the other day of white identity. The guy about
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: white identity, what is it? You can't define it because
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: there is no such thing. There's no such thing as
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: white identity anymore than there's such a thing as black identity.
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: It's mystical, it's completely floating, it's completely detached from the
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: real world. And so they have to be the collectives
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: have to be mystical because they reject reality, they reject reason,
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: because they've rejected the individual. And as you reject collectivism,
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: you embrace individual. Then you understand that if you are
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: for the individual, if the individual is the unit that
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: matters in politics, then the only thing the individual needs
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: politically is to be free. It's to be free of violence,
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: to be free of coursion, to be free of force,
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: to be free of authority that can impose its will.
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: The individual that needs to be left alone. And then
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: you know, and that leads to you to kind of
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: a system that protects individual rights and the mechanism right
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: which those rights have protected the creation of a government
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: who's sole responsibilities the protection of rights. In other words,
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: it leads you to lazzific capitalism, but that requests not
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: on the rights, because as a fic capitalism rejects everything
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: associated with the right, rejects tradition, rejects considering the past.
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: It's progressive, it's future oriented. But more importantly, it rejects
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: any collective. It rejects any form of mysticism. It's based
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: on recognizing the individual, and the individuals means by which
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: he survives, he thrives, he flourishes, he achieves his own mind.
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: The horseshoe theory is both shallow because it does not
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: recognize a shallow because it does not recognize the ideological similarities,
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: the fundamental ideological similarities between left and right, and focuses
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: instead on the strategic political similarities, which are all true,
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: but they come from the ideological similarities. And what the
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: Horshoe theory evades is the true alternative, the true alternative
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: being individualism, the true alternative being individual rights, the true
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: alternative being loves if a capitalism los fay capitalism not
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: a feature of right, not the feature, not within the hoseshoe,
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: but away from the hoshue, far away from the hosue,
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: because a complete paradigm shift, a complete change, a complete differently,
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: completely different orientation that rejects the very nature of left
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: and right, because it rejects collectivism in any form, in
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: any form. And indeed, me Lay is away from the
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: left and right. I mean he's mixed. He's not un
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: lusso fit capitalism over here. He's somewhere along the shaft
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: of the arrow. He's not at the edge, he's not
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: that the spearhead, not at the arrow head, but he's
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: along the lines. He has to periodically appease those on
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: the political right because they're his allies. Now I think
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: it's appeasement. Maybe he believes it, maybe in his own
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: mind he has to do it. So he puts his
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: fictions and immigration, he makes nationalistic comments. He claims he
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: wants the Falkland Islands back and things like that, and
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: he buys weapons systems and ought to achieve it. But
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: in his economics and most of his policies. He is
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: on the premise of individualism, and therefore at least on
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: the shaft of the arrow again, not on them, not
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: on the arrowhead. There's no politician anywhay in the world
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: who actually sits on the head of that arrow, on
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: the tip of that arrow. I wish Milay is inspiring enough,
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: but given the alternatives, but we can all wish for
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: something even better, for something even better. So yeah, it's uh,
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: it's that is my view of the horseshoe political theory.
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: Horseshoe political theory. It doesn't recognize the similarity, the fundamental similarity,
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: and it doesn't recognize what alternative really is. We do,
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: and that's why, well I do. I don't want to
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: speak for you, guys. I do. Therefore, I am not
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: of the right and I'm not off the left. A
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: pox in both their houses. They're both evil as far
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: as I'm concerned. They're both authoritarian ultimately, and they both
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: lead us towards the same collectivistic hell. And therefore I
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: stand on the side of individualism. Even if I stand alone,
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: even if no politician represents my view, even if I
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: have no political home, no political party, that doesn't change
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: my view of what is true. It is shocking to
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: see so many people in the name of belonging some
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: way on the political map, in the name of I
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: have to choose. There are only two alternatives. Have sold
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: this soul to the collectivists, sold this soul to the collectivists.
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: I will not that. I can guarantee you, even if
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: I land up being the lone man fighting out there
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: against the evil of collectivists. I mean, I know I'm
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: not alone, so I don't want to pretend I'm not alone.
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: There are plenty of you out there who are with me,
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: and I appreciate that, and I thank you for that,
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: not that you're doing it for me. I still thank
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: you for it because it's a value to me that
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: I am not alone. All right. That is that, I
• 45:07
  Speaker 1: know you guys have a bunch of questions, all kinds
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: of questions. I guess someone yesterday's topic of love someone,
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: today's topics some of other topics. AI go, friends, Okay, interesting,
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: we'll get to those soon. We'll get to those soon.
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: Before we get to that, I want to I promise
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: to do some reviews today, So we'll start doing some
• 45:28
  Speaker 1: song reviews today. I'll get I'll Get, I'll do all
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: the song reviews shots Bot, and then we'll get to
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: Shotsbot's Star Trek reviews, and then and then ultimately there's
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: a book review I have to do as well. That'll
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: take a little longer because I still haven't started reading
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: that book. That'll take a while for me to read.
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: But we'll start with We'll start with Got. We'll start
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: with the song reviews today, and hopefully I'll do I'll
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: finish the song reviews up next week, and then in
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: the weeks following that I'm traveling, but sometime in the
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: week fallowing that, we'll start with the reviews from Shasha
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: the TV series reviews and and and Star Trek, and
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: then then maybe there'll be new ones by the time
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: we get to finish them all. So let's start today
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: with some song reviews. Let me just close this window
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: and move this in there, all right, So let's start
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: with bye Fa by far the most entertaining of the
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: songs I was asked to review, and that is uh
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: and I'm not I'm sure I'm not pronouncing this right.
• 46:45
  Speaker 1: Hayes call Carill Hayes, Carill Hayes, Carill's song She Left
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: Me for Jesus. I was worried about this song, but
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: it is really funny. It is you guys need to
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: listen to the song. It is really it is really
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: fun and funny. It's it's it's it's it's a country song.
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: You know. The music is country cliche. It's just it's just,
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: you know, simple, straightforward Uh you know country sound, uh
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: the woods. You know. The lyrics are straight out country,
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: simple language, simple story, simple story being told. But it's
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: but it's it's, it's it's super funny. Right. So he
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: describes his golfriend that I've been dating from high school
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: and everything, and then she says she left me for
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: Jesus and that just ain't fair. She says that he's perfect.
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: How could I compare? She says I should find him
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: and I'll know peace at last. If I ever find Jesus,
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: I'm kicking his ass. She showed me a picture. All
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: I can do is stare at that freak in his
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: sandals and his long pretty hair. They must think that
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: I'm stupid old. I just don't have a clue. I'll
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: bet he's a comie or even worse yet, a Jew.
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: I mean, that's good. She love me, do the chorus again,
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: she's giving up whiskey and taking an up wine, whilst
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: while she prays for his troubles, she forgot about mine.
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: I'm gonna get even I can't handle the shame. Why
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: last time we made love she even called out his name.
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: That's good, Jesus, Yeah, that's good, it says it could
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: have been called Us or even Billy or Ted. But
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: if I ever find Jesus, he's gonna wish he was
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: dead a man. So you know. It ain't great art,
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: it ain't great poetry. It ain't great music at all
• 49:15
  Speaker 1: at all, right, but it's funny, so you know. And
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: it reminded me of my favorite country song. God, I
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: had it on the tip of my tongue. My favorite
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: country song is Jesus Take the Wheel, which is funny
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: in its own way. But that's a serious song that
• 49:38
  Speaker 1: makes you laugh and cry at the same time. But
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: is where Jesus is taking Seriously, it's not my favorite
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: country song, don't worry, but Jesz Take the Wheel is
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: a classic. If you haven't heard you just take the Wheel.
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: You've got to listen to it. It'll really piss you off,
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: but it's it's perfect perfectly Christian. It's perfect right, you
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: know she's is it Carrieanderwood, Yeah, it's it's so religiously evil,
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: it has to be one of the more evil songs ever,
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: It's it's a better song coas song. Then she left
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: Me for Jesus, but she leved Me with Jesus is
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: one of the funniest songs I've heard. So kudos to
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: to Patrick who got me to review this song, and
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: for finding a song that actually laughed aloud at That
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: is pretty rare. I have a pretty simple, simple sense
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: of humor, so that was good, all right. This one
• 50:39
  Speaker 1: is from ian Ian. Ian asked me to review The
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: Night Watch. The Night Watch and I was really curious
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: about this because it's a song based on a famous
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: painting by Rembrandt, and I thought I would show you
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: the painting. I don't know, should I show you the painting? Uh? Well,
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: so let me let me see if I can pull
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: this up and show you the painting. Uh yeah, let's
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: see if we get a good problem with it is
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: I don't think you're gonna get I don't think you're
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: going to gain a real appreciation for it. But but
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: let's let's pull it up. All right, it's one of
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: the great paintings and in in uh in uh Western history. Uh,
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: there it is, but you only seeing a segment of it.
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: Let me try to rescale this. I mean, you can't
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: appreciate it here, which is why I didn't. I wasn't
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: sure if I was going to show it. Let me
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: make it a little smaller. There you go. Right, that's
• 52:01
  Speaker 1: basically the painting. There's a lot more on the on
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: the of height to it, which you cannot see, but
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: that's that's the painting. And this is a song by
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: King Crimson from the late nineteen nineties, nineteen ninety seven,
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: and it's a basically celebration of this painting. And I mean,
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: this is a painting that revolutionizes art if you look.
