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

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, the rush of racing, nothing beats it, but

Chamba Casino comes close. Chamba's got fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses,

and all the action you can handle. Now that's a ride. Ready to hit the throttle?

Get in the driver's seat and head to chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. Sponsored by

Chamba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law, 21

plus Terms and Conditions apply.

All right everybody welcome to your own book show on this Sunday February 15th.

I hope everybody's had a fantastic Valentine's Day weekend. You had to get

back to politics. We talked about love, romantic love yesterday. Hopefully you enjoyed

that show. If you haven't had a chance to listen, it's on YouTube. It's on your

podcast. It should be on your podcast app. So take a listen. Hopefully, hopefully you

enjoy that. All right, let's jump in. Before we do that, let me remind you of my

Seminole in London February 28th. Sent to London from 1 to 5 to 5 and then dinner

after that. We'll be talking about capitalism. It's titled In Defense of

Profit, Wipe of Spurdy, Need No Permission. You can find information about it on my website.

You're on bookshow.com. I think it'd be fun. You know, I think you'll learn a lot about

capitalism. We'll learn a lot of details. A lot of the history. We'll talk about it in

more case, but really we'll talk about the history and what makes capitalism. Capitalism,

what makes it unique, what makes it special, why we don't live in capitalism today. Some

of it you know, I think some of it you won't know. It'll just be a deep dive into the topic

for four hours. Feel free to join and ask questions. So if you have any questions about capitalism

and thoughts and doubts and any places where you feel a little unsure about capitalism,

this is a great opportunity to ask and to inquire and to dig deeper. Again, live in

person in London, somewhere in central London, it'll be on February 28th, you're on bookshow.com.

Just scroll down to where the events section are. Click on the link for this particular event.

It'll take you to an ever bright page where you can register and buy a ticket. So do that

the sooner that you do it, the better for me, at least because that way I know how many

people are coming and I can plan and I can I can get us an appropriate room, appropriate

facility so that and then I can let you know about where it's going to be exactly. February

28th, it's a Saturday. Yeah. All right, let's jump in. She probably all heard of the shoe

horse theory of politics. There's been a lot of talk of it over the last few years. The idea

basically is, look, when you actually look at the right and the left at the, they're extremes

at the, you know, at the far right and the far left. When you look at the far right and the

far left, what you see at least in terms of outcome, what you see in terms of technique

in terms of their strategies, political strategies, what you see is something very, very similar.

I mean, both seem to be striving towards authoritarianism, some form of one party rule

or one party dominance. You know, both at the very extreme, if you look at communism

and fascism or notism at that level, both have a, a secret police that monitors everything

you say and do. They both repress speech, they're anti-fust amendment. They both have

a tendency towards the cult of personality, where it was Lenin or Stalin or Hitler or

Mussolini. There's a cult of personality associated with it. This state control in both.

The state is all powerful and there's repression of the opposition and violent repression, violent

repression of the opposition. So this is like a shoe horse, right? So the two edges are like

similar in terms of political strategies and what's kind of at the other side of the shoe

horses, what would you call liberal democracy, right? Liberal democracy is here. Before you

move to the right, the more you, to the right or to the left, the more you become authoritarian,

the more you become repressive, the more inclined you are towards violence.

And this is a theory associated with a French philosopher from the 1918,

wrote in the 1970s, Jean-Pierre Fay, F-A-Y-E, Fayet, Fayet, I don't know how you pronounce it in

French. Jean-Pierre Fayet, and he argued that totalitarian movements from left and right,

basically milit each other in their political strategies again, in their political strategies.

More than traditional linear model, linear model would be left right on a continuum and left

and right at their far edges are completely the opposite of one another, the whole shoe bends

and they appear to be, you know, on certain dimensions, very, very similar to one another.

And again, the idea of you is to recognize that there are ideological differences,

they claim, but their strategies are the same, right? They reject liberal democracy,

they both justify violence in the name of some kind of utopia or some kind of

some kind of ideal, they both distrust institutions promote ideological conformity,

and they both claim, you know, absolutism, political absolutism.

And that means, you know, ultimately, authoritarianism.

So, you know, that's kind of the theory, and when you look at it, it, you know, kind of makes sense,

it seems like these things are true, right? Faye came to this, Faye, Faye maybe,

came to this after studying Nazi Germany and Soviet Union's joint invasion of Poland,

some reading from an article about him, although these regimes, which are ideologically different,

we'll get to that in a little bit, their escalations towards authoritarianism,

followed a similar pattern. In both cases, the leaders of the regime sought to stifle political

dissent, eliminate threats they continued power, and upon observing the similarities and the

strategies employed by each regime, Faye began to reconsider his understanding of the ideological

spectrum, Faye deduced that like a horseshoe, the left and right extremes of the continuing,

been towards one another, as their distance from the center, the center here being kind of some

kind of liberal democracy, increases. Now, critics of the OSU theory say, yeah, but the problem is

that when applied to fundamental values, this is from this article, and beliefs associated with

each ideological extreme, horseshoe theory loses its perceived validity. So the theory behind

that left and right, a differentiation, they're completely different, there's no similarity to it,

this is how this article describes the difference, which is, it just shows you how ignorant and

stupid, this is on the vandable political reviews, so this is from Vandable University,

just shows you how stupid people are, the theoretical priorities of the left and right inherently

oppose one another, egalitarian economics and progressive policies at the left, can it exist

alongside Faye economics and conservative policies? And here what you see is how damaging the left

and right spectrum is, to I think people's understanding of politics, to their understanding of

the ideology behind, in what world is Nazi Germany? Lazafi economics, any just basic understanding

of what was going on in Nazi Germany, in terms of economics, knows that Nazi Germany was a completely

controlled economy, and it was a status economy, and the essence of fascism is state control of

the economy. There is pseudo private property, but there's certainly nothing, nothing, nothing,

even approaching Lazafi, there's really no recognition of private property, everything ultimately

is the states, and the states let you pretend that you have private property, but he controls it,

tells you what you can and can and do with it.

So the problem, the whole problem with the left and right ideology is it lumps together on the right,

fascism, Nazism, and Lazafi capitalism.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com, let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group, voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus, sponsored by

ChambaCasino. And that's a disaster for us, the advocates for Lazafi capitalism. This is why we must

not, must not, be on the right. We are not of the right, we're not on the right. Now, I think

when I ran, thought of the right, she thought of the right as individual rights and, and,

you know, capitalism, that is the right. And there was some hope for that definition of right,

maybe in the 60s and 70s, but I think she was wrong. I think that she knew that the conservatives

of the time who pretended to be poor individual rights would really, and that that view of the right

was bound to, to go away, to disappear, to be gone. And therefore, what's left then on the right

is fascism, Nazism, and, and all those forms of stateism. We cannot associate with that,

so we cannot be on the right. And yes, we cannot be on the left. That's why the left right

is not appropriate for us. I'll get to my alternative to the Hoshu theory. It's called the,

I call it the arrow theory, the arrow, arrow theory of political alignment. We'll talk about it in a

minute. So, you know, so the Hoshu theory is criticized by saying, look, the, the, the, the

differences ideologically are significant. Now, I think the Hoshu advocates like

Faye would say, well, look, yeah, it's true, they're different, right? We're not suggesting that

ideologically they're the same, but we're suggesting that the ideology, whatever it is,

drives them to the same type of political strategies, to the same type of authoritarianism.

But again, they're completely missing the mark.

So here's a continuation in this, in this article. And I'll turn to the application of Hoshu theory

and coverage is not the examination of the content, or particular policy preferences,

but instead the strategies used in the implementation. So this is about the strategy, not the content.

But here's what they're missing. The missing, the deep, fundamental,

metaphysical, really, similarity between the left and the right, certainly at these extremes,

that ideologically they are fundamentally similar. They apply this differently. So there are

differences ideologically, but the differences are far smaller than what conventional

political thinkers think, because they don't think in fundamentals.

So let's put that aside for a minute, and let's look at what makes the left the left.

What is the characteristic of the left? What is the underlying philosophy of the modern fall left?

What makes a leftist a leftist? What are they striving towards? What is the modern left about?

And I think the thing that characterizes the left more than anything else

is egalitarianism. It's the striving towards equality of outcome for all.

And they've taken this beyond just a Marxist equality of outcome, a Marxist equality of outcome vis-à-vis

economics to a equality of outcome across all human outcomes.

They want real equality. We all be the same. There's a scene in a movie that's made about

popots, popots, killing fields. I forget the name of the movie. It's a movie made by Angelina

Jolie, maybe one of you will remind me of the name. Anyway, there's a scene in it that

over the loudspeakers, as they're in these work camps that are trying to bring the city dwellers

down to the level of the farmers and drive out any education they might have, drive out anything

that might make them extraordinary. There's a whole thing on the loudspeakers constantly going,

the individual is nothing, the individual is meaningless, the individual means nothing.

There's no, you know, you are just one in this amorphous collective, you're all the same in every

respect. And of course, the coming of usual famous in killing people because of their education,

killing people, because that glass is killing people, because they were good in any kind of field,

in any kind of field. Yes, thank you, Miroslav, who seems to always have the answers to my questions.

The movie is called First They Killed My Father. First They Killed My Father. I recommend the movie.

It is, I mean, it is horrific, but it's very powerful. It's very well made. Good for Angelina

Jolie for making it. It's a difficult movie to make. It's rare that communism or egalitarianism

that the far left is criticized in our movie making, criticized in our movie making.

And Angelina Jolie, good for making this. It's a good movie. It's well made. It's powerful.

And I think it captures, I mean, it could have been more explicit. The pieces of it,

it could have been a little bit more explicit. But I think it basically captures

the horror, certainly, but it captures the ideology of the Kamehruj and how evil it is and how

horrific it is to human beings. This is an ideology for ants. An ideology may be for bees,

but certainly not an ideology for human beings.

So the far left wants equality of outcome. They want equality for everybody. And to do that,

they look at the past and they say some groups have been discriminated against relative to others.

Some groups have power. Some groups have more, more economically, more culturally, more politically.