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: So this is the night Watch. The night Watch in
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: a sense was a guild. Whoops, what happened there? That
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: wasn't supposed to happen? There we go? Right? Right there
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: we go? Oh, come on, move right there, locking into
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: the Okay, The night Watch is a revolutionary painting that
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: really revolutionizes, uh, at least Dutch painting. But I think
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: I think more broadly, more broadly revolutionizes the Uto painting.
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: If you looked at paintings of guilds before this, like
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: groups of men that are responsible for certain uh you know,
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: what do you call it? Activity? Productive activity? They're always static,
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: all standing there, very very you know, serious and very demure. Uh,
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: but you know and very you know, there's usually kind
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: of a standard way of how you portray them, kind
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: of a pyramid format, and how they how they addressed,
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: and how they're structured. And this is the first time,
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: the first time that a guild like this was painted
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: in action, in action uh and uh, you know, engaged
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: in activity with expressions not flat but engage real expressions
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: and individuated, real individuals, engage in their activities and dressed differently.
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: They're not all dressed the same, They're dressed in different colors.
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: And and there's even of course a little goal back
• 54:17
  Speaker 1: that dressed in white. It's a magnificent painting. And one
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: of the funny things I thought in the song and
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: the lyrics was is part of the lyrics it says,
• 54:29
  Speaker 1: let me see where Yeah, so this is the first verse,
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: shine shine the light of good work, shine work shine
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: So here the one of the effective things that Remband
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: does here is the way he uses lights the way
• 54:45
  Speaker 1: he is lighting up the faces, particularly of the central figures.
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: But really, if you look across the entire scene, the
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: faces are lit that way you can get their expressions.
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: So there's an impressive which is true. All rimvents work
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: an impressive use of light in order to sharpen their
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: individual characteristics. And uh no, that's not what I want
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: to do, all right, I don't know why. It's yeah,
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: it keeps resizing so you can see it there. You
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: can even see you see the goal in the background,
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: the light on her, the light on the ground. You
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: can even see shadows. I mean, the use of light
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: here is really effective. Anyway, he says, shine, shine, the
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: light of good work. Shine the watch before the city
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: gates depicted in their prime, that golden light or grimy.
• 55:41
  Speaker 1: Now three hundred years have passed. The worthy captain and
• 55:46
  Speaker 1: his squad of troopers stand fast. Now what's interesting is
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: that golden light or grimy now? And I get it
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: the sense in which he means grimy, because if you
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: went to see that painting, this pain eighteen ninety seven,
• 56:01
  Speaker 1: it was all grimy, It was all faded, The light
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: was grimy. But they've cleaned it recently. So when you
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: go now to the reichs Museum in Amsterdam, one of
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: the great museums in the world, and I think it's
• 56:21
  Speaker 1: on the second floor. This is a major painting that
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: you'll see it's right, it's right there as you come
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: up the stairs. I think you told it right, and
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: it's right there. It the difference between what it was
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: like when it was grimy as the song represents, and
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: the way it is now, it's such a huge difference,
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: it is. I wonder what they'd write now. They'd have
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: to change the lyrics today because the light is not
• 56:49
  Speaker 1: grimy at all. It's come alive. They've done such a
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: good job in cleaning it up that that you know,
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: it's almost a different painting now, you know. And it
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: so it really shines, It really shines, shines, shine the
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: light of good works. So anyway, you know, if you
• 57:12
  Speaker 1: look at this song by King Crimson, I really like
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: the lyrics. The lyrics are about basically these regular people,
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: regular people who are out here committed to the defense
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: of their city. You know, he writes, the artists knew
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: their face as well, the husbands of his ladies, friends,
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: his creditors, and counciliers in armored bright the merchantman official
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: moments of the guild imposes keen from bygone days, city
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: fathers frozen. There upon the canvas dark with age again,
• 57:50
  Speaker 1: It's not dark with age anymore. It's kind of cool
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: that now we can see it the way I think
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: Green Brand meant it to be seen. But yeah, these
• 57:57
  Speaker 1: are all. These are the counciliers and and the money lenders,
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: and the merchants, and you know, the people of the town,
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: the blacksmiths and so on. These are the people who
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: are engaged in the city's defense. It goes on the
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: smell of pain to flask of wine and turn those
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: faces all to me the blend of bus and how
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: but shaft and Dutch respectability. They make their entrance one
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: by one, defenders of that way of life, the red riccombe,
• 58:29
  Speaker 1: the bourgeoisie, and guitar lessons for the wife. And so
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: many years we suffered here, our country raked with Spanish wars.
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: These are the wors that Holland faced with the Spanish.
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: Now comes a chance to find ourselves quiet reins behind
• 58:47
  Speaker 1: our doors. We think about posterity again, So the pride
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: of little men the Burgher's good and true, still living
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: through the painter's hand will crushed you all to understand that.
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: So the pride of little men, I mean he means
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: not man of stature. These are not generals, These are
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: not political leaders, these are not these are real. These
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: are the heroes of Amsterdam, These are the heroes of Holland.
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: These are the people who actually do the fighting. And
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: these are the people who organize the defense. This was
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: the guild that defended them at night. This is the
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: night watch that defends the property rights, that defends the prosperity.
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: You know, we think about prosperity again, posterity again. So
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: I think those links are are good. That you know,
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: the sentimental is good. I didn't particularly like the music.
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: There's a certain I don't know, a certain drama to it,
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: but it's I found it a little annoying. It didn't
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: live up to the grandeur of I think even the lyrics,
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: never mind the painting, it just missing. It's it's the
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: music itself, I don't know, grinds a little bit. I
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: don't I wouldn't listen to the song. I like the lyrics,
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: but I wouldn't listen to it because I don't like
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: the way it was sung, and I found the music
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 1: a little greeting. It did create a sense of drama,
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: but what it didn't create is the sense of light.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: And maybe that's the grimy, but it didn't create the
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: sense of heroism that I think is in the painting.
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 1: Ian says it's part of improv and Crimson definitely leans
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: into dissonance. Yeah, it's too there's too much dissonance for
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: my taste. You know, this painting deserves a melody. It
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: deserves good melody and harmony. It deserves a story told
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: through music, and I think it's very hard to tell
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: a story through music with that kind of with that
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: kind of music. So I didn't particularly like the sing
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: his voice, But you've asked me to review these songs,
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: so you get them, all right? That was That was
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: the Night Watchman. I highly recommend checking out the painting
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: at the White's Museum in Amsterdam. If you're ever there's
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 1: a great city, you should definitely, you should definitely be there.
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: It does not deserve an Iron Maiden song. God, you
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 1: guys have the weirdest taste in music. What can I say,
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: or maybe I should say, just don't have a taste
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: in music. I'm not meaning to insult anybody. You guys
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: have your taste in music. I have mine. I think
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: mine's bad of it. That's that's you know, that's just me,
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: all right. Third song that was Ian. The third song
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: is by Hammad. This one is Star Lift Fearless Part
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: two and God, this one's an eighteen minute song. I'm
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: not even sure that you could call it a song
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: at eighteen minutes. It's so it's eighteen minutes, and I'm
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: not sure why you're taking it as a compliment, probably,
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: but you can take it as well. Stall. So this
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: is eighteen minutes long. It's it's very much a kind
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: of a heavy kind of rock be to it. It's
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: trying to tell a story. It's got an arc, you know,
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 1: I don't like I didn't like it, and it's it's
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: dark and depressing it. It's setting it up to be
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: heroic conflict and the hero is going to go out
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: there and save the world. And it ends with you know,
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: it's impossible. We alone. Come on, the style Lifters. You
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: will not win this warld. These are the bad guys.
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: I take it. The Stellar Engine cannot be destroyed. This
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: is the end. For you feel less. We control the
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: stars and all the fates of our world. Event it's
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: haaii is a point of no return, black hole machine,
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: Messiah one one's zero zero sail into the points of
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: no return. So it's pretty dark. Most of the song.
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: The singer is yelling, I mean, he is angry. He's yelling,
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, and the beat is constant, and you know,
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 1: it's it's, it's, it's it's a war thunder, it's it's
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 1: it's a war song. It's it's a it's a thumping
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 1: beat to battle. But then they lose. I guess, so
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: not my kind of music, uh, you know, and and
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: and there's no there's no beauty here. There's nothing for
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: me to return to this, Uh, I mean, unless I
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: guess I'm going into battle and I think I'm gonna lose.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 1: But then I think the better songs than this, or
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: better ones for me. Let me remind you, I'm no
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: expert on music, no expert on song, no expert on
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: songs at all, no expert on the history of music
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: in America and heavy rock or whatever. I'm just giving
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: you my personal opinions, which you know, if you call
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: them subjective. Yeah, I think subjective. They're not grounded in
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: real in in an objective knowledge other than the knowledge
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: of my preferences. So there's no there's no evaluation here
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: of the aesthetic quality of this qua heavy metal or
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: heavy rock or whatever you want to call it a song.
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: It's just my Would I listen to this? Would I
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: put this in the repertroip songs that I listened to regularly? Absolutely?
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: Not too depressing, too dark, too repetitive, too long, too shrieky.
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: The voice is way too shaking out when he's when
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 1: he's defeated, it comes way down and it's soft and
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: it's mellow. But even then it's not particularly an interesting voice.
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: I don't find people who's Rick, Oh, Rick, Jennifer, Oh,
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: happy birthday Rick. It's Rick's Jennifer's husband's birthday, So happy
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: birthday Rick. So that's crown Land's Star Lift of FEELSS
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 1: Part two. I don't know if any of you know
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: the song, but again, Hammad, thank you for the support,
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 1: thank you for for having me reviewed it. Uh and
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: uh yeah, you know, like most of the songs you
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: guys have me review, I don't really like it. So
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 1: there you go. This it is what it is all right,
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: two last ones, so first scorpions, wind of Change. So
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 1: you know, this is the song I like. It's it's
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: very melodic, it's very easy, and it's it's got a
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: great theme. It's it's it's depressing once you remember when
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: this was written and what were the context. But uh,
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: this is a this is a you know, ah, a
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: songwry basically about the winds of change, the wind of
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: change in Eastern Europe, the winds of change in Russia.
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: And it's melodic, it's it's pretty, it's interesting, it's it's
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: it's got a positivity to it. It goes. I follow
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: the Moscva down to the Golkie Park listening to the wind.
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: That's Moscow right, listening to the wind of change. And
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: August summer night, sol just passing by, listening to the
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: wind of change. The world is closing in. And did
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: you ever think that we could be so close like
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: brothers in the futures, the futures in the air. I
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: can feel it everywhere, blowing with the wind of change.
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 1: So the whole idea here is this is a song
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 1: celebrating the change. This is I think it was written
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: in the very late eighties, early nineties before they break
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: up the Soviet Union. Uh. And it became a big hit.
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: It became kind of almost like an anthem of that period.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 1: And it's a it's a good song. It's it's it's simple.
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 1: The lyrics are simple. Uh and uh it's you know,
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: walking down the street and distant memories are buried in
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: past forever. I followed the Moskva on down to Golkie
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: Park listening to the winds of change. Uh and yeah.
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 1: Uh again not super sophisticated, but it represents a time
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: of great optimism I think in the Western world when
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: the Soviet Union was collapsing. Uh million, hundreds, tens of
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: millions of people, tens of millions of people were liberated
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: from slavery, liberated from communism and and and it was
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 1: very positive. They recently did this song at a live performance,
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: I think in twenty twenty three or late in twenty
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: twenty two, and they changed some of the lyrics to
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: turn it into kind of a an anti Putin, anti
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 1: war Ukraine song, so a song supporting Ukraine. So at
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: the time it was so good for them, but it
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: was I guess the artist the artists of German Scorpions
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: of German so they they were experiencing it. They were
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 1: living in eastern Germany. The Berlin Wall had just fallen,
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 1: and they wrote the song when they were visiting Moscow
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 1: for a live concert as Russia was opening up right.
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: It was published in nineteen ninety on their albums. I
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 1: guess I think it was written before the Berlin Walk
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 1: came down, but the album came out after the Berlin
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 1: Walk came out. It was the biggest selling single, one
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: of the biggest selling singles of all time, fourteen million
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: copies and yeah, the biggest selling for any German artist,
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 1: I guess for any German pop singer. So good song.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: I enjoyed it. I forgot about it. I remembered it
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: from years ago, but I forgot about it. Oh wait,
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: one more. I did this one because it was easy.
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: And this one is in Dave Dave Goodman recently. No,
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: not Dave Goodman. This isn't the one from Dave Goodman.
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: This is the one from who gave me this time
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 1: I got those Let's change. Oh the this one's so
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: tony Bizz. Tony Bizz send me this song. Asked me
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: to review this song. This is Bruce Spinstein Bruce Stinstein's
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: recent song recent single called the Streets of Minnesota's again Tony,
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: thank you for the support and uh, you know, what
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 1: can you say about this song? I mean, this is
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 1: a class it'll become. It's put it this way. It's
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: tailored after a classic sixties. Sixties God the word I
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 1: want is disappearing right is not there? But it's it's
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: a it's this could be the Bob Dylan in the sixties.
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: It could be a number of different artists in the
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: sixties commenting on what's going on in the streets, commenting
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: on what's going on out there. And it's called the
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: Streets of Minneapolis, and it's a comment on what has
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 1: just happened in Minneapolis. And it it's it's very uh,
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: it very much sounds it's got a Dylan. It's definitely
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 1: got an earliest Dylan vibe to it. In terms of
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: the music. It's got the harmonica, it's got the it's
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: got the guitar and acoustic guitar. It's got you know,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: boost Thinkstein's voice, which is in some ways he can
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: he can make it very similar to to a to
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: a Dylan song. Uh, you know, it's a statement song.
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: It's a there's another word that for some reason I
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: had before is completely escaping me. But it's it's typical
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 1: of that period of social unrest and you know, and
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 1: and and criticizing the powers to be in terms of
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: what is going on. And this is obviously, uh a
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: song against ice and against DHS and against Trump. Thank
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: you Publius. A protest song. How could I not get
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 1: the word protest? All right? Anyway? It is it is.
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 1: It is a protest songs. It's in a tradition of
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 1: protest songs of the nineteen sixties, and I think it's
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: effective as that. I don't think there's a song that's
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: going to go down in history like some of the
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: sixties songs, because it's unriginal in the sense that it
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 1: is very much musically and esthetically copying the style of
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties, copying the style of songs back there,
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: copying style of songs that I think Springsteen has done
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: in the past, and certainly Bob Dylan and others in
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 1: the protest movement of the nineteen sixties did back then.
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 1: But for the moment, I think it's quite effective. You know,
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 1: this is a style of I like I grew up
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: on Bob Dylan, and I like I like the music.
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: I grew up on the protest music of the nineteen sixties.
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: I still Joan Bayas live in constant in Israel in
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies, and you know, and I you know,
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 1: I enjoyed this. Now you know, Bruce Beinkstein is a
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 1: crazy leftist, as were most of us, as Joan Bayas,
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 1: and as were most of the protesters in the nineteen sixties.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: That doesn't mean they can't produce decent music. And suddenly
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: this is this is decent. It's it's better than most
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 1: things that are produced out there today, and it suddenly
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 1: hits home in terms of the actual content. It absolutely
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 1: hits home. It makes the citizens, the protesters, makes them heroic.
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: It makes Ice the bruts, the tugish boots that they
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 1: indeed are. It is. It deals with the death of
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: both good and God. What's his name? Pretty pretty? And
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 1: it ends with Ice out, Ice out, Ice out, and
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: Ice is now leaving Minneapolis, which is good. And so
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: what I recommend I actually suggest that you watch that
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: You watch what do you call it? If you watch
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: the video, the music video of this, it's got the
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: lyrics there and it's got images, It works, it has
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: a power to it, It resonates with, you know, my
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 1: views about what is going on in Minneapolis. And yes,
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 1: sometimes it happens that I agree with the leftists, just
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: like sometimes I agree with the people on the right
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: when the criticizing the left. And in this case, he's
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 1: absolutely right about ice and about what happened in Minneapolis
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 1: and about the evil of what's going on. And good
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: fan for writing a song and turning it into kind
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 1: of an aesthetic experience the outrage. The outrage is an
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: aesthetic experience, the outrage about what is happening. So I
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: thought it was quite good. You know, again, he's you know,
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: it's the boss. He's talented. There's no question that he is.
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: That he is indeed talented, and he knows how to
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: write a protest song. There's no question about that. All right,
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: So that is that. Those are my song reviews. I'll
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 1: finish the song reviews hopefully next weekend and then we'll
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 1: go on to the TV show reviews. Just easier for
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 1: me to do it that way. Let's see what else
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 1: did I want to Yeah, I didn't want to mention.
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 1: I finished. Now Quinn Coode is part one of the
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 1: Adultery five part series. I think it's five. Linda can
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 1: correct me. I think she's on. Uh. So I finished
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 1: that uh the other day. And I'm not going to
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 1: give away the ending. It's not easy to ending. I'm
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 1: not gonna give it away. But I really, I really
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: enjoyed it. I I really like the I like the writing.
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: I mean, I could quibble here and there, but who
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: wants to quibble. It's good, it's entertaining, it's enjoyable, it's
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: it's moving. Most importantly, right, it's moving. It's it's uh.
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 1: And it's describing a period in history. Uh. That is
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 1: really really important and a dark period, dark, very dark
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 1: period in human history. It's important to understand. And I
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: think it does a good job in conveying the sense
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: of it. And I think it's it's, in many regards
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: in a true to history, even though it's not. I
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: don't think it's based on any historical actual facts. It's
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 1: it's a it's a but it's true to the history
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 1: of that period. I like the writing a lot, and
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: I definitely like the sentiment and the heroes, the villains
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: and the story. You know, I'm still recovering from the ending.
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: I guess. I don't know how long it takes. I
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: was hoping for something different, but you know, I shouldn't
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 1: say more than that. So yeah, I'm looking forward to
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 1: reading part two of the Part two now is in
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: a different time period, so we'll see how it all
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: integrates and what the how the five parts come together,
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 1: and what it all kind of what holds it all together.
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: So I'm interested in seeing all that. It's an ambitious
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 1: it seems like a very ambitious project given this beginning,
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: given the five parts. Part twoth quite is quite longer,
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: so it'll take me a while before I get to
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: it and and finish it. I'm sure the ending is
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: important for the full story, and there's a sense in
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: which it has to end that way, and there's a
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 1: sense in which you don't want it to anyway, you know,
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 1: And we'll see how. I assume the circles are going
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 1: to close, so we'll get to that, you know. I
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: don't want to overly anticipate the way I think it'll go,
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: but who knows, you know. I'm I can't write fiction,
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 1: so I can't I can't imagine. I can't create worlds.