They need to be brought down while the groups that have less, economically, culturally,

politically and in every other dimension, need to be brought up so that we can achieve

an equality. But it's much easier to bring people down as the Kamehruj discovered,

as Paul Pot figured out pretty easily. It's much easier to bring people down than to being people

up. It's much easier to destroy than to create. And once you establish, you get a chimney,

as a once you establish equality, there is no bringing up, bringing up, creating, building,

producing. That is a characteristic of the individual, not the group, not the collective in

any kind of way. So it's impossible to really bring it up.

So what the, what the extreme left advocates for is identity politics. Organize the round,

oppressor, oppressed, power, quote, relationships. But the power relationships,

just power, just you can fill in economic inequality, cultural, any kind of inequality can fit

into the power. Power is an amorphous term that they can use in any way they want. But the basic

idea is you identify groups that are oppressed, they know other good guys, they're the ones you

want to support. Any group that has more than these oppressed groups have, they're the ones you

want to destroy, they're the ones you want to bring down, kill, kill, destroy, murder, annihilate

as the coming rules did. And that ultimately the outcome needs to be equality, egalitarianism,

everybody being the same. And to do that, many, many people have to die. Many, many people have to

die. There's just no way, not, there's no way to achieve that goal, Stalin understood that,

Lenin understood that, you have to break some eggs to build an omelet. And, and, and, and, and, and,

and suddenly Paul Pot understood that, but look, do the, do that, he for guys understand this,

absolutely to understand it, when they get political power, that is what they will do. That is what

they will do, right? They will use whatever power they have to destroy the people that they

believe need to be destroyed. They will crush those who stand out in any kind of way, who don't

buy into this egalitarian mythical utopia. I love this, we've got out egalitarian on board.

Anyways, immoral people must be controlled. Woo, you see the authoritarianism there?

You see how, how, you know, unapologetic, you know, consistent. It is, that is the far left.

The far left is authoritarian, authoritarian. It is dictatorial. It is about secret police.

It is about speech codes. It is about cancel culture in the sense of cancelling. Not just

finding somebody, but cancelling people, getting rid of them. They're nonexistent. Again,

I refer you to the Kamehruj or Stalin, for examples of that.

So, fundamentally, the far left are collectivists. Collectivists who like to believe that they view

all of mankind as one collective. One collective. Wait, with all of mankind, those collectives,

all of mankind being that one collective, being ultimately equal. But in order to get there,

in order to get to the point where all of mankind is one collective bog, one collective equal

in everything, in order to get there, well, we have to treat other smaller collectives differently,

so that we can equate them. So, the Jews need to be treated differently than, you know, I don't

know, the blacks or any other kind of minority Jews don't kind of minority. Or, you know, the whites

need to be different. You're treated differently than people are brown skin. So, they're very much

about race, very much about racial ideology, about identity politics, the rich category.

That needs to be treated differently than the poor, the rich need to be brought down to the level

of the poor, because that's the only way everybody can be the same. So, while the egalitarian's view

everybody as ultimately in their ideal equal, they have to differentiate between groups,

between collectives, in order to get there, in order to achieve that utopia. Again, utopia

is a collectivistic anti-individualistic, I mean rejection, complete rejection of the individual,

the individual doesn't exist. And the elevation of the grand collective over everything else,

and again, in order to achieve that, we need to treat different collectives differently,

in order to get to that end, in order to get to that end.

So, that's the left. That's the evil of the left.

Hey, it's Cole Swindle, and when I spend 200 days a year rolling down the highway,

the bus can start to feel smaller than a guitar case. Everyone wonders how I stay chill while the

hours crawl by. Truth is, one good luck spent on Chamba, and suddenly the trip does a whole lot

shortage. Found in your space, even when there isn't much to spare. Need some chill? Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, BGW Group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus TNC supply, sponsored by

Chamba Casino. What characterizes the evil of the far right? She could say that we have

fundamental difference between the left and the right, is the left-a-galleterians,

and the right are believe in hierarchy. They believe in inequality. They reject the

egalitarianism. They believe some groups are people, are better, deserve more power,

deserve more rights, deserve to rule over others, that some are better morally,

some are better intellectually, some are better, and therefore they must rule the others.

They believe in the same kind of identity politics, but their identity politics, the right

identity politics is not for the purpose of some egalitarian utopia. Their identity politics

is they will tell you just a reflection of reality, just a recognition of the fact that they

are different and therefore deserve different things. So whites are different than blacks,

different than Jews, different than Hispanics, different Asians, and rich are different than the

bourgeois, different than the poor, and that all these categories are just like the left beliefs.

There's someone inherent, they can be molded and shifted, but they're mostly inherent.

I mean, Marx believed that the bourgeois, the bourgeois, it's very difficult to change a bourgeois

into a, into a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a parliamentarian, and that's why communism has to engage in

significant breaking of eggs in order to create that omelette. Omelette is pure equality but

some people can never be equal and it can never become polyterian and accept that consciousness

and therefore they must be exterminated.

The right believes very similar that these groups are and that the solution to that is not

to strive to one some kind of equality in the future. But that some groups rule over other groups

that some groups control and have power over other groups.

And that power should be recognized in the law, in the system government. That is what Nazism does

to the Aryan race over all other races and it places Jews right at the bottom there.

So there's a hierarchy and you have different, you're going to be treated differently and then some

groups are so offensive just like with the left. Some groups are so offensive it can never change.

Their identity isn't coded in their genes. Then those groups need to be wiped out just like the far left

believes.

So the difference is one is committed to egalitarianism as an ideal in a utopia and identity politics

is a means to getting there. The other believes in hierarchy as its utopia, the rule of some over

others as a utopia. And I get that the politics is the way it will always be and the way that's

always been. They will say we are realists. We are connected to reality. They call themselves race

realists. We know some people are better than others so we give those people power over the people

who are not so good. And that being better is not just about intelligence, about morality, it's about

culture, it's about economic abilities, about everything. So one is for hierarchy and one is for

egalitarianism. Both, what are they both share? What they both share fundamentally is

what did I do there? They both share the fact that they're both collectivist.

Which is the fundamental? They interpret collectivism differently in terms of which groups of which

and they strive for different utopia. One is the utopia of hierarchy, the other is the utopia of equality.

But they both share the same means and they both share the same fundamental metaphysical view of man.

The metaphysical view of man is that man quite individual does not exist.

The man by his very nature is part of a collective. And that collective is the political but moral

purpose of life. There is no individual consciousness. There's only group consciousness.

There is no individual morality. There's only group morality. The purpose of the individual is

to serve, to serve the collective. All right, I'm just going to say this candle. If you don't stop

on the chat, like dominating the chapter where you are, I will ban you from the chat. I'll put

you on 24 hours yesterday. This time I'll just ban you completely. So either moderate your usage

of the chat with your nonsense or I'm just going to ban you from the chat. So that's the alternative

you have. But if you continue in the path, you know what will happen. All right, back to this. I'm

just trying to do some cleanup operations here. A news love there is what position to ban you when I

ask him to do so. Yeah, some of you might have candle already blocked. So you might not be seeing

his endless chats. So the fundamentally, you could view the horseshoe theory as, in a sense, correct?

We'll get to its real flaw. In that both edges and everything leading up to the edge, the whole

project of the right and the whole project of the left are collectivistic projects.

The right even as more moderate forms is built on tradition. Tradition is inherently collectivistic.

Whose tradition? Oh, tradition. Whose hour? What about the individual who's going to break out of

that tradition? What about the individual who wants to live his own life that way he sees fit

separate from your tradition? So even away from the edges,

the weight is inherently collectivistic. The whole conservative project in spite of their claiming

to be founding fathers and individual weights and their declaration dependence and all that.

By the very nature of the word conservatism, what are they trying to conserve a certain way of life?

But of whom? Not of an individual. The very nature of their emphasis on tradition.

And the very inclination they have towards nationalism, they're collectivists of one form and

other. And then if you take the left, the same thing is true. The social democrats, the various

types of leftists all share, maybe they don't want completely quality, they want some equality,

they want to don't want complete redistribution of wealth, they don't want to penalize,

they don't literally penalize everybody, they just want to penalize some and a little bit,

not a lot. And all of this, but everything is in the context of this group, this is that group

and how the group's going to end up and how the group's in this way or in that way.

They're all collectivists. They all talk about the rich and the poor at the very minimal on the left.

On the right, they all talk about us and them, the other, the immigrants, the foreigners.

And you know, as you get more and more towards the racist elements, the Jews, the non-whites,

whatever. But it's fundamentally the same. They're both focused on identity politics at

extreme, but as you move in, the identity gets fuzzy, but the collectives, the collectivism at

the heart of it are still there. And there's nobody here, nobody here, nobody on the whole

horseshoe, who actually has an understanding of individual rights, a freedom of liberty on what

it actually means. It doesn't converge into freedom, liberty, individual rights. That's not a

spectrum. There's collectivism here, collectivism here, a little bit less collectivism over here,

but it's still collectivism. And this is the problem with left and right Democrats,

Republicans, is, you know, we don't get a move, a systemic, fundamental, continuous move, no

matter who gets elected towards individualism, towards individual rights, towards freedom, towards

liberty. That move just doesn't happen politically, because we're stuck in a context of collectivism,

we have to take care of the poor, we have to take care of the old, we bought into one way or the other,

the collectivistic premises that both left and right share.

The individual, his liberty, his freedom, doesn't matter, doesn't count.

And that's everybody, even the best people on the horseshoe are not there, so what we need is

something else.

Casino style games and new titles arriving weekly, there's always something fresh to try at

Chamba Casino. The daily booze make it even more fun and have me about to get them all

doing my downtime. Ready for a fun way to chill out and enjoy a few minutes for yourself?

Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary, VGW Group Voidware Prohibited by Law, CTS and CES, 21 Plus,

sponsored by Chamba Casino. Well, we need a different vision of what that political spectrum looks

like, so if you have to have an image, think of an arrow, think of an arrow.

At the tip of the arrow is individualism, individualism. That's the head, that's the,

what do you call that, the bit at the tip of the arrow, which is the sharp bit, that's individualism.

And you're moving away from individualism by various levels, but once you, at some point,

you know, you dominate by collectivism. And at that point, there are these feathers, right,

that branch off of the arrow. Right, the arrow head is individualism. The other side,

where you've got feathers, the arrow is just one tip. That is liberty. That is the declaration

of independence. That is individual rights. Lasafit capitalism. Lasafit capitalism is the tip of

the arrow. At that other side, you've got feathers. You've got the branching out like this, right?

One branch is fascism. One branch is socialism. There's communism. There's Nazism. They're all

collectivists. They just have different spins on it. Once the Cameroos, you disagreed with Stalin,

who did it a little different than Mao, but they're all basically the same. And then on the,

that's on the left side of the feathers. On the right side, the feathers are, you know,

Mussolini and Stalin and Franco, right? Franco didn't kill as many people as either Mussolini,

as Hitler. Still a bad guy. Still fascist. Still collectivist.

Individualism, collectivism. And once you recognize the evil of collectivism, once you recognize

that the inherent evil of collectivism is its negation of the individual, is that it's going

against reality. It's going against nature. It's going against the nature of man that it rejects

reason rationality because reason rationality can only be a feature of the individual.

That inherently collectivism must be mystical in some respect. A secular mysticism, a belief in

the consciousness of the proletarian or the consciousness of all blacks or the consciousness of all

whites or the consciousness of all Jews, which the right often shares. We saw that in the video

the other day of white identity, the guy about white identity. What is it? He can't define it

because there is no such thing. There is no such thing as white identity. Anymore than there is

such a thing as black identity. It's mystical. It's completely floating. It's completely detached

from the real world. And so they have to be. The collectivists have to be mystical because they

reject reality. They reject reason because they rejected the individual.

And as you reject collectivism, you embrace individual. Then you understand that if you are

for the individual, if the individual is the unit that matters in politics,

then the only thing the individual needs politically is to be free. It's to be free of violence,

to be free of coercion, to be free of force, to be free of authority that can impose its will.

The individual needs to be left alone.

And then you know, that leads you to kind of a system that protects individual rights and

the mechanism by which those rights are protected, the creation of a government who saw

responsibilities, the protection of rights. In other words, it leads you to blasphic capitalism.

But that's not on the right because blasphic capitalism rejects everything associated with

the right. Rejects tradition, rejects conserving the past, it's progressive, it's future oriented,

but more importantly, it rejects any collective. It rejects any form of mysticism.

It's based on recognizing the individual. And the individual's means by which he survives,

he thrives, he flourishes, he achieves, his own mind.

So the horseshoe theory is both shallow because it does not recognize, it's shallow because it did not

recognize the ideological similarities, the fundamental ideological similarities between left and

right, and focuses instead on the strategic political similarities, which are all true.

But they come from the ideological similarities.

Looking for excitement, Jamba Casino is here. Play any time, play anywhere. Play on the train,

play at the store, play at home, play when you're bored. Play today for your chance to win,

and get daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for, don't delay?

Jamba Casino is free to play. Experience social gameplay like never before.

Go to Jamba Casino right now to play hundreds of games, including online slots,

bingo, slingo, and more. Live the Jamba Life at JambaCasino.com.

And what the horseshoe theory evades is the true alternative,

the true alternative being individualism, the true alternative being individual rights,

the true alternative being lasific capitalism, lasific capitalism, not a feature of right,

not the feature, not within the horseshoe, but away from the horseshoe, far away from the horseshoe.

Because a complete paradigm shift, a complete change, a completely completely different

orientation that rejects the very nature of left and right, because it rejects collectivism

in any form, in any form.

And indeed, Millay is away from the left and right. I mean, he's makes, he's not in

lasific capitalism over here. He's somewhere along the shaft of the arrow. He's not at the edge,

he's not at the spearhead, not at the arrowhead, but he's along the lines.

He has to periodically appease those on the political right because they're his allies.

Now, I think it's appeasement. Maybe he believes it. Maybe in his own mind, he has to do it.

So he puts restrictions and immigration. He makes nationalistic comments. He claims he wants

the folkland islands back and things like that. He buys weapons systems in order to achieve it.

But in his economics, and most of his policies, he is on the premise of individualism,

and therefore at least on the shaft of the arrow. Again, not on the arrowhead. There's no politician

anywhere in the world who actually sits on the head of that arrow, on the tip of that arrow.

I wish Milet is inspiring enough, but given the alternatives,

but we can all wish for something even better, for something even better.

So, yeah. It's my view of the Hoshu political theory.

Hoshu political theory. It doesn't recognize the fundamental similarity,

and it doesn't recognize what the alternative really is.

We do, and that's why, well, I do. I don't want to speak for you guys. I do. Therefore,

I am not of the right, and I'm not of the left. I epoxen both their houses. They're both evil,

as far as I'm concerned. They're both authoritarian, ultimately.

And they both lead us towards the same collectivistic hell.

And therefore, I stand on the side of individualism, even if I stand alone,

even if no politician represents my view, even if I have no political home, no political party,

that doesn't change my view of what is true. It is shocking to see so many people.

In the name of belonging somewhere on the political map, in the name of a half to choose,

their only two alternatives have sold this soul to the collectivist.

Sold this soul to the collectivist. I will not, that I can guarantee you,

even if I land up being the lone man fighting out there against the evil of collectivism.

I know I'm not alone, so I don't want to pretend. I'm not alone. The plenty of you out there

who are with me, and I appreciate that, and I thank you for that, not that you're doing it for me.

I still thank you for it, because it's a value to me that I'm not alone.

All right, that is that. I know you guys have a bunch of questions, all kinds of questions,

I guess. Someone yesterday's topic of love, someone today's topic, some of other topics,

AI girlfriends. Okay, interesting. We'll get to those soon. We'll get to those soon. Before we

get to that, I promise to do some reviews today, so we'll start doing some song reviews today.

I'll do all the song reviews, Shazbat, and then we'll get to Shazbat's Star Trek reviews,

and then ultimately there's a book review I have to do as well. That'll take a little longer,

because I still haven't started reading that book. That'll take a while for me to read. But we'll start

with, we'll start with, God, we'll start with the song reviews today, and hopefully I'll finish

the song reviews up next week. And then in the weeks following that, I'm traveling, but sometime

in the weeks following that, we'll start with the reviews from Shazbat, the TV series reviews,

Andorn and Star Trek. And then maybe there'll be new ones, by the time we get to finish them off.

So let's start today with some song reviews. Let me just close this window and move this in

there. All right, so let's start with, by far, by far the most entertaining of the songs I was

asked to review. And that is, and I'm sure I'm not pronouncing this right. Haze, Carille,

Haze, Carille. Haze, Carille's song, she left me for Jesus. I was worried about this song,

but it is really funny. It is, you guys need to listen to this song. It is really, it is really fun

and funny. It's, it's, it's, it's a country song. You know, the music is country cliche. It's just,

it's just, you know, simple, straightforward, you know, country sound, the words, you know,

the lyrics are straight out country, simple language, simple story, simple story being told.

But it's, but it's, it's, it's, it's so funny, right? So he describes his girlfriend,

they've been dating from high school and everything and then she says she, she left me for Jesus

and that just ain't fair. She says that he's perfect. How could I compare? She says I should find him

and I'll know peace at last. If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking his ass. She showed me a picture.

All I could do was stay at that freak in his sandals and his long pretty hair. They must think

that I'm stupid or I just don't have a clue. I'll bet he's a commie or even worse yet, a Jew.

I mean, that's good. She, uh, she love me with Jesus, the chorus again. She's giving up whiskey

and taking an up wine. Whilst, whilst she prays for his troubles. She forgot about mine.

I'm gonna get even. I can't handle the shame. Why last time we made love, she even called out his name.

That's good. Jesus. Yeah, that's, that's good.

Um, it says it could have been Carlos or even Billy or Ted. But if I ever find Jesus,

he's gonna wish he was dead. Amen. So, you know, it ain't great art. It ain't great poetry.

It ain't great music at all. At all, right? But it's funny. So, um, you know, I need reminded me of my

favorite country song. Um, God, I had it on the tip of my tongue. My favorite country song is

Jesus take the wheel. Which is funny in its own way. But that's a serious song that makes you

laugh and cry at the same time. Um, but is, is, uh, where Jesus is taking seriously. It's not my

favorite country song. Don't worry. But Jesus take the wheel is a classic. If you haven't heard Jesus

take the wheel, you've got to listen to it. It, it'll really piss you off. Uh, but it's, it's perfect.

It's perfectly Christian. It, it's, it's perfect, right? Uh, you know, she's,

is it Carrianderwood? Yeah. It's, it's so religiously evil. It has to be one of the more evil

songs ever. It's, it's a better song than, um, uh, then she left me for Jesus. But she left me for

Jesus is one of the funniest songs I've heard. So kudos to, um, to Patrick who, uh, got me to review

this song and for finding a song that actually left allowed at that is pretty rare. I have a pretty

simple, simple sense of humor. So, um, that was good. All right. Hello, it is Ryan. And we could all

use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic,

doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big

fan of Chamba Casino. Chamba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can

play for free anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now at chamba casino.com. That's

chamba casino.com. No purchase necessary. W group void for prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and

conditions apply. This one is from Ian, Ian, Ian asked me to review the night watch, the night watch.

I was really curious about this because it's a song based on a famous painting by Rembrandt.

And I thought I would show you the painting. Um, maybe I don't know. Should I show you the painting?

Uh, once, let me, let me see if I can pull this up and show you the painting. Um,

uh, yeah, let's see if we get a good problem with it is, um, I don't think you're going to get.

I don't think you're going to gain a real appreciation for it. But, but let's, let's pull it up,

right? It's one of the great paintings and in, uh, in, uh, in, uh, Western history.

There it is, but you only see a segment of it. Let me try to rescale this.

I mean, you can't appreciate it here, which is why I didn't, I wasn't sure if I was going to show

it. Let me make it a little smaller. There we go. Right. That's basically the painting.