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: But Quinn has created a world here and it's it's
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: very impressive, so you can you check it out. It's
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 1: on Amazon. I listened to it, but it's a short read.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: I've I've got the I've got the physical copy, so
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: I'm gonna listen to the second one as well. It's
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: easier for me to read now with listening, and yeah,
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: I enjoy it. Somebody said, yeah, somebody said the best
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: lyrics about liberty are heavy metal songs. I don't think
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: that's actually true. Now, it's true, Rushi has amazing lyrics,
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 1: but most every metal songs ultimately are not about liberty.
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 1: They're about anarchy. They're about you know, They're very good
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 1: at describing dystopia and wanting to escape dystopia, right, wanting
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: to escape dystopia, But they're not good. I haven't seen
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: any that are good other than maybe Rush describing a
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: positive describing what liberty means, describing what individualism is, and
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: of course Rush, as Jennifer correct, is not heavy metal. Again,
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: not my field, so you guys can fight it out.
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: But you know, I find heavy metal both in its music,
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 1: in the music of the heavy metal and in the
• 1:20:06
  Speaker 1: lyrics to be fundamentally anarchist and found mentally about shattering
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 1: the existing order, not about building something better, not about
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 1: building something beautiful. So, you know, going back to Pink Floyd,
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 1: which which certainly has a destroy the current order uh
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: and and kind of an anarchist element to it certainly too,
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: you know, the wall. Uh. But Genesis, remember Genesis, not
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 1: not Quinn's book, but Genesis, the band, the lyrics, and
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: but simply the music focused on dismantling, focused on destroying,
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: focused on a kind of nihilism, and yes, kind of
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 1: almost a Nietzschean nihilism, right, the individual rights easing above
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: the destruction of of You know, yeah, Genesis was a
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: good band. I liked much of the Genesis music. But yeah,
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: but I wouldn't take any of them as really representing liberty.
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: Now you can prove me wrong by sponsoring a song
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: review of a heavy metal song that celebrates real liberty
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: and freedom, real liberty and freedom. All right, let's see,
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 1: let's turn to the super chat. Let's turn to the
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: super chat. We are well into our second hour, and
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 1: we're about one hundred dollars one hundred and seven dollars
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 1: to be exactly short of kind of the contribution for
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: the second hour. You know, on the one book show
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 1: we do about two hundred and fifty. Expect two hundred
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: and fifty dollars of support for every hour of the show,
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 1: and we'll probably go over to we'll probably go into
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: we might go into the third hour. We'll certainly finish
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 1: up the second hour. So five hundred dollars is what
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: we should be. We're just under four hundred dollars. It
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 1: would be great if we you know, if yeah, you
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: could you guys, some of you could step up and
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 1: get us to the the five hundred dollars goal. I'm
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: going to change the goal here, five hundreds, one hundred
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 1: and seven short. We'll follow that, all right. Sevanos, thank
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: you for the sticker. So you can use stickers to
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 1: get us there. It's easy that way. You don't have
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 1: to ask a question. I know some of you don't
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 1: want to ask questions, although it's a great way to
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 1: shape the show. Barry, thank you for the sticker. Really appreciate,
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: really appreciate that. CP milking as almost as always. Roland,
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. Thank you, guys, really appreciate it.
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: All right, So we uh, yeah, we've got over one
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: hundred people watching. Just jump in with one dollar, five dollars,
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 1: ten dollars, two dollars, whatever, whatever you want. You can
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: do a sticker. It's a way to shupport the show.
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: Value for value, this show cannot exist without the support
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 1: of you, you people out there who listen, you people
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: out there who listen, so and those of you who
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: are not here alive, please consider going to Patreon patreon
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 1: dot com and becoming monthly supporters of the show. And
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: then you don't have to worry about it, because monthly
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: is it? Monthly? Is it? Oh? Right, let's see, how
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 1: do we get to Phil Collins in the air tonight?
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 1: It's moving, It is moving, and it's a very good song,
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 1: I think because it's building it it's a little bit
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 1: like Revel's woh. It is repetitive, but it's building to
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: a crescendo, which is which has a really powerful impact musically.
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: I think, so, Phil Collins and there tonight is indeed
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: a powerful song, and you know, we can speculate what
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 1: it's about. I think it's pretty clear. All right, let's
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 1: see Liam one hundred dollars. Thank you, Liam, really appreciate that.
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: I forgot to ask you this yesterday. But he is
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: looking for the perfect partner a platonic fantasy. Perfect can't
• 1:24:36
  Speaker 1: exist even in a loved one. There will always be
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 1: something that annoys you about them. How do you tolerate
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: or correct things you don't like in a romantic partner?
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: So I don't know what that means that perfect can't exist? Right?
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 1: Is what is perfect? How do you define perfect? That
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: nothing annoys you? Is that the definition of of perfection?
• 1:25:02
  Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think a perfect partner is
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 1: the perfect partner is somebody that you know shares your
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 1: fundamental values, that you find enjoyment, joy in spending time
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 1: with and living with and experiencing life together, in bonding
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 1: in that way that that you enjoy your fabulous sex,
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 1: and and you have good conversation, and you you enjoy
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 1: sharing the various experience of life with. That's a perfect partner.
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 1: You know what, what is it going to make them
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 1: less perfect? That you don't like the way they laugh?
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: They have a funny laugh. Well, you know the fact
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 1: that it annoys you is probably your problem. So you know,
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: stop being annoyed by it. Put it in the right perspective,
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: gain context, So you know, now so I think that
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 1: people create a platonic ideal of perfection, which is not
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: perfect in the real sense, but perfect in a platonic sense.
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 1: And if it can be achieved, what's the point in
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: a concept like perfect if you can't achieve it. I
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: think profession perfection can be achieved. So, first of all,
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: properly define what you think is perfect as something in
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 1: the scope of something that respects higherarchy of values and
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: something that respects the way you feel about somebody. Right,
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: A lot of this is how you respond to them,
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 1: how you respond to them, and you know, how do
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: you tolerate or correct things you don't like in a
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 1: romantic partner. Well, it depends how serious it is. First
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 1: it's you know, it's very difficult to correct people, and
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 1: you have to be sure that the correction is with
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: the effort. And what does it mean to correct? I
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: mean you can, you can debate, and if they have
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 1: a wrong view about the world, you can argue for it.
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 1: But how do you correct somebody else? The only way
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: somebody else corrects themselves is by them correcting themselves. You
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: can't correct somebody. You can't change people. You can't fix people.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 1: Whatever happens, they have to do it themselves. But you
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 1: have to be very very clear about why you want
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 1: them to change in what way, in what way and
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 1: how important is it and you know the significance of it,
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 1: and is it Are you sure it's them that are
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 1: the problem in a sense? You know, Uh, people who
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 1: enter a relationship with the idea of I'm gonna change
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 1: my partner, It's not gonna work. Now you're going to change,
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: and your partner will change. That happens over time. But
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: if you're saying, yeah, I mean I love an awb it, well,
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: wait when I change her, she's going to be amazing.
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 1: Not a good idea, and it won't work. And then
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 1: you'll be disappointed and then and and and it can't
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: work because people are not They're not mouldable, they're not clay.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 1: So figure out why you love somebody and you don't
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: embrace them, and and and grow together, and then learn
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 1: too the things you don't like about them, Learn to
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 1: hopefully enough significant hold them to not allow them to
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 1: impact you. I try to understand why you don't like
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: them and how important it is. But I think a
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 1: lot of people do. Wait for I don't know, something
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 1: perfect and something better and better and better, and not
• 1:29:25
  Speaker 1: that I think you should settle, but I don't think
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: you should be platonic about it, and I think you should.
• 1:29:32
  Speaker 1: You should, you know, listen to the stent to the
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: extent that you have self esteem and that you have
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 1: emotions aligned with your rational values. Listen. You know, people say,
• 1:29:45
  Speaker 1: listen to your heart, Listen to your emotions. They're telling
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 1: you something about how you're responding. Try to understand what
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 1: you're responding. Try to project what life with this person
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 1: would be like. Maybe live there with them for a
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 1: while and see. Don't build up. Don't sit around waiting
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: for dagny. She might not like you, I don't know,
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 1: but she might not exist. So find find the best
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 1: person out there that you love. You have to love them,
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 1: you have to have the emotion, and then evaluate, after
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 1: experiencing some whether this is this is a person you
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: want to spend a lengthy segment of your time with.
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 1: But don't let the little stuff bug you. Don't let
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: you know, focus on the essence, Focus on what it
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: is that you're responding to. Why are you responding in
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: this way? Why do you love her? Right? If it's
• 1:30:47
  Speaker 1: a major conflict of values, then yeah, you might have
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 1: to give her up and go searching elsewhere, but make
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 1: sure that it's it's indeed that, make sure it's indeed that.
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 1: So it's definitely a risk there of creating a platonic
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 1: ideal and then never finding anybody, and that's stragic Molten splendor.
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 1: A capitalist society doesn't guarantee that some people won't try
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 1: to cheat, to deceive or DeFord others. Some just do
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 1: bad things while others want to complain and sue. You
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 1: mentioned that society would be less litigious in a capitalist
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: world wide, well, because you could only sue and it
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 1: was justified, and you would bear some of the costs
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: if you did if you sued when it was not justified.