There's a lot more on the, on the, on, of height to it, which you cannot see. Um, but, but that's, uh,

that's the painting. And this is a song by King Crimson, uh, from the late 1990s, 1997.

Um, and it's basically a celebration of his painting. And I mean, this is a painting that revolutionizes art.

Um, if you look, uh, so this is the night watch, the night watching a sense was a guild.

Whoops, what happened there? That wasn't supposed to happen.

Uh, there we go. Right. Right. There we go.

Um,

no, come on, move right there, lock it into the, okay, the night watch is a revolutionary painting

that really revolutionizes, uh, uh, at least Dutch painting, but I think, I think more broadly,

uh, more broadly revolutionizes the art of painting. If you looked at paintings of guilds before

this, like groups of men, uh, that are responsible for certain, uh, you know, uh, what do you call it,

activity, productive activity. They're always static, all standing there, very, very, you know,

serious and very demure. Uh, but you know, and very, you know, there's usually kind of a, a,

a standard way of, of how you portray them kind of a pyramid format and how they, how they

addressed and how they're structured. And this is the first time, the first time that a guild

like this was painted in action, in action, uh, and, uh, you know, uh, engaged in activity, uh,

with expressions, not just flat, but engage really expressions and individuated, real individuals,

uh, engage in their activities and dress differently. They're not all dressed the same. They're

dressed in different colors. And, and there's even, of course, a, a little girl back that

dressed in white. It's a magnificent painting and one of the funny things I thought in, in the song

in the lyrics was, uh, it's part of the lyrics that says, let me see where, uh, yeah. Uh, so this is

the first verse, shine, shine, the light of good work, work, shine. So here, one of the, one of the,

effective things that Rembrandt does here is the way he uses light, the way he is lighting up

the faces, particularly of the central figures. But really, if you look across the entire scene,

the faces are lit. That way you can get their expressions. So there's, uh, uh, an impressive,

which is true of all Rembrandt's work, an impressive use of light in order to sharpen their individual

characteristics. Um, and, uh, oh, that's not what I want to do. All right, I don't know why it's,

yeah, it keeps resizing. Uh, as you can see it there, you can even see, you see the gold in the

background, uh, the light on her, the light on the ground, you can even see shadows. I mean,

the use of light here is really effective. Anyway, he says, shine, shine, the light of good work,

shine. The watch before the city gates depicted in their prime, that golden light or grimy now,

300 years have passed. Uh, the worthy captain in a squad of troopers stand fast. Now what's

interesting is that golden light or grimy now, and I get it, the sense in which he means grimy,

because if you went to see that painting, this painting, in 1997, it was all grimy. It was all

faded. The light was grimy. But they've cleaned it recently. So when you go now to the Reich's

Museum in Amsterdam, one of the great museums in the world. And I think it's on the second floor,

this is a major painting that you'll see. It's right, it's right there. As you come up to stairs,

I think you turn right and it's right there. Um, it, it, the difference between what it was like

when it was grimy as the, as the song represents. And the way it is now, it's such a huge difference.

Uh, it is, I wonder what they'd write now. They'd have to change the lyrics today,

because the light is not grimy at all. Uh, it, it's come alive. They've done such a good job in

cleaning it up. Uh, that, uh, that, uh, uh, you know, it's almost a different painting now. You

know, and it, it, it, it, so it, it really shines. It really shines, shine, shine the light

of good works up. So anyway, you know, if you look at this song by King Crimson, I really like the

lyrics. The lyrics about basically these regular people, regular people who are out here, um,

committed to the defense of their city. Um, you know, uh, he writes, the artists knew their face

as well, the husbands of his ladies' friends, his creditors and counselors in armored bright,

the merchant men, official moments of the guild, in poses, keen from bygone days, city fathers

frozen there upon the canvas, dark with age. Again, it's not dark with age anymore.

It's kind of cool that now we can see it the way I think Rembrandt meant it to be seen.

Um, but yeah, these are all, these are the counselors and the, and the money lenders and the merchants

and, you know, the people of the town, the blacksmiths and, and so on. These are the people who

engage in the city's defense. It goes on. The smell of pain to flask of wine and turn those faces

all to me, the blender bus and, and how, how but shaft and, and Dutch respectability. They make

their entrance one by one defenders of that way of life. The red brick home, the bourgeoisie

and guitar lessons for the wife. And, um, so many years we suffered here. Our country raked with

Spanish wars. These are the wars that Holland faced with the Spanish. Now comes a chance to find

ourselves quiet reigns behind our doors. We think about posterity again. So the pride of little

men, the bogas, good and true, still living through the painter's hand. Request you all to understand.

I love that. So the pride of little men. I mean, he means not men of stature. These are not generals.

These are not political leaders. These are not, these are real, these are the heroes of,

of, of, of Amsterdam. These are the heroes of Holland. These are the people who actually do the

fighting and these are the people who organize the defense. This was the guild. They defended them at

night. This was the night watch. Uh, they defends the property rights. They defends the prosperity.

You know, we think about prosperity again, posterity again. So, uh, yeah, I think those links are

a good, you know, the sentiment is good. I didn't particularly like the music. There's a certain,

I don't know, a certain drama to it, but it's, I found it a little annoying. It didn't live up to

the grandeur of, I think even the lyrics never went to painting. It, it, it, it, it, it, it, the music

itself. I don't know. Grain's a little bit. I don't, I wouldn't listen to the song. I, I, I,

I liked the lyrics, but I wouldn't listen to it because I don't like the way it was sung. And, um,

I found the music a little greeting. It did create a sense of drama, but what it didn't create

is the sense of light. And maybe that's the grimy. But it didn't create the sense of

heroism that I think is in the painting. Ian says it's part improv and Crimson definitely

leans into the dissonance. Yeah, it's two, there's too much dissonance for, for, for my taste.

You know, this painting deserves a melody. It deserves good melody and harmony. It deserves

a story told through music. And I think it's very hard to tell a story through music.

Um, with, with that kind of, with that kind of music. So I didn't particularly like to sing

his voice, but you've asked me to review these songs. So you get them. All right, that was, um,

that was the night watchman. I highly recommend, uh, checking out the painting at the

Wichis Museum in Amsterdam. If you're ever there, I'm stems of great city. You should definitely,

uh, you should definitely be there. It does not deserve an Iron Maiden song. God. You guys will

have the weirdest taste in music. What can I say? Um, or maybe I should say just don't have a taste

in music. I'm not in meaning to insult anybody. You guys have your taste in music. I have mine.

I think mine's better, but that's, that's, that's, that's, you know, that's just me.

All right, third song. That was Ian. The third song is by Hamad. This one is

Starlifter, Fearless Part 2. And God, this one's an 18-minute song. I'm not even sure

that you could call it a song at 18 minutes. Um, so it's 18 minutes, um, and, um,

not sure why you're taking it as a compliment. Uh, probably is, but you can take it as one.

Uh, Starlifter, so this is 18 minutes long. It's, it's very much a kind of a heavy kind of rock

beat to it. It, it's trying to tell a story. It's got an arc. You know, I don't, I didn't like it.

And, and it's, it's dark and depressing. It, it, it's setting it up to be heroic conflict.

And the hero is going to go out and save the world. And it ends with, you know,

it's impossible. We alone come on, the Starlifters. You will not win this world. These are the bad

guys they take it. The Stella engine cannot be destroyed. This is the end for you, Fearless. We control

the stars and all the feats of our world. Events who are using point of no return, black hole,

machine Messiah, one, one, zero, zero, sail into the points of no return. So it's pretty dark.

Um, most of the song, the singer is yelling. I mean, he's, he's angry. He's yelling.

Um, I mean, and the beat is constant. And you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a war thunder.

It's, it's a war song. It's, it's a, it's a thumping beat to, to battle. But then they lose, I guess.

So not my kind of music, you know, and, and there's no, there's no beauty here.

There's nothing for me to return to this. I mean, unless, I guess I'm going in a battle and

I think I'm going to lose. But then I think they're better songs for this, or, or better ones for me.

I, let me remind you, I'm no expert on music. No expert on song, no expert on songs at all.

No expert on the history of music in America and heavy rock or whatever. I'm just giving you my personal

opinions, which, you know, if you called them subjective, you, yeah, I think subjective, they're not

grounded in real, in, in, in an objective knowledge other than the knowledge of my preferences.

So there's no, there's no evaluation here of the aesthetic quality of this

qua heavy metal or heavy rock or whatever you want to call it a song. It's just my, would I listen

to this? Would I, would I put this in the repertoire of songs that I listen to regularly?

Absolutely not. Too depressing, too dark, too repetitive, too long, too shrieky. The voice is way too

shrieking out. When he's, when he's defeated, it comes way down and it's soft and it's mellow.

But even then, it's not particularly an interesting voice, I don't find.

Who, who, who's Rick? Oh, Rick, Jennifer. Oh, happy birthday, Rick. It's Rick's, Jennifer's

husband's birthday. So happy birthday, Rick. So that's Crown Lands, Starlift, the fearless part, too.

I don't know if any of you know the song, but again, Hamad, thank you for the support. Thank you for,

for having me reviewed it. And yeah, you know, like most of the songs you guys have me review,

I don't really like it. So there you go. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah,

it's even better with Chamba by my side. Race to ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase

necessary, VTW Group, void work prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino.

It is what it is. All right, two last ones. So first, Scorpion's Wind of Change.

So, you know, this is the song I like. It's very melodic. It's very easy.

And it's got a great theme. It's depressing once you remember when this was written and what

were the context. But this is a, this is a, you know, a song we, who basically about

the winds of change, the wind of change in Eastern Europe, the winds of change in Russia.

And it's melodic. It's pretty, it's interesting. It's got a positivity to it.

It goes, I follow the Moscow down to the Gorky Park, listening to the wind, that's Moscow,

right? Listening to the wind of change, an August summer night, soldiers passing by,

listening to the wind of change. The world is closing in and did you ever think that we could

be so close, like brothers, in the futures, the futures in the air, I can feel it everywhere,

blowing with the wind of change. So, the whole idea here is, this is a song celebrating

the change. This is, I think, it was written in the very late 80s, early 90s,

before the breakup of the Soviet Union. And it became a big hit. It became kind of almost like

an anthem of that period. And it's a, it's a good song. It's, it's simple. The lyrics are simple.

And it's, you know, walking down the street and distant memories are buried and passed forever.

I follow the Moscow down to Gorky Park, listening to the winds of change. And, yeah,

again, not sophisticated, but it represents a time of great optimism, I think, in the Western

world, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, tens of millions of people, tens of millions of

people were liberated from slavery, liberated from communism. And it was very positive. They recently

did this song at a light performance, I think, in 2023 or late in 2022. And they changed some

of the lyrics to turn it into kind of an anti-Putin anti-Worn Ukraine song. So a song supporting

Ukraine. So at the time it was so good for them. But it was, I guess, the artists, the artists of

German, scorpions of German. So they were experiencing it. They were living it. Eastern Germany,

the Berlin Wall had just fallen. And they wrote the song when they were visiting Moscow for life

concert, as Russia was opening up. It was published in 1990 on their albums, I guess. I think it was

written before the Berlin Wall came down, but the album came out after the Berlin Wall came out.

It was the biggest selling single. One of the biggest selling singles of all time, 14 million

copies. And yeah, the biggest selling for any German artist, I guess, for any German pop singer.

So good song. I enjoyed it. I forgot about it. I remembered it from years ago, but I forgot about it.

All right, one more. I did this one because it was easy.

And this one is a Dave Goodman recently. No, not Dave Goodman. This isn't the one from Dave Goodman.

This is the one from...

Good, gave me this time.

Oh, there it is. This one's a Tony Biz.

Tony Biz sent me this song, asked me to review this song. This is Bruce Springsteen.

Bruce Springsteen's recent song, recent single, called The Streets of Minnesota. So again,

Tony, thank you for the support. And, you know, what can you say about this song? I mean,

this is a class. It'll become... It's put it this way. It's tailored after a classic 60s...

60s... God, the word I want is disappearing, right? Is not there, but it's...

This could be the Bob Dylan in the 60s. It could be a number of different artists in the 60s.

Commenting on what's going on in the streets, commenting on what's going on out there.

And it's called The Streets of Minneapolis. And it's a comment on what has just happened in Minneapolis.

And it's very much sounds. It's got a Dylan. It's definitely got an early Dylan vibe to it.

In terms of the music, it's got the harmonica, it's got the guitar, the acoustic guitar.

It's got, you know, Bruce Springsteen's voice, which is in some ways, he can make it very similar.

To a Dylan song. You know, it's a statement song. It's a... There's another word that for some

reason I had before is completely escaping me. But it's typical of that period of social unrest and,

you know, and criticizing the powers to be in terms of what is going on. And this is obviously

a song against ICE and against DHS and against Trump. Thank you.

All right. Anyway, it is a, it is a, it is a, it is a protest song. It's a, in a tradition of

protest songs of the 1960s. And I think it's effective as that. I don't think there's a song that's

going to go down in history, like some of the 60s songs, because it's unoriginal in the sense that

it is very much musically and aesthetically copying the style of the 1960s, copying the style

of songs back there, copying style of songs that I think Springsteen has done in the past and

certainly Bob Dylan and others in the protest movement of the 1960s did back then. But for the

moment, I think it's quite effective. You know, this is a style of music I like. I grew up on

Bob Dylan. And, and I like, I like the music. I grew up on the protest music of the 1960s. I still

joined by his live in concert in Israel in the 1970s. And, you know, and I, I, you know, I, I

enjoyed this. Now, you know, Bruce Springsteen is a crazy leftist as, we're most of, as is

John Baez and as well, most of the protestors in the 1960s, that doesn't mean they can't produce

decent music. And, and certainly this is, this is decent. It's, it's better than most things that

are produced out there today. And it certainly hits home in terms of the actual content. It absolutely

hits home. It makes the citizens, the protestors, it makes them heroic. It makes ice, the boots,

the thuggish boots that they indeed are. It is, it deals with the death of both good and

God, what's his name? Pretty, pretty. And it ends with ice, out, ice, out, ice, out. And ice is

now leaving Minneapolis, which is good. And so watch, I recommend, I actually suggest that you watch,

that you watch, what do you call it? That you watch the video, the, the, the music video of this,

it's got the lyrics there and it's got images. It's, it works. It, it has a power to it.

It, it, it, it resonates with, you know, my views about what is going on in Minneapolis. And yes,

sometimes it happens that I agree with the leftists, just like sometimes I agree with the people

on the right when they're criticizing the left. And in this case, he's absolutely right about ice

and about what happened in Minneapolis and about the evil of what's going on. And good fan for

writing a song and, and turning it into kind of an aesthetic experience, the outrage, the

outrage is an aesthetic experience, the outrage about what is happening. So I, I thought it was

quite good. You know, again, he's, you know, it's the bus. He's, he's talented. There's no question

that he is, that he is indeed talented. And he knows, he knows how to write a protest song. There's

no question about that. All right. So that is that those are my song reviews. I'll, I'll finish

the song reviews hopefully next weekend. And then we'll go on to the TV show reviews. Just

easier for me to do it that way. Let's see. What else did I want to, yeah, I didn't want to

mention. I finished now. Quincodias. Part one of the adultery five parts series. I think it's

five. Linda can correct me. I think she's on. And so I finished that the other day. And I'm

not going to give away the ending. It's not easy. The ending. I'm not going to give it away.

But I really, I really enjoyed it. I really liked the writing. I mean, I could quibble here

and there, but who wants a quibble? It's good. It's entertaining. It's enjoyable. It's,

it's moving most importantly, right? It's moving. It's, it's, and it's describing a period in history.

That is really, really important. And a dark period, dark, very dark period in, in human history.

That's important to understand. And I think it, it does a good job in conveying the sense of it.

And it, I think it's, it's in many regards in a true to history, even though it's not,

I don't think it's based on any historical actual facts. It's, it's a, it's a, but it's true to

the history of that period. I like the writing a lot. And I definitely like the sentiment. And

the hero is the villains in the story. You know, I'm still recovering from the ending, I guess.

I don't know how long it takes. I was hoping for something different. But, you know,

I shouldn't say more than that. So yeah, I'm looking for a reading part two or the part two now

is, is in a different time period. So we'll see how it all integrates and, and what the,

how the five parts come together and what it all kind of, what holds it all together. So I'm,

I'm interested in seeing all that. It's an ambitious, it seems like a very ambitious project

given this beginning, given the five parts. Part two is quite, is quite longer.

So it'll take me a while before I get to it and, and finish it. I'm sure the ending is important

for the full story. And there's a sense in which it has to end that way and there's a sense in which

you don't want it to. Anyway, you know, and we'll see how I assume this circle is going to close.

So we'll get to that. You know, I don't want to overly anticipate the way I think it'll go,

but who knows? You know, I can't write fiction. So I can't, I can't, I can't create worlds.

But Quintess created a world here and it's, it's, it's very impressive. So you can, you check it out.

It's on Amazon. I listened to it, but it's a short read. I've got the, I've got the physical copy.

So I'm going to listen to the second one as well. It's easier for me to read now with listening and,

yeah, enjoy it. Somebody said, yeah, somebody said the best lyrics about Liberty are heavy metal songs.

I don't think that's actually true. Now it's true. Rush has amazing lyrics. But most heavy metal songs

ultimately are not about Liberty. They're about Anarchy. They're about, you know, they're very good at

describing dystopia and wanting to escape dystopia, right? Wanting to escape dystopia. But they're not good.

I haven't seen any that are good, other than maybe Rush, at describing a positive, at describing

what Liberty means, at describing what individualism is. And of course, Rush as Jennifer corrects

is not heavy metal. Again, not my field. So you guys can fight it out. But, you know, I find heavy metal

both in its music, in the music of the heavy metal and in the lyrics to be fundamentally anarchist

and fundamentally about shadowing the existing order, not about building something better,

not about building something beautiful. So, you know, going back to Pink Floyd, which has,

it certainly has a destroy the common order and kind of an anarchist element to it,

certainly to, you know, the wall. But Genesis, remember Genesis, not Quinsbook, but Genesis, the band,

the lyrics and, but certainly the music, focused on dismantling, focused on destroying,

focused on a kind of nihilism. And yes, kind of almost a Nietzschean nihilism, right? The individual

rising above the destruction of, you know, yeah, Genesis was a good band. I liked much of the Genesis

music. But, yeah, but I wouldn't take any of them as really representing Liberty. Now, you can

prove me wrong by sponsoring a song review of a heavy metal song that celebrates real Liberty and Freedom.

Real Liberty and Freedom.

Let's see. Let's turn to the super chat. Let's turn to the super chat. We are well into our second

hour. And we're about $100, $107 to be exact, short of kind of the contribution for the second

hour. You know, on the Iran book show, we do about $250, expect $250 of support for every hour

of the show. And we'll probably go over, we'll probably go into, we might go into the third hour,

we'll certainly finish up the second hour. So $500 is what we should be. We're just under $400.

It would be great if we, you know, if, yeah, you could, you guys, some of you could step up and

get us to the $500 goal. I'm going to change the goal here to 500, so $107 short, we'll follow that.

All right. Silvano, thank you for the sticker. So you can use stickers to get us there. It's easy

that way. You don't have to ask a question. I know some of you don't want to ask questions,

although it's a great way to shape the show. Barry, thank you for the sticker. We really appreciate

really appreciate that. CP Milken, as almost as always, Roland, thank you for the sticker.

Thank you guys, really appreciate it. All right. So we are, yeah, we've got over a hundred people

watching, just jump in with $1, $5, $10, $2, whatever, whatever you want. You can do a sticker.

It's a way to support the show value for value. This show cannot exist without the support of you.

You people out there, we'll listen. You people out there who will listen.