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 1: So you could only sue the parties who were actually
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 1: responsible for the harm. You could only sue if they
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: were consciously responsible for the harm. So, for example, in
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 1: the American tradition pre nineteen seventies, if you suit somebody,
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 1: you have to prove gross negligence. It wasn't just enough
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 1: for them to be negligent or sloppy, or they had
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: to do that consciously. Notes I give you an example asbestos.
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 1: Here's an example. So people worked in Esmestos manufacturing plants,
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: and they got cancer and they died, and it damaged
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 1: their lungs and it was terrible. But the reality is
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: that when they worked there, the people who ran the
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: factories didn't know that disvestos was causing cancer. The workers
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: didn't know it, and the factory owners didn't know it.
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 1: And yet later, sometimes decades later, the factory workers sued
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 1: the manufacturers, and indeed everybody sued the manufacturers. There were
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: so many people suing asbestos companies that the whole industry
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: had to create a victim's fund. But those lawsuits should
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 1: have been thrown out of the court. They did nothing wrong.
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: The manufacturers they didn't know. You can't sue somebody for
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: something they didn't know. There's a million things like that,
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 1: a million things like that right where you're responsible for
• 1:33:22
  Speaker 1: your own life and you do something I don't know.
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: Somebody takes a lawn mower and decides to use the
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 1: loan more to cut his hedges. So he lifts it
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 1: cut his hedges and in doing that injures himself, cuts
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 1: off his fingers or whatever. And then he sees the
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 1: lawnmower company and now lawnmowers some of them have stickers
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: on them saying for mowing the lawn only, do not
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 1: trim the hedges. You shouldn't be able to sue for
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 1: something you did that is inherently stupid. All the warning
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 1: labels that you see everywhere, don't stick your finger in this,
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 1: don't stick your finger in the fan, it might get
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 1: chopped off. Duh. If you stick your finger in the fen,
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 1: you shouldn't be able to sue. So a legal system,
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 1: would you know, would be much more rigorous in throwing
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 1: cases out, in not accepting lawsuits. Still there would be lawsuits.
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 1: You'd still have to sue the people who are negligento.
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 1: Sometimes even gross negligent. You still have to sue people
• 1:34:39
  Speaker 1: who built bad products and you were injured because the
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 1: product was bad in ways that you didn't know, but
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: they should have known. If there's best as manufacturers, it
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 1: turns out new that this caused cancer and didn't tell
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 1: their workers, then yeah they should be sued. But that's
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 1: not the case. So I mean, everything today in California
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: has a cancer label on it, wanning on it because,
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 1: as Nig points out, because nobody wants to be sued.
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 1: But if I produce a product and sell it out.
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 1: Then you consume it and I don't know it causes cancer.
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: You can't sue me. You shouldn't be able to sue me.
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 1: You can't today, shouldn't be able to sue me. So
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: real thought needs to be put into a legal theory.
• 1:35:30
  Speaker 1: And look, this existed before, like nineteen seventy, so it's
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 1: existed in the United States in the past, which defines
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 1: clearly and objectively what are legitimate lawsuits and what are
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: illegitimate lawsuits. What is a true violation of rights, and
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 1: what isn't a violation of rights? Right, So that's the sense,
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: it's not that suit would still be a mechanism, right
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 1: which we hold people accountable for the bad stuff that
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 1: they do. If you're polluting and you know it's causing
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: people cancer, then you should be sued. But if you're
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 1: polluting and you don't know, and that discovery is made afterwards,
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 1: and when you discover it, you stop, why should you
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 1: be penalized for what you did unless it's just a
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 1: way of redistributing wealth from those who have it to
• 1:36:29
  Speaker 1: those who are suffering right now. But suffering is not
• 1:36:32
  Speaker 1: a legitimate claim against somebody else. You're suffering is not
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 1: a legitimate claim against somebody else, all right, I mean,
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 1: but it's a complex legal issue that has to be
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 1: years old. But there would be a lot I mean,
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 1: there are a lot less lawsuits in Europe. And it's
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 1: not like Europe is more abusive of customers of consumers. Now,
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 1: they have a lot of regulations too, but they're a
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 1: lot less lawsuits because the legal system is not used
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 1: in Europe to redistribute wealth. In America, one of the
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 1: primary ways in which we redistribute wealth to people who
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 1: are suffering is through the legal system, rather than through
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 1: the welfare system or rather than LAZOFAI capitalism. That doesn't
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 1: redistribute wealth at all unless there's cause, unless there's reasons,
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 1: unless there's blame, right, all right, Liam, what did they
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 1: do that? Yeah? Liam? Thoughts on future AI golfriends or
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 1: life partners who'll be able to buy will be able
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 1: to buy that you can program to be perfect biologically
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 1: human with chips in their head so they can adjust
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 1: for personality and temperament. Well, I mean, this is the thing.
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 1: If the biologically human then isn't putting a chip in
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 1: their brain enslaving them so you know, if they're biologically human.
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: Then they have a consciousness. Then they can feel, they
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: can emote, or more importantly, they can think. They can
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 1: they're conscious, they can uh, you know, experience reality, experience
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: reality and integrate reality and think for themselves. And then
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 1: by putting a chip in their brain and changing their
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 1: personality and temperament, you are creating a slave. Now if
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 1: you just mean that, they're still just computers. They're not conscious,
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 1: the faking, the mimicking a personality, the mimicking a temperament.
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 1: And you know, maybe certain anatomical parts are made in
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 1: a way that's particularly pressurable for sex. Then you know
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 1: it'll be a great sex toy. But I don't think
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 1: it can ever mimic a human experience. You can't. Actually,
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: they'll you know, they'll never really respond to you in
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 1: the same way human being is. And you know they're
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 1: not human. You know they're not conscious. You know they
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 1: don't love you, you know they don't feel, you know,
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 1: it's all in act. It would be like I don't
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 1: know women who fake orgasms, right, I mean, if you
• 1:39:40
  Speaker 1: know that it it diminishes your pleasure in sex, right,
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 1: would me? Right? So you know you can have a
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 1: robot that does your stuff with. And then you know,
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 1: one of the things robots will make possible is they
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 1: will take a lot of the drudgery out of our
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 1: day to day lives. So and that's true, maybe more
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 1: for women than men, just like home appliances have taken
• 1:40:11
  Speaker 1: much more out of the drudgery of women's life. Uh
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 1: and and and enhance their life. So quit Abirus says,
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 1: I know the steak isn't real. Yeah, you know, the
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 1: stake isn't real, But it doesn't matter because if it
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 1: tastes exactly like a steak, that's all you care about.
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 1: That is this one dimensional it has only one dimension.
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 1: But when you care about how the person you're in
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 1: love with responds to the things you do together, and
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 1: you know they're not a person, and you know they're
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 1: not really responding, and then you know there's no they're there,
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 1: it's it's it's a big difference. It's a big difference.
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 1: So so yeah, you know, I can see that a
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 1: lot of people will use AI go friends as a
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 1: way to overcome loneliness. And I think, I think, yeah, fine,
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 1: I don't think a healthy human being with a healthy
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 1: self esteem would ever be satisfied with an AI gofriend
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 1: but I think it might be a way. I mean,
• 1:41:23
  Speaker 1: you could imagine AI therapists and AI friends who can
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 1: help you get by BET not as a replacement for
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 1: other human beings, not as a permanent replacement for other
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 1: human beings, A temporary maybe, all right, Michael. The presidential
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 1: election in twenty twenty four, maybe twenty twenty the last
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 1: free vote taken in the United States. The dictatorship only
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: hold elections, would pe determined outcome, or do not hold
• 1:41:58
  Speaker 1: them at all. Trump is no exception. Yeah, The question
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 1: is can he get away with it? And I think
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 1: the answer right now is no. He couldn't get away
• 1:42:07
  Speaker 1: with ice being in Minneapolis. That got people out in
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 1: the streets. You think stealing election would not get people
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 1: really out into the streets in a much more substantial
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 1: and significant way, and even some Republicans into the streets,
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: even some old line conservatives into the streets, people who
• 1:42:31
  Speaker 1: still believe in America on the right, I mean, the
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: Trump authoritarians, the Trumpists who want authoritarianism, want steel elections,
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 1: not just pretend to make the election fairer because Trump
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 1: demands it, but actually want to steal elections. I think
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 1: is a small number is a minority. I mean, here's
• 1:42:52
  Speaker 1: the thing. When christel Nacht happened in Germany, there were
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: no demonstrations by Germans. Nobody opposed it, Nobody went out
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 1: into the streets to stop the SS from you know,
• 1:43:06
  Speaker 1: breaking windows and doing the horrors that they did. So
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 1: we're not there yet, guys, We're just not there yet.
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: So I expect twenty twenty six to be an election.
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: I expect the Republicans to try to play games in
• 1:43:24
  Speaker 1: different places. I expect those games not to work, and
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 1: ultimately the real winners, whoever they happen to be, probably
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 1: Democrats taking over the House. I think that's going to happen,
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 1: and Trump will try to intensify his opposition to fair
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 1: elections going into twenty twenty eight. But you know, I
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 1: think there'll be resistance. I still think the majority of
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 1: Americans do not want this, not Jevery's algorithm. With Rand
• 1:43:59
  Speaker 1: out there in Spere, I having so many entrepreneurs, I
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 1: don't think we can go backwards. Well, we are going backwards.