And those of you who are not here live, please consider going to Patreon, patreon.com

and becoming monthly supporters of the show. And then you don't have to worry about it because

monthly is it? Monthly is it. All right. Let's see.

How did we get to Phil Collins in the air tonight?

It's moving. It is moving and it's a very good song, I think, because it's building,

it's a little bit like Revelle's Bollero. It is repetitive, but it's building to a crescendo,

which is, which has a really powerful impact musically, I think. So Phil Collins in the air

tonight is indeed a powerful song. And, you know, we can speculate what it's about. I think it's

pretty clear. All right. Let's see. Liam, $100. Thank you. Liam, really appreciate that.

I forgot to ask you this yesterday, but he is looking for the perfect partner, a platonic fantasy.

Perfect can exist, even in a loved one. There will always be something that annoys you about

them. How do you tolerate or correct things you don't like in a romantic partner?

So I don't know what that means that perfect can exist, right? What is perfect?

How do you define perfect? That nothing annoys you? Is that the definition of a perfection?

I don't think so. I think a perfect partner is the perfect partner. Is somebody that

you know, shares your fundamental values that you find enjoyment, joy in spending time with and

living with and experiencing life together in bonding in that way that you enjoy your fabulous

sex and you have good conversation and you enjoy sharing the various experience of life with.

That's a perfect partner. You know, what is it going to make them less perfect that you don't

like the way they laugh. They have a funny laugh. Well, you know, the fact that it annoys you is

probably your problem. So, you know, stop being annoyed by it. Put it in the right perspective.

Gain context. So, you know, now, so I think that people create a platonic ideal of perfection,

which is not perfect in their real sense, but perfect in a platonic sense and therefore can

be achieved. What's the point in a concept like perfect if you can't achieve it? I think

perfection can be achieved. So, first of all, properly define what you think as it's perfect,

as something in the scope of something that respects hierarchy of values and something that

respects the way you feel about somebody, right? A lot of this is how you respond to them,

how you respond to them. And, you know, how do you tolerate or correct things you don't like in

a romantic partner? Well, it depends how serious it is. First, it's, you know, it's very

difficult to correct people. And you have to be sure that the correction is worth the effort.

And what does it mean to correct? I mean, you can debate and if they have a wrong view about

the world, you can argue for it. But how do you correct somebody else? The only way somebody else

corrects himself is by them correcting themselves. You can't correct somebody. You can't change people.

You can't fix people. Whatever happens, they have to do it themselves.

But you have to be very, very clear about why you want them to change.

In what way, in what way, and how important is it? And, you know, the significance of it,

and is it, are you sure it's them that are the problem, in a sense?

You know, people who enter a relationship with the idea of, I'm going to change my partner.

It's not going to work. Now, you're going to change and your partner will change that happens

over time. But if you're saying, yeah, I mean, I love an alphabet. Well, wait. When I change

you, she's going to be amazing. Not a good idea. And it won't work. And then you'll be disappointed.

And it can't work because people are not, they're not moldable. They're not clay.

So, figure out why you love somebody. And you don't embrace them and grow together.

And then learn to, things you don't like about them, learn to, or hopefully they're not

significant, hold them to not allow them to impact you. I try to understand why you don't like

them and how important it is. But I think a lot of people do wait for, I don't know, something

perfect and something better and better and better. And not that I think you should settle.

But I don't think you should be platonic about it. And I think you should, you should,

you know, listen to the extent that you have self-esteem and that you have emotions aligned with

your rational values. Listen, you know, people say, listen to your heart. Listen to your emotions.

They're telling you something about how you're responding. Try to understand what you're responding.

Try to project what life with this person would be like. Maybe live with them for a while.

And see, don't build up, don't sit around waiting for that. She might not like you. I don't know.

But she might not exist. So find, find the best person out there that you love. You have to love

them. You have to have the emotion. And then evaluate after experiencing some,

whether this is a person you want to spend a lengthy segment of your time with. But don't let

the little stuff bug you. Don't let, you know, focus on the essence, focus on what it is that

you're responding to. Why are you responding in this way? Why do you love her?

If it's a major conflict of values, then yeah, you might have to give her up and go searching

elsewhere. But make sure that it's, it's indeed that. Make sure it's indeed that.

So definitely a risk there of creating a platonic ideal and then never finding anybody. And

that's tragic. Molten splend up. A capitalist society doesn't guarantee that some people won't

try to cheat, to deceive or default others. Some just do bad things while others want to complain

and sue. You mentioned that society would be less litigious in a capitalist world. Why?

Well, because you could only sue when it was justified. And you would pay some of the cost if you

did if you sued when it was not justified. So you could only sue the parties who were actually

responsible for the harm. You would, you could only sue if they were consciously responsible for

the harm. So for example, in the American tradition pre-1970s,

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group, voidware prohibited by

law. CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored by ChambaCasino. If you sued somebody, you, you, you have to prove

gross negligence. It wasn't just enough for them to be negligent or sloppy or they had to do

that consciously. No, I give you an example asbestos. Here's an example.

So people worked in asbestos manufacturing plants and they got cancer and they died.

And they damaged their lungs and it was terrible.

But the reality is that when they worked there, the people who ran the factories didn't know

that this capitalist was causing cancer. The workers didn't know it and the factory owners didn't

know it. And yet, later, sometimes decades later, the factory workers sued the manufacturers.

And indeed, everybody sued the manufacturers. There were so many people suing asbestos companies

that the whole industry had to create a victim's fund. But those lawsuits should have been thrown

out of the court. They didn't have anything wrong in the manufacturers. They didn't know.

You can't sue somebody for something they didn't know. There's a million things like that.

A million things like that, right? Where you're responsible for your own life and you do something,

I don't know. Somebody takes a lawnmower and decides to use the lawnmower to cut his hedges.

So he lifts it, cut his hedges and in doing that, injures himself, cuts off his fingers or whatever.

And then he sues the lawnmower company.

And now lawnmowers, some of them have stickers on them saying,

for mowing the lawn only, do not trim the hedges.

You shouldn't be able to sue for something you did that is inherently stupid.

All the warning labels that you see everywhere. Don't stick your finger in this. Don't

stick your finger in the fan. It might get chopped off. If you stick your finger in the fan,

you shouldn't be able to sue. So a legal system would be much more rigorous in throwing cases out

in not accepting lawsuits. Still, there would be lawsuits. You'd still have to sue the people

who are negligent or sometimes even gross negligent. You'd still have to sue people who built bad

products and you were injured because the product was bad in ways that you didn't know, but they

should have known. If that's as many factors, it turns out new that this caused cancer and didn't

tell their workers, then yeah, they should be sued, but that's not the case.

So I mean, everything today in California has a cancer label on it, warning on it because

as Enrique points out because nobody wants to be sued. But if I produce a product and sell it

out, then you consume it. And I don't know it causes cancer. You can't sue me. You shouldn't be

able to sue me. You can't today. You shouldn't be able to sue me. So real thought needs to be put

into a legal theory and look, this existed before like 1970. So it's existed in the United States

in the past, which defines clearly and objectively what illegitimate lawsuits and what are illegitimate

lawsuits? What is a true violation of rights and what isn't a violation of rights?

So that's the sense. It's not that lawsuits would still be a mechanism by which we hold people

accountable for the bad stuff that they do. If you're polluting and you know it's causing

people cancer, then you should be sued. But if you're polluting and you don't know and that

discovery is made afterwards and when you discover it, you stop. Why should you be penalized for what

you did? Unless it's just a way of redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who

are suffering right now. But suffering does not, it's not a legitimate claim against somebody else.

Your suffering is not a legitimate claim against somebody else.

All right. I mean, but it's a complex legal issue that has to be resolved, but there would be a lot,

I mean, there were a lot less lawsuits in Europe. And it's not like your business is more abusive

of customers of consumers. Now, they have a lot of regulations too, but there were a lot less lawsuits

because the legal system is not used in Europe to redistribute wealth in America.

One of the primary ways in which we redistribute wealth to people who are suffering is through

the legal system rather than through the welfare system or rather than philosophy capitalism that

doesn't redistribute wealth at all unless there's cause unless there's reasons unless there's blame.

All right. Liam.

Oh, what did I do that? Yeah. Liam, thoughts on future AI girlfriends or life partners who'll be able to buy,

who'll be able to buy that you can program to be perfect. Biologically, human with chips in

they had so they can adjust for personality and temperament. Well, I mean, this is the thing.

If they're biologically human, then isn't putting a chip in their brain in slaving them?

So, you know, if they're biologically human, then they have a consciousness.

Then they can feel, they can emote or more importantly, they can think, they can, they're conscious.

They can, you know, experience reality, experience reality and integrate reality and think for

themselves and then by putting a chip in their brain and changing the personality and temperament,

you are creating a slave. Now, if you just mean that they're still just computers, they're not

conscious. They're faking, they're mimicking a personality, they're mimicking a temperament.

And, you know, maybe certain anatomical parts are made in a way that's particularly

pleasurable for sex. Then, you know, it'll be a great sex toy, but I don't think it can ever

mimic a human experience. You can't actually, you know, they'll never really respond to you in

the same way human being is and you know they're not human. You know they're not conscious, you know

they don't love you, you know they don't feel, you know it's all an act. It would be like, I don't

know, women who fake orgasms, right? I mean, if you know that, it diminishes your pleasure and

sex, right? It would mean, right? So, you know, you can have a robot that does your stuff with,

then then, you know, one of the things robots will make possible is they will take a lot of the

drudgery out of our data their lives. So, and that's true, maybe more for women than men. Just like

home appliances have taken much more out of the drudgery of women's life and enhance their life. So

could a virus says I know the stick isn't real. Yeah, you know the stick isn't real, but it

doesn't matter because if it tastes exactly like a steak, that's all you care about. That is

it's one dimensional. It has only one dimension. But when you care about how the person you

in love with responds to the things you do together and you know they're not a person and you know

they're not really responding. And then you know there's no, they're there. It's a big difference.

It's a big difference. So, yeah, you know, I can see that a lot of people will use AI go

friends as a way to overcome loneliness. And I think, I think, yeah, fine.

I don't think a healthy human being with a healthy self-esteem would ever be satisfied with an AI

girlfriend. But I think it might be a way. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Another

checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chamba. Jump in at chambacasino.com. Let's

Chamba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CCNC is 21 plus sponsored by

Chambacasino. I mean, you could imagine AI therapists and AI friends who can help you get by

but not as a replacement for other human beings. Not as a permanent replacement for other human

beings, a temporary maybe. All right, Michael, the presidential election in 2024,

maybe the last free vote taken in the United States, dictatorship, only hold elections with

predetermined outcome or do not hold them at all. Trump is no exception. Yeah, the question is

can't you get away with it? And I think the answer right now is no. He couldn't get away with

with ice being in Minneapolis. That got people out in the streets. You think steel in

election would not get people really out into the streets in a much more substantial and significant

way. And even some Republicans into the streets, even some old line conservatives into the streets,

people who still believe in America on the right. I mean, the Trump authoritarians,

the Trumpists who want authoritarianism will want steel elections, not just

pretend to make the election fairer because Trump demands it. But actually want the steel elections,

I think, as a small number, is a minority. I mean, here's the thing, when Kristallnacht happened

in Germany, there were no demonstrations by Germans. Nobody opposed it. Nobody went out into

the streets to stop the SS from breaking windows and doing the hovers that they did.

So we're not there yet, guys. We're just not there yet. So I expect 2026 to be an election.

I expect the Republicans to try to play games in different places. I expect those games not to work

and ultimately the real winners, wherever they happen to be, probably Democrats, taking over the

House. I think that's going to happen. And Trump will try to intensify his opposition to

fair elections going into 2028. But you know, I think there'll be resistance. I still think I'm

a majority of Americans do not want this. Not average algorithm. With Rand out there

inspiring so many entrepreneurs, I don't think we can go backwards. Well, we are going backwards.

Every day we're going backwards in many respects. So look, a lot of those inspired entrepreneurs

are becoming, you know, corny semi-fascists. So I don't know. If it doesn't go deep,

it might not actually be meaningful in the long run. How much she inspires them. But we'll see.

Hoppe Campbell, in what way is our intellectual climate different or better than 1920s Germany

in what way is it similar? 1920s Germany. I mean, it's similar in the fact that

there's a significant element of nihilism both on the left and the right. It's similar in terms of

the frantic nature of government trying to figure out how to please people. We don't have hype

inflation. They had hype inflation. You had to take a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread.

A wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Money became so worthless. It was cheaper

than wallpapers that people used it to do wallpapers. They homes. So, you know, we're not in hype

inflation. We don't have communist matching in the streets for communism on a regular basis.

We don't have Nazis or fascists marching in the street. I mean, we have these

ridiculous stormtroopers, but we have people demonstrating against them.

You know, so we have the nihilism on left and right. We have the mixed economy,

and we have bad philosophy dominating. I mean, that's the thing that's most common. We have bad

philosophy, Kantian, influenced philosophy dominating both left and right. That is all the common.

But there are also significant differences in that it's not the case that a significant

proportion of population supports one or the other. It's not the case that they're given free

rain in our streets yet. I mean, we do have elements of it. We have the pro-Hamas people

out there in some places around the country, but not in most, in some places around the country,

particularly campuses. And, you know, there's a significant opposition to them. There's a lot of

people who don't like them. They're very unpopular. And then we have, I don't know, the neo-Nazis

marching in Charlottesville, but they were very unpopular. People really didn't like them.

But ideas drive history. The ideas are the same in fundamental terms, collectivism, mysticism.

But it takes a while for those ideas to actually manifest in a political system. And we're still,

I think, pretty far, from manifesting in the kind of political system Germany landed up with.

All right. Remind you about $82 short, $82. That's very doable. 116 people watching $82, value for

value or trade. And if you ask a question, a way to shape the show. So, consider doing a sticker,

$2, $5, $10. It wouldn't take many people, $10 to get us to $82. Take eight people.

Andrew Rand was asked if art would exist in an objectivist society.

But of course, she said, the question explained, but what might be, what might be is.

But even in an ideal society, man would need to experience concrete value achievements. Absolutely.

And there's always more. There's always greater achievements possible.

And there's always, there's a constant striving for perfection, striving for greatness,

striving for better, striving for more. And art gives us an image of what to strive for.

What is possible. And even when we're there, it concretizes what that looks like.

The purpose of art is not to fix the world. The purpose of art is to inspire us by showing us

in concrete terms are most important values. And the need for that is never diminished.

Even when we want to achieve those values, we still want to see concrete. I mean, we're talking

about philosophical values, metaphysical values. We still want to be see concrete manifestations

of them. It's never, you know, take, there's never, there's never, there's not a limit to beauty.

You want beautiful things around you. And there's an endless number of things that can become

beautiful, can be made beautiful. Why would you stop?

I'm surprised she wasn't. Yeah.

Linda, thank you, you're on. Your listeners can preview or purchase Genesis Part One of Adultery

on the Big A website. Can't post a link. I can be reached by Quint Co-Define art for signed copies.

All right, check it out. Adam, you suddenly warned the true threat being the authoritarian right.

I also find it very dangerous that they, that they've co-opted so many things like capitalism,

physical conservatism, and even the American flag. Well, I would say they've co-opted the American flag.

I don't know if they've really co-opted capitalism. I think anybody should be able to see through

the fact that they're not capitalists, right. The Trump administration taking equity

stakes and companies and things like that. And they certainly are not physical conservatives.

I mean, the debts are only increasing. The deficit is massive and it's not shrinking in any

significant way. Idolatry, sorry, idolatry, not adultery. Idolatry, I thought I said a

dollar tree, but maybe it came out differently. Sorry, Linda, idolatry. So yeah, I think they've

co-opted those things. But anybody with half a brain should be able to see that they don't stand

for them. They don't really represent them. It's not part of their ideal. But sadly, many people

don't have half a brain, so. But that's the problem with the right. The right is this package deal

of lesbian capitalism and Nazism in the same concept. That's ridiculous. It doesn't work.

Thank you, Adam. All right, only $52 left now. We're chipping away at it. I appreciate it. Thank

you guys. Not to have a job with them. If Iron Man had never existed, would another dark ages be

possible, probable? You know, it's hard to tell, but I think things would be worse already.

And you know, things would be declining. It's interesting that there was never really a dark

ages if you have a global perspective. Europe sunk, but the East rose. The East sunk, and then

Europe rose. And China was doing pretty well through most of that period, or parts of that period,

independent of both the East being Middle East and Central Asia and Europe. So it's not a global

phenomenon. And maybe today it is because we're so interconnected. But I definitely think

a dark age is possible, though very unlikely, with or without Iron Man, certainly more likely

without Iron Man than with her. James, to think is to refuse to surrender.

Yes, it's, you know, that's a negative. It's to refuse to give up on reality. That's what

to think means. A refusal to give up to surrender your mind to somebody else, to surrender your mind

to non-reality, to surrender your mind to the to the to the to the bog, to the group, to the

to the mystics, mystics of muscle and mystics of spirit. James, is Gen Z more demoralized than previous

generations? That's why anti-semitism is so prevalent in this demographic. I think they are more

demoralized. I think that's why they have less babies and they get married less and they

they're more prone to anti-semitism both of left and right. But that's because they've been taught

from when they were very young, the world's going to come to an end. They left us being very good at

that. You know, they replaced the kind of millennial Christians who every few years came up with

another story about the world, how the world will end. Well, now the left has replaced them by

overpopulation and climate change and species extinction and every few years is something different

about, but the story is the same, the world is going to end and you did it, you caused it.

And I think it's created a generation that's more pessimistic and more demoralized than past

generations. And they lash out and part of that lashing out is the fringe political stuff,

including anti-semitism. Roman should sex on the street be legal again as it was in the middle

ages to some extent. God, no, I mean, if you owned a street and I think you allowed sex on it,

given its private property, nobody would use it, right? Nobody wants to see somebody else having

sex. I mean, a few people do. But mostly we're not interested in other people's sex. And we're not

interested in other people seeing how sex says no market advantage to doing that. And imagine

streets are private. Nobody would do that. So no, I don't think having sex on the street should

be legal. You should, you know, the state owns the streets, but it should reflect the reality that

in a sense, you should pretend it's a private own and would private owners allow it or not,

and I don't think they would. So no, provid avenue, yeah, you'd have provid avenue,

and nobody would go there. Now, it would defeat the whole idea of having a private street.

You have to think about what the function of a street is. It's, if the shops, they'd go shopping,

if they're home states, go home, it's transportation. That's a function of a street. And therefore,

you should allow what is consistent with that function and not allow what is inconsistent with it.

Yeah, but again, on private property, you can disallow lots of different things. So it's not that in a

in a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a capitalist world, there would be a law against sex in the street.

Private owners would not allow sex in the street. And given that we don't have it, the government

is just stepping in to enforce a kind of property law. That's all. So there's all kinds of things,

all kinds of laws we need today that wouldn't, we need today, that wouldn't exist in less

of a capitalism because the government wouldn't own stuff. But when they do own stuff,

they need to have laws that regulate the stuff that they own.

How to have fun anytime, anywhere. Step one, go to chumbacacino.com.

Step two, collect your welcome bonus. Come to pop a welcome bonus.

Step three, play hundreds of casino-style games for free. That's a lot of games. All for free.

Step four, unleash your excitement.

Chumbacacino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome bonus now

and live the Chumbac Life. Visit chumbacacino.com.

No purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Clock, more than 50 conservative leaders signed a letter against Trump's drug pricing policy,

codification, other tights turning. You know, they might be 50 conservative leaders. The question

is how many of them were senators? How many of them were congressmen? Like, you can probably find

50 conservative leaders who will sign anything against Trump on some issue.

How many of them are in position of power within the Republican Party today? That's what I'd want to know.