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 1: Every day. We're going backwards in many respects. So look
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: a lot of those inspired entrepreneurs are becoming you know,
• 1:44:14
  Speaker 1: Cony semi fascists. So I don't know, if it doesn't
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 1: go deep, it might not actually be meaningful in the
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 1: long run, how much he inspires them. But we'll see Hapacambell.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 1: In what way is our intellectual climate different or better
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: than the nineteen twenties Germany? In what way is it's similar, well,
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: nineteen twenties Germany. I mean it's it's it's similar in
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 1: the fact that it's there's a there's significant element of nihilism,
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 1: both on the left and the right. It's similar in
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 1: terms of the frantic nature of government trying to figure
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: out how to please people. We don't have hype inflation.
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 1: They had hype inflation. You had to take a wheel
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: barrow to buy a loaf of bread, a wheel bowl
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 1: full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Money
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 1: became so worthless it was cheaper than wallpaper, so people
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 1: used it to put to weight wallpaper their homes. So
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: you know, we're not in hype inflation. We don't have
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: communist matching in the streets for communism on a regular basis.
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 1: We don't have Nazis or fascists marching in the street.
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, we have these ridiculous stormtroopers but we have
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: people demonstrating against them, you know. So we have the
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 1: the nihilism on left and right, we have the mixed economy, uh,
• 1:45:54
  Speaker 1: and we have bad philosophy dominating. I mean, that's the
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 1: thing that's most common. We're bad philosophy, Kantian influenced philosophy
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: dominating both left and right. That is all the common,
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 1: But there are also significant differences in that it's not
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 1: the case that a significant proportion of population supports one
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 1: or the other. It's not the case that they've given
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 1: free reign in our streets yet. I mean, we do
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 1: have elements of it. We have the Pohramas people out
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 1: there in some places around the country, but not in
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 1: most In some places around the country, particularly campuses, and
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 1: you know, there's a significant opposition to them. There's a
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 1: lot of people don't like them. They're very unpopular. And
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 1: then we have I don't know the neo Nazis launching
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 1: in Charlottesville, but they were very unpopular. People really didn't
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: like them. But ideas right history, the ideas are the
• 1:46:55
  Speaker 1: same in fundamental terms. Collectivism missed them, but it takes
• 1:47:02
  Speaker 1: a while for those ideas to actually manifest in a
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 1: political system. And we're still I think, pretty far from
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 1: manifesting in the kind of political system. Germany landed up with,
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 1: all right, remind you about eighty two dollars short eighty two.
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 1: That's very doable. One hundred and sixteen people watching eighty
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 1: two dollars value for value of trade. And if you
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: ask a question a way to shape the show. So
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 1: consider doing a stick of two dollars, five dollars, ten dollars.
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 1: It wouldn't take many people at ten dollars to get
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 1: us to eighty two. Take eight people. Andrew Rand was
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 1: asked if art would exist in an objective of society,
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 1: but of course, she said, the question explained, but what
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 1: might be what might be is But even in an
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 1: ideal society, man would need to experience concrete value achievements, absolutely,
• 1:48:04
  Speaker 1: and there's always more, There's always greater achievements possible. There's
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 1: always there's a constant striving for perfection, striving for greatness,
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 1: striving for better, striving for more. And art gives us
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 1: an image of what to strifle, what is possible, and
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 1: even when we're there, it comcritizes what that looks like.
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 1: The purpose of art is not to fix the world.
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 1: The purpose of art is to inspire us by showing
• 1:48:38
  Speaker 1: us in concrete terms our most important values, and the
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 1: need for that is never diminished. Even when we whe
• 1:48:49
  Speaker 1: to achieves those values, we still want to see concrete
• 1:48:53
  Speaker 1: I mean we're talking about philosophical values, metaphysical values. We
• 1:48:56
  Speaker 1: still want to see concrete manifestations of them. Never, you know,
• 1:49:03
  Speaker 1: take it, there's never, there's never. There's not a limit
• 1:49:05
  Speaker 1: to beauty. You want beautiful things around you, and there's
• 1:49:11
  Speaker 1: an endless number of things that can become beautiful, can
• 1:49:15
  Speaker 1: be made beautiful. Why would you stop? I'm surprised she was. Yeah, Linda,
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 1: thank you. J On Your listeners can preview or purchase
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 1: Genesis Pot One of Adultery on the Big A website.
• 1:49:38
  Speaker 1: Can't post a link, I can be reached via Quinn
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 1: code de Fine Art for signed copies. All right, check
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: it out. Adam, you certainly warned the true threat being
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 1: the authoritarian right. I also find it very dangerous that
• 1:49:58
  Speaker 1: they that they've co opted so many things like capitalism
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 1: and physical conservatism, and even the American flag. Well, I
• 1:50:06
  Speaker 1: would say they've co opted American flag. I don't know
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 1: if they've really co opted capitalism. I think anybody should
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 1: be able to see through the fact that they're not capitalist, right,
• 1:50:17
  Speaker 1: the Trump administration taking equity stakes and companies and things
• 1:50:20
  Speaker 1: like that, and they certainly are our physical conservatives. I mean,
• 1:50:25
  Speaker 1: the debts are only increasing, the deficit is massive, and
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 1: it's not shrinking in any significant way. Idolatry. Sorry, idolatry,
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 1: not adultery. Idolatry. I thought I said idolatry, but maybe
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 1: it came out differently, Sorry, Linda, idolatry. So, yeah, I
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 1: think they've co opted those things. But anybody with half
• 1:50:55
  Speaker 1: a brain should be able to see that they don't
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 1: stand for them. They don't really represent them. It's not
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 1: part of their ideal. But sadly many people don't have
• 1:51:08
  Speaker 1: to have a brain. So, but that's the problem with
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 1: the right. The right is this package deal of Eliza
• 1:51:18
  Speaker 1: Fai capitalism and Nazism in the same concept. That's ridiculous.
• 1:51:22
  Speaker 1: It doesn't work. Thank you, Adam, all right, only fifty
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 1: two dollars left now, chipping away at it. I appreciate it.
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 1: Thank you guys. Not you have a jogoorhm. If iron
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 1: Rand had never existed, would another Dark Ages be possible? Probable?
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 1: You know, It's hard to tell, but I think things
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 1: would be worse already, and you know, things would be declining.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 1: It's interesting that there was never really a Dark Age's
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 1: if you have a glow perspective, Europe sunk, but the
• 1:52:03
  Speaker 1: East rose. The East sunk, and then Europe rose, and
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 1: China was doing pretty well through most of that period
• 1:52:12
  Speaker 1: or parts of that period, independent of both the East
• 1:52:18
  Speaker 1: being Middle East or Central Asia and Europe. So it's
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: not a global phenomenon, and maybe today it is because
• 1:52:26
  Speaker 1: we're also interconnected. But I definitely think a Dark Ages
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 1: is possible, though very unlikely, uh with or without Ironman,
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 1: certainly more likely without Ironman than with her. James, to
• 1:52:46
  Speaker 1: think is to refuse to surrender. Yes, it's it's it's
• 1:52:52
  Speaker 1: you know that's a negative. It's it's to refuse to
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 1: give up on reality. That's what to think means, refusal
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 1: to give up, to surrender your mind to somebody else,
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 1: to surrender your mind to non reality, to surrender your
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 1: mind to the to the to the borg, to the group,
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 1: to the to the mystics, mystics of muscle and mystics
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 1: of spirit. James's gen Z more demoralized than previous generations.
• 1:53:26
  Speaker 1: That's why antisemitism is so prevalent in this demographic. I
• 1:53:30
  Speaker 1: think they are more demoralized. I think that's why they
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 1: have less babies, and they get married less, and they
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 1: they're more prone to anti semitism. Both have Left and right,
• 1:53:42
  Speaker 1: but that's because they've been taught from when they were
• 1:53:45
  Speaker 1: very young the world is going to come to an end.
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 1: The Left has been very good at that. You know,
• 1:53:49
  Speaker 1: they replaced the kind of millenerial Christians who every few
• 1:53:55
  Speaker 1: years came up with another story about the world, how
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 1: the world will end. Well, now the left has replaced
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 1: them by overpopulation and climate change and species extension, and
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 1: every few years is something different about but the story
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 1: is the same. The world is going to end and
• 1:54:11
  Speaker 1: you did it, you caused it. And I think it's
• 1:54:15
  Speaker 1: created a generation that's more pessimistic and more demoralized than
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 1: past generations. And they lash out. And part of that
• 1:54:24
  Speaker 1: lashing out is the fringe political stuff, including anti semitism.
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 1: Roman should sex on the street be legal again as
• 1:54:37
  Speaker 1: it was in the Middle Ages to some extent? God No,
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 1: I mean, if you owned a street and I think
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 1: you allowed sex on it given its private property, nobody
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 1: would use it right. Nobody wants to see somebody else
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 1: having sex. I mean a few people do, but mostly
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 1: we're not interested in the people's sex, and we're not.
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 1: It'sting other people seeing how sex. So there's no market
• 1:55:04
  Speaker 1: advantage to doing that. And imagine streets are private, nobody
• 1:55:09
  Speaker 1: would do that. So no, I don't think having sex
• 1:55:13
  Speaker 1: on the street should be legal. You should. You know,
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 1: the state owns the streets, but it should reflect the
• 1:55:21
  Speaker 1: reality that that the In a sense, you should pretend
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 1: it's a private owner. And would private owners allow it
• 1:55:27
  Speaker 1: or not? And I don't think they would. So no
• 1:55:30
  Speaker 1: Privet Avenue, yeah, you' that privot avenue. Nobody would go there,
• 1:55:33
  Speaker 1: and that would defeat the whole idea of having a
• 1:55:35
  Speaker 1: private street. You have to think about what the function
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 1: of a street is. It's it's if the shops, they
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 1: it's to go shopping, if their home state, it's to
• 1:55:43
  Speaker 1: go home, it's it's it's the it's the it's transportation.