So I don't know. I mean, House and Senators pass a repudiation of rejection of Trump's tariffs

on Canada. He will veto it, but they did pass it, which went against his will. But only a few

Republicans switched. It wasn't like overwhelming. If it was overwhelming, it would be either proof,

which it should be. So I wouldn't make much of 50 conservative leaders. It was 50 senators,

whoa, that would be meaningful. 50 senators in congressmen, even now, would be meaningful.

But just 50 conservatives, they're probably 50 conservative never trumpers who would sign something

like that. Linda says, Quince, just penned an amazing poem, celebrating individualism. I emailed

it to you. It's called Don't Tell Me. Thank you. I appreciate it. I look forward to reading it.

Cook, you said this is an ideology for ants. In the third Ant-Man movie, Hank Pime says,

Socialism is a charged word, but maybe we can learn from these ants. I really liked Hank Pime

until that moment. Yeah, I could see why you wouldn't like him. But I haven't seen the Ant-Man

movies, so I have no comment about liking Hank before this. But that is a pretty horrific statement.

Right? We can learn from the ants. No, we can't. There's nothing to learn from ants. There's

nothing about ants that is similar to human beings, except their life.

Stephen, what do you mean, what do we mean? What do we mean when objectives say that actions don't

cause actions, but only entities can be causes? We mean that what causes the billion ball to roll

in a particular direction when hit is not the ball that hit it, but the nature of the ball that

rolls, the nature of the ball that's being hit, its nature is such, its shape, its response to force,

the way its nature provides for it to respond to force, that what causes it to roll when hit

is its shape and the material it's made from, and all of its own features, that it's in its own

nature. So causation is not a chain of actions, causation is the nature of the thing, which dictates

that it would act in a certain way when interacted with in a certain way.

Mike, great topic. If I remember correctly, my high school social science class in Canada,

let us believe that less effective capitalism is on the far right. Yes, I think most people

hold that, I think in most political science classes, that's probably what start.

Exit, exit, thank you for the stick, it's two dollars, but it helps Enric, thank you for the stick

of five dollars, it all helps chipping away, we're now down to thirty-nine dollars, we're almost there,

so close. We only got about five minutes to go, and we're ready in our third hour.

Stephen, what do you think of Brett Kavanaugh, where you disturbed by his confirmation hearings,

what about SNL sketch? You know he really descends. I mean, I'm not impressed by Brett Kavanaugh, he

does a strike miss particularly intelligent. He's not, you know, there were a few people on the

court that I might disagree with, but they all are impressive, particularly Gorsuch. Even what's

a name, Barrett, who I was very negative on, and has turned out to be, at the very least, an

interesting judge, and worth reading. Kavanaugh seems like just a guy who goes along, he doesn't seem

like he has a judicial philosophy, he doesn't seem like he's committed to much, he's the middle of

the road, who kind of just goes along, so not that impressed. You know, because of the confirmation

hearings, I don't remember exactly, I mean, there was the de-sexual stuff, I thought that was

ridiculous for a number of reasons. It's something he did, I think in high school,

and he was being persecuted for it as an adult, I just think that's ridiculous. I mean, even if he

had done what was said he had done, let's accept that. How long are you gonna, do you need to

be held accountable for something you did 30 years ago? I'm sure, there are lots of things I

did in high school I'd been embarrassed by today. Should that disqualify me? If since then, my behavior

has been impeccable? Yeah, I find this idea of zero one, you're in college, okay, in college.

You do something in your youth and it wipes you out. I think that's, I think that's, that is wrong,

that is wrong. Yeah, I mean, if you kill somebody, sure, if you commit a violent, you know, crime,

and you go to jail, but in this case, it was, it was wrong what he did, and he should have been

punished when he did it, but to hold him accountable decades later, I don't think it's right.

Oi, have I played a video game? I'm, I'm replaying Assassin Creed II, which takes place in Renaissance

Italy, and it is truly beautiful, visually, musically, and decent story, and you get to hang out with

Davinci and test his inventions. No, I've never played those kind of video games. I played video

games in the very, very early days of video games, when they were pretty primitive and dull, I mean,

in the like the 1970s, not even the 80s. So, you know, the original Commodore and Atari, so no.

Yeah, I believe it. I completely get it, and the good, it sounds like fun. It sounds like there's

a real aesthetic experience in addition to the challenge of the game, and, and yeah, that it's

great, but, but yeah, I never got to experience it, and I'm not really interested. It's

too time-consuming and absorbing, too many things going on, too many stuff to do.

Stephen, do children of the undocumented enjoy both right citizenship? Yes, they do. If they're

born here, not if they weren't born here. What do you do with the historical argument made by the

government in Trump versus Barbara? I don't know. You're citing legal cases. I don't hold, I don't

know these legal cases. Oh, the both right citizenship. Well, how about we talk about that when

this even called the Syrians of the case? I think the issue, I think they're wrong, they're reading

the 14th Amendment wrong. I think it does not exclude people who are non-legally in the country,

so, but, you know, we'll see how this even called rules on it. I think the Trump administration

is misinterpreting it, purposefully. There are some conservative scholars who agree with the Trump

administration, but even most conservatives think the Constitution is pretty clear, and if you're

born in America, no matter by whom, no matter who your parents are, no matter the illegal status,

status, you are citizen. I think that is the generally accepted interpretation of what is in the

Constitution. Wolent says, we loved the wind of change in the 1990s hungry, hungry, the country.

It's sad that it didn't work out for Russia, but I'm sure I'm glad that troops left Eastern Europe,

so for me, it's still a song of liberation. Yes, absolutely, and it's sad that Obama took over

Hungary to replace them, but there's a chance he'll be kicked out, and the rest of Eastern Europe is

doing phenomenally well, phenomenally well, without the communist boot on their neck.

Loan Decentre, I'm skeptical of self-published books. Would a book of genuine value not find and

benefit from a traditional publisher does a traditional publisher make for a better book

interested in your thoughts? I mean, I'm not sure that is the case. That is, it's better to find

a traditional publisher. They provide you with some additional marketing, and it is a quality

screen at some level, but it's also very difficult to find a conventional publisher. It's very

difficult to find an agent, and without an agent, you can't get a publisher. I've written books

that were self-published, the book on finance, for example, that is much better than a lot of books

that were published with publishers, and it's self-published. I don't think you can generalize

many authors just don't want to bother with finding an agent, and then a publisher, and then

getting the rejection letters, and the technology today makes it so easy to self-publish, and why

bother with all of that. There are plenty of reasons why there might be a lot of real gems,

really fantastic books out there that are self-published, and you shouldn't use it as your soul

criteria. It is Ryan C. Crest here. There was a recent social media trend which consisted of flying

on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment, but a better trend would be going to chumbacaceno.com.

It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chumbacaceno has over 100 online casino

style games, all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab your

free welcome bonus now at chumbacaceno.com sponsored by chumbacaceno. And I know a lot of

published books by publishers that are just horror shows, just horrific.

You know, think about who the people at the publishers are, and they tend to be, I mean, think about

the fact that Fountainhead, a masterpiece, the fountain, was rejected by 12 publishers.

Think how many not great publishers, not masterpieces with good books have been rejected by publishers.

Romance says, if the terms of service differ between private streets, how should customers be

informed about the change? I don't know. They'd figure it out.

They'd figure it out. Signs, text messages when you enter the streets, automatic text messages

when you're into the street. I don't know, but it could very well be that all of that is too much

of a hassle. And the terms of service would be standardized because it's too much of a hassle.

So, you know, the market would sort it out in creative ways that most of us cannot imagine.

Moonwalk, do you like James Lindsay? If you do like him, have you considered having a conversation

with him? I'd be happy to have a conversation with him, just not on my show. We disagree on too

many things. I don't like interviewing people they disagree with. I'd love to be on his show. I'd

love to be on some neutral show and have a conversation with him. There's things I like about

James Lindsay and things I don't like about James Lindsay. We disagree on some stuff, but we agree on

a lot of things. So, yeah, I mean, I enjoy having a conversation with him about both the things

we agree on and the things we disagree on. I just don't view my show as a show to do debates.

I don't know how to do that and respect the fact that I've invited somebody on my show

and debate them. I find that a weird combination. But if a third party have invited

two of us to have a conversation, I would definitely do it. Happy to do it.

All right, guys, $6 short. $6. Oh, there we go. Stephen just did $5 question.

Somebody do a $1 sticker and we can meet our goal. Stephen, what was the name about the book

that explains the major changes making it easier to sue? It's called Liability. Liability by

Peter Huber, H-U-B-E-R. There was a Huawei was out of stock, which you could find it used,

I think, on Amazon. It's called Liability by Peter Huber. It was written in the, I don't know,

90s, I think. It's really the first half of the book. Brilliant. The second half,

we give solutions. I don't completely agree with it, but the first half was really, really brilliant.

All right, Robert says, here's $20. Just for me to soapbox. You know, I always say optimism is

realism, but I understand only realism is realism, but compared to today's pessimism,

objectiveism should rightly lead to optimism and passion. I mean, you have to understand

optimism correctly. Optimism is not a polianish view of the future. Optimism is an understanding

that when people are rational and are left free and to the extent that they are left free,

good things happen and there's still enough freedom and enough rational people for good things

to happen and there's still enough freedom for you to make good things happen in your life.

And in that sense, the optimism is the realism. Thank you, Robert, for using me as a soapbox

and finally from Robert and folks. If you haven't heard your own rules for life episodes,

make it so. And now you can put just the first five episodes of the series as a commercial free

playlist. You can. I think through Patreon, I think it's through Patreon.

Maybe through YouTube, but certainly through Patreon. All right. Thank you guys. I will see you

tomorrow, two shows tomorrow. We've got a new show and then in the evening, I'm interviewing Augustina.

Augustina about immigration and melee. We'll talk about melee. Augustina has just been to Argentina

and she's an expert in immigration. So there'll be a fantastic conversation. We'll talk about

Argentina melee the future and then we'll shift to talking about America and immigration and why

why she still is so proud of the fact that she became an American citizen. So check it out. That's

tomorrow at 7 p.m. East Coast time. But before that, there'll be a regular new show. See you tomorrow.

Bye, everybody.