• 1:55:47
  Speaker 1: That's the function of a street. And therefore you should
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 1: allow what is consistent with that function and not allow
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 1: what is inconsistent with it. Yeah, but yea, And on
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 1: private property you can disallow lots of different things. So
• 1:56:04
  Speaker 1: it's not that in a Lazzifie capitalist world there would
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 1: be a law against sex in the street. Private owners
• 1:56:13
  Speaker 1: would not allow sex in the street. And given that
• 1:56:16
  Speaker 1: we don't have it, the government is just stepping in
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 1: to enforce a kind of property law. That's all. So
• 1:56:24
  Speaker 1: all kinds of things, all kinds of laws we need
• 1:56:27
  Speaker 1: today that wouldn't need today that wouldn't exist in Lazific
• 1:56:31
  Speaker 1: capitalism because the government wouldn't own stuff. But when they
• 1:56:35
  Speaker 1: do own stuff, they need to have laws that regulate
• 1:56:44
  Speaker 1: the stuff that they own. Clark, more than fifty Conservative
• 1:56:55
  Speaker 1: leaders signed a letter against Trump's drug pricing policy codification.
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 1: Are the tights turning? You know, they might be fifty
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 1: Conservative leaders. The question is how many of them were senators,
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 1: how many of them were congressmen, Like you can probably
• 1:57:11
  Speaker 1: find fifty conservative leaders that will sign anything against Trump
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 1: on some issue. How many of them are in position
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 1: of power within the Republican Party today, That's what I'd
• 1:57:20
  Speaker 1: want to know. So I don't know. I mean House
• 1:57:24
  Speaker 1: and Senate passed a repudiation of a rejection of Trump's
• 1:57:30
  Speaker 1: tariffs and Canada he will veto it. But they did
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 1: pass it, which went against his will, but only a
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 1: few Republicans switched. It wasn't like overwhelming. If it was overwhelming,
• 1:57:42
  Speaker 1: it would be vit a proof, which it should be.
• 1:57:45
  Speaker 1: So I wouldn't make much of fifty conservative leaders. It
• 1:57:49
  Speaker 1: was fifty senators whoa that would be meaningful. Fifty senators
• 1:57:55
  Speaker 1: and congressmen even that would be meaningful. But just fifty conservatives,
• 1:58:00
  Speaker 1: probably fifty conservative never Trumps, who would sign something like that.
• 1:58:07
  Speaker 1: Linda says, Quinn just penned an amazing poem celebrating individualism.
• 1:58:13
  Speaker 1: I emailed it to you. It's called Don't Tell Me.
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate it. I look forward to reading it.
• 1:58:21
  Speaker 1: Cook you said, this is an ideology for ants. In
• 1:58:25
  Speaker 1: the third ant Man movie, Hank Pime says socialism is
• 1:58:32
  Speaker 1: a charged word, but maybe we can learn from these ants.
• 1:58:37
  Speaker 1: I really liked Hank Pime until that moment. Yeah, I
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 1: could see why you wouldn't like him. But I haven't
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 1: seen the ant Man movies, so I have no comment
• 1:58:46
  Speaker 1: about liking Hank before this. But that is a pretty
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 1: horrific statement. Right, we can learn from the ants, No,
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 1: we can't. There's nothing to learn from ants. There's nothing
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 1: about ants that is similar to human beings except the life. Stephen,
• 1:59:05
  Speaker 1: what do you mean when object What do we mean?
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 1: What do we mean when objectivists say that actions don't
• 1:59:12
  Speaker 1: cause actions, but only entities can be causes? We mean
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 1: that what causes the billion ball to roll in a
• 1:59:21
  Speaker 1: particular direction when hit is not the ball that hit it,
• 1:59:27
  Speaker 1: but the nature of the ball that rolls. The nature
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 1: of the ball that's being hit. Its nature is such
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 1: its shape, it's it's response to force the way its nature,
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 1: you know, provides for it to respond to force. That
• 1:59:47
  Speaker 1: what causes it to roll when hit is its shape,
• 1:59:54
  Speaker 1: and it's all these material it's made from, and all
• 1:59:57
  Speaker 1: of all of its own features that and it's in
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 1: its own nature. Causation is not a chain of actions.
• 2:00:07
  Speaker 1: Causation is the nature of the thing which dictates that
• 2:00:11
  Speaker 1: it would act in a certain way when interacted with
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 1: in a certain way. Mike, great topic. If I remember
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 1: correctly my high school social science class in Canada, let
• 2:00:31
  Speaker 1: us believe that lesser fair capitalism is on the far right. Yes,
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 1: I think most people hold that. I think in most
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 1: political science classes that's probably what's taught. Exit exit, Thank
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 1: you for the stake. It's two dollars, but it helps, Enrik,
• 2:00:46
  Speaker 1: thank you for the stake of five dollars. It all
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 1: helps chipping away. We're now down there, thirty nine dollars,
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 1: were almost there, so close. We only got about five
• 2:00:55
  Speaker 1: minutes to go and we're ready in our third hour. Stephen,
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 1: what do you think of Brett Kavanagh? Where you disturbed
• 2:01:04
  Speaker 1: by his confirmation hearings? What about SNL's sketch, you know
• 2:01:09
  Speaker 1: he really dissents. I mean, I'm not impressed by Brett Kavanaugh.
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 1: He doesn't strike this particularly intelligent. He's not you know,
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 1: there are a few people on the courte that I
• 2:01:18
  Speaker 1: might disagree with, but they all are impressive, particularly Ghostiche
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 1: even what's her name Barrett, who I was very negative on,
• 2:01:28
  Speaker 1: and it's turned out to be at the very least
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 1: an interesting judge and worth reading. Kavanaugh seems like just
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 1: the guy who goes along. He doesn't seem like he
• 2:01:38
  Speaker 1: has a judicial philosophy, doesn't seem like he's committed to much.
• 2:01:43
  Speaker 1: He's the middle of the roda who kind of just
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 1: goes along. So not that impressed, you know, in because
• 2:01:50
  Speaker 1: of the confirmation hearings, I don't remember exactly. I mean,
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 1: it was the sexual stuff. I thought that was ridiculous
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 1: for a number of reasons. It's something he did, I think,
• 2:02:01
  Speaker 1: in high school, and he was being persecuted for it
• 2:02:06
  Speaker 1: as an adult. I just think that's ridiculous. I mean,
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 1: even if what he even if he had done what
• 2:02:14
  Speaker 1: was said he had done, let's accept that. How long
• 2:02:18
  Speaker 1: are you gonna do? You need to be held accountable
• 2:02:22
  Speaker 1: for something you did thirty years ago. I'm sure there
• 2:02:26
  Speaker 1: are lots of things I did in high school i'd
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 1: be embarrassed by today. Should that disqualify me if since
• 2:02:32
  Speaker 1: then my behavior is being impeccable? Yeah? I find this
• 2:02:38
  Speaker 1: idea of zero one. You're in college, okay, in college,
• 2:02:42
  Speaker 1: you do something in your youth, then that wipes you out.
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's that is wrong. That
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 1: is wrong. Yeah. I mean if you kill somebody, sure,
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 1: if you commit a violent, you know, crime, and you
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 1: go to jail. But in this case, it was wrong
• 2:03:06
  Speaker 1: what he did, and you should have been punished when
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 1: he did it. But to hold him accountable decades later,
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 1: I don't think it's right. Ohie, ever played a video game,
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 1: I'm relying. I'm replaying Assassin Creed too, which takes place
• 2:03:31
  Speaker 1: in Renaissance Italy, and it is truly beautiful visually, musically,
• 2:03:35
  Speaker 1: and decent story and you get to hang out with
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 1: Da Vinci and Testa's inventions. No, I've never played those
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 1: kind of video games. I played video games in the
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 1: very very early days of video games when they were
• 2:03:48
  Speaker 1: pretty primitive and dull. I mean in that like the
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventies, not even in the eighties, so you know,
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 1: the original Commodore and Atari. So no, yeah, I believe it.
• 2:04:03
  Speaker 1: I completely get it. And the good it sounds like fun.
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: It sounds like there's a real esthetic experience in addition
• 2:04:10
  Speaker 1: to the challenge of the game. And uh, and yeah
• 2:04:14
  Speaker 1: it's great. But yeah, I never got to experience it,
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: and I'm not really interested. It's too time consuming and absorbing.
• 2:04:24
  Speaker 1: Too many things going on, too many stuff to do. Stephen,
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 1: do children of the undocumented enjoy birthright citizenship? Yes, they
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 1: do if they're born here, not if they were weren't
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 1: bon here. What do you do with the historical argument
• 2:04:40
  Speaker 1: made by the government in Trump versus Barbara, I don't
• 2:04:44
  Speaker 1: know you're you're citing legal cases. I don't hold I
• 2:04:49
  Speaker 1: don't know these legal cases. Oh, the birthright citizens get well,
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 1: how about we talk about that when this even called
• 2:04:58
  Speaker 1: the side is the case? I think the issue. I
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 1: think they're wrong. They're reading the fourteenth Amendment wrong. I
• 2:05:05
  Speaker 1: think it does not exclude people who are none legally
• 2:05:13
  Speaker 1: in the country. So but you know, we'll see how
• 2:05:17
  Speaker 1: the Student Court rules on it. I think the Trump
• 2:05:21
  Speaker 1: Deal station is misinterpreting it purposefully. There are some conservative
• 2:05:26
  Speaker 1: scholars who agree with the Trump administration, but even most
• 2:05:29
  Speaker 1: conservatives think the Constitution is pretty clear and if you're
• 2:05:33
  Speaker 1: born in America, no matter by whom, no matter who
• 2:05:37
  Speaker 1: your parents are, no matter of their legal status status,
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 1: you are citizen. I think that is the generally accepted
• 2:05:45
  Speaker 1: interpretation of what is in the Constitution. Roland says, we
• 2:05:51
  Speaker 1: loved the wind of change in the nineteen nineties. Hungry,
• 2:05:55
  Speaker 1: hungry the country. It's sad that it didn't work out
• 2:05:58
  Speaker 1: for Russia, but I am sure am glad their troops
• 2:06:02
  Speaker 1: left Eastern Europe, So for me, it's still a song
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 1: of liberation. Yes, absolutely, and it's sad that Oban took
• 2:06:08
  Speaker 1: over Hungry to replace them, but there's a chance he'll
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 1: be kicked out and the rest of Eastern Europe is
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 1: doing phenomenally well, phenomenally well without the communist boot on
• 2:06:19
  Speaker 1: their neck. Loan descent. I'm skeptical of self published books.
• 2:06:25
  Speaker 1: Would a book of genuine value not find and benefit
• 2:06:28
  Speaker 1: from a traditional publisher? Does a traditional publisher make for
• 2:06:33
  Speaker 1: a better book? Interested in your thoughts, I mean, I'm
• 2:06:43
  Speaker 1: not sure that is the case. That is, it's better
• 2:06:46
  Speaker 1: to find a traditional publisher. They provide you with some
• 2:06:50
  Speaker 1: additional marketing and it is a quality screen, you know,
• 2:06:57
  Speaker 1: at some level. But it's just a very difficult to
• 2:07:01
  Speaker 1: find a conventional publisher. It's very difficult to find an agent,
• 2:07:04
  Speaker 1: and without an agent, you can't get a publisher. And
• 2:07:09
  Speaker 1: you know, I've written books that were self published. The
• 2:07:11
  Speaker 1: book on Finance, for example, that is much better than
• 2:07:13
  Speaker 1: a lot of books that were published with publishers, and
• 2:07:16
  Speaker 1: it's self published. So I don't think you can generalize.
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 1: Many authors just don't want to bother with finding an
• 2:07:25
  Speaker 1: agent and then a publisher and then getting the rejection letters.
• 2:07:28
  Speaker 1: And the technology today makes it so easy to self published,
• 2:07:31
  Speaker 1: and why bother with all of that? So there are
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 1: plenty of reasons why, you know, there might be a
• 2:07:39
  Speaker 1: lot of real jams, really fantastic books out there that
• 2:07:43
  Speaker 1: are self published, and you shouldn't use it as your
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 1: sole criteria. And I know a lot of published books
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 1: by publishers that are just horror shows, just horrific. You know,
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 1: think about who the people that the publishers are, and
• 2:08:04
  Speaker 1: they tend to be. I mean, think about the fact
• 2:08:07
  Speaker 1: that a Fountainhead, a masterpiece. The fountain was rejected by
• 2:08:12
  Speaker 1: twelve publishers. Think how many not great publishers, not masterpieces,
• 2:08:20
  Speaker 1: but good books have been rejected by publishers. Roman says,
• 2:08:28
  Speaker 1: if the terms of service to fill between private streets,
• 2:08:31
  Speaker 1: how should customers be informed about the change. I don't know.
• 2:08:35
  Speaker 1: They'd figure it out, figure it out, signs, text messages
• 2:08:43
  Speaker 1: when you enter the streets, automatic text messages wing into
• 2:08:47
  Speaker 1: the street. I don't know, but it could very well
• 2:08:50
  Speaker 1: be that all of that is too much of a hassle,
• 2:08:52
  Speaker 1: and in terms of service would be standardized because it's
• 2:08:55
  Speaker 1: too much of a hassle. So you know, the market
• 2:08:58
  Speaker 1: would sort it out in creative ways that most of
• 2:09:03
  Speaker 1: us cannot imagine. Moon Rock, Do you like James Lindsey.
• 2:09:09
  Speaker 1: If you do like him, have you consider having a
• 2:09:11
  Speaker 1: conversation with him? I'd be happy to have a conversation
• 2:09:14
  Speaker 1: with him, just not on my show. We disagree on
• 2:09:18
  Speaker 1: too many things. I don't like interviewing people I disagree with.
• 2:09:22
  Speaker 1: I'd love to be on his show. I'd love to
• 2:09:25
  Speaker 1: be on some neutral show and have a conversation with him.
• 2:09:28
  Speaker 1: There's things I like about James Lindsay and things I
• 2:09:30
  Speaker 1: don't like about James Lindsay. We disagree on some stuff,
• 2:09:33
  Speaker 1: but we agree on a lot of things. So yeah,
• 2:09:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, I enjoy having a conversation with him about
• 2:09:41
  Speaker 1: both the things we agree on and the things we
• 2:09:43
  Speaker 1: disagree on. I just don't view my show as a
• 2:09:48
  Speaker 1: show to do debates. I don't know how to do
• 2:09:50
  Speaker 1: that and respect. Respect, respect the fact that I've invited
• 2:09:55
  Speaker 1: somebody on my show and debate them. I find that
• 2:09:59
  Speaker 1: a weird combination. But if a third party you've invited
• 2:10:03
  Speaker 1: the two of us to have a conversation, I would
• 2:10:05
  Speaker 1: definitely do it. Happy to do it, all, right, guys.
• 2:10:10
  Speaker 1: Six dollars short, six dollars, Oh there we go. Steven
• 2:10:16
  Speaker 1: just did five dollars. Question. Somebody do a one dollar
• 2:10:19
  Speaker 1: sticker and we can meet our goal. Steven, what was
• 2:10:23
  Speaker 1: the name about the book that explains the major changes
• 2:10:27
  Speaker 1: making it easier to sue. It's called liability. Liability by
• 2:10:33
  Speaker 1: Peter Huber. Huber there was a Huawei was out of
• 2:10:37
  Speaker 1: stock which you could find it used, I think, on Amazon.
• 2:10:40
  Speaker 1: It's called liability by Peter Huber. It was written in
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 1: the I don't know nineties. I think it's really the
• 2:10:46
  Speaker 1: first half of the book brilliant. Second half where he
• 2:10:51
  Speaker 1: give solutions I don't completely agree with, but the first
• 2:10:54
  Speaker 1: half was really, really brilliant. All right, Roberts says, here's
• 2:10:58
  Speaker 1: twenty dollars just for me to soapbox. You know, I
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 1: always say optimism is realism, but I understand only realism
• 2:11:07
  Speaker 1: is realism. But compared to today's passimism, objectivism should rightly
• 2:11:11
  Speaker 1: lead to optimism and passion. Yeah, I mean you have
• 2:11:16
  Speaker 1: to understand optimism correctly. Optimism is not a Pollyannish view
• 2:11:24
  Speaker 1: of the future. Optimism is an understanding that when people
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 1: are rational and are left free, and to the extent
• 2:11:31
  Speaker 1: that they are left free, good things happen. And there's
• 2:11:34
  Speaker 1: still enough freedom and enough rational people for good things
• 2:11:37
  Speaker 1: to happen, And there's still enough freedom for you to
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 1: make good things happen in your life, and in that sense,
• 2:11:43
  Speaker 1: the optimism is the realism. Thank you Robert for using
• 2:11:49
  Speaker 1: me as a soapbox. And finally from Robert and folks,
• 2:11:52
  Speaker 1: if you haven't heard you On's Rules for Life episodes,
• 2:11:56
  Speaker 1: make it so. And now you can purchase the first
• 2:11:59
  Speaker 1: five episodes of the series as a commercial free playlist.
• 2:12:03
  Speaker 1: You can I think through Patreon. I think it's through patren,
• 2:12:08
  Speaker 1: maybe through YouTube, but certainly through Patreon. All right, thank
• 2:12:12
  Speaker 1: you guys. I will see you tomorrow. Two shows tomorrow,
• 2:12:17
  Speaker 1: We've got a new show, and then in the evening,
• 2:12:20
  Speaker 1: I'm interviewing Augustina Augustina about immigration and Me Lay. We'll
• 2:12:26
  Speaker 1: talk about me Lay. Augustina's just been to Argentina and
• 2:12:31
  Speaker 1: she's an expert in immigration. Sort of be a fantastic conversation.
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 1: We'll talk about Argentina and Me Lay the future, and
• 2:12:37
  Speaker 1: then we'll shift to talk about America and immigration and
• 2:12:42
  Speaker 1: why why she still is so proud of the fact
• 2:12:47
  Speaker 1: that she became an American citizens. So check it out.
• 2:12:51
  Speaker 1: That's tomorrow, seven pm East Coast time. But before that
• 2:12:54
  Speaker 1: there'll be a regular news show. See you tomorrow. Bye, everybody.