Welcome to Free Thoughts. I'm Aaron Powell and I'm Trevor Burrus. Our guest today is Eamon Butler. He's director and co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute, and he's also the author of many books. His latest is Ayn Rand, An Introduction, published just this week by the Institute for Economic Affairs and Libertarianism.org. Welcome to Free Thoughts, Eamon. Yes, hello. Maybe a good place to start is with Rand's early life, and how did her early life, how did her experiences in Russia and then coming to the US influence her fiction and her philosophy? Oh, profoundly, I think. She was, of course, born in 1905 in St. Petersburg. Which is, of course, in Russia. And this was, of course, just before the Russian Revolution. So when she was just about 10 or 11, she saw the Russian Revolution breaking out, and, of course, it broke out, predominantly starting in St. Petersburg itself. So she came from a Jewish family, and her father ran a pharmacy shop. And when the Revolution broke out, of course, they tried to escape. They went briefly to the Crimea, and because her father's business was nationalized, taken over by the revolutionary government. And then in Crimea, the same happened again. When the Red Army got to Crimea, they took business again. So they returned to St. Petersburg. And, of course, she grew up during those years when the Communists were trying to build a new order. But, of course, it was an absolute disaster. It was shortages and injustices and summary killings and all the rest of it. And people with property and businesses were disinherited. So she saw that as a sort of profound injustice that people who really had no claim at all were taking property and taking the lives of people who were simply trying to fend for themselves, build up a business, improve life for themselves and their families. And she found that terribly unjust. And it really colored the rest of her writings, where she's very strongly in favor of the individual who can build up his or her own business, his or her own life, family, and everything else that's important to people. And they should be able to do that without people coming along and simply taking those things away from you. So, yes, it was a very profound upbringing. And then, of course, from there she went to university and discovered lots of interesting novelists, which again covered her writings like Victor Hugo and so on. But she also discovered Gluckflosfer, Aristotle, and other people who informed her philosophy. And then she went to, she cleverly got a visa to go to America. You had to get a visa to leave Russia then. But she wanted to, she enrolled in a state cinematic institute and got this visa in order to go to America in order to study film. And on that visa eventually she met an actor in Hollywood. She became married and became an American citizen and spent the rest of her life in America. So, an interesting upbringing. And it brought something new to America. This is a way of thinking, the Russian way of writing and so on, which was completely new in America. So, it was quite an important influence in the rest of her life. Was she, her first love, it kind of seemed like it was movies maybe. And then she was writing novels later. And she definitely seemed enthralled by movies. And she was involved with more movie making experiences that a lot of people might realize. Oh, yes, absolutely. In fact, when she came to America, she stayed with some relatives in, I think it was in Chicago. And they actually owned a cinema. So, she spent a long while in the cinema there just going through lots and lots and lots of different films. So, yes, that was very important to her. You see, this was a new medium. I think Rand loved things that were sort of new and obviously some of the other things that were kind of rational. So, when she landed in New York in 1926, it wasn't a very nice day. It was a winter's day. But she was just overwhelmed by the skyline, which to her was just, you know, rational and logical, but also heroic. And that is, I think, what people were trying to produce in the, in movies at the time. And as I say, in Chicago, one of her relatives in the movie theater, and so she indulged that passion, borrowed money off the relative and went to California to try to make her fortune. You know, she had no idea of doing what she was supposed to do under the visa, which is to study American film, then go back. You know, she actually, I think at that stage, she knew that she wanted to live in America rather than this catastrophic and unjust nation that was being built in Russia. And on her second day in Hollywood, she just happened to run into Cecil Biedemill, who was a leading filmmaker, film director. And he hired her first as an extra. And then that's where she met her future husband, Frank O'Connor. And she wrote lots of screenplays for films during that period. So it was very much of, you know, for many, many years, it was really what she did. She was, she was in movies. She was writing screenplays, editing screenplays, tightening up screenplays and that sort of thing. Is that then what led her to make, I mean, the kind of out of the ordinary decision for people who have grand philosophies they want to express, which is to, you know, she wrote novels instead of writing philosophical tracks. I mean, she wrote some of those, but those came later. Like was that, was it just that that was what she loved and fiction was what she thought? Or did she, like, you know, how fiction was the way she knew how to express herself? Or was there some other motive behind that? Some, you know, thinking that fiction was maybe a better way to get these ideas across? Yes. It's one of these things where people say, well, you know, did she write novels in order to express her philosophy? And what she actually said was that, no, no, I had to develop the philosophy in order to write my novels. And that novel writing was what she wanted to do. I mean, she finished her first novel in 1934 or so. I mean, she was not even in her 30s. But and which was, and that was a sort of brutal portrayal of life in the new Soviet Union. And it was very much at odds with what Americans and Westerns at the time thought the Soviet Union was all about. And they saw it as a sort of heroic, even the middle class intellectual sort, as a kind of, you know, wonderful experiment kind of thing. But she having lived through it knew that it was an absolute disaster. So she wrote this, what we would call in America or the UK where I live, we would call this a philosophical novel. And it's unusual in America. It's unusual in Britain. It's unusual in the West. But it's very commonplace in Russia that you have this novel which somehow sort of expresses a philosophy and the philosophy informs the characters and all the rest of it. So and then she followed that up with another novel just two years later. So yes, writing fiction, I think was very much what she was good at and wanted to do. And I think the although she said, you know, the sort of philosophy came out of that, I think it's, I'm not sure quite how closely they're related. And she was good at novel. And I think that the philosophy sort of was came later and it was added on later. And she thought about it later. And sadly, I mean, she died really before she could complete a lot of the thinking and write a real treatise that explained her philosophy in philosophical terms. So we've got the books to go on, but not a great deal of other things. One of the distinctive things about Objectivists, Randians is it's a fairly today in her, it's a fairly total philosophy. I've had, there's some of the rifts between different factions of Objectivists and also Libertarians and Objectivists often hinge upon the fact of not accepting the whole thing soup to nuts. So let's get into some of the soup to nuts, so to speak, and that it includes a metaphysics and an epistemology and a morality and a politics. So what did Rand view as metaphysics as the ultimate nature of reality, so to speak? Well, it's interesting just as an aside, I mean, you talked about the sort of rifts between Rand and within Rand's circle. And those were in fact, when I was at university and just sort of starting to read these things, it's one of the things that put me off. And I didn't come back to it until many, many years later because it just seemed so factional and so personal and people were either in or they were out and you had to take the whole thing. And if you didn't take the whole thing, then you were somehow heretical and you couldn't be talk to at all. So there was that sort of sectarianism about it, which I found deeply unattractive. But I can see why because to her, as you rightly say, this whole thing is a comprehensive unit. Her metaphysics, what is the nature of the universe? Well, to her, it's objective reality. That's it. There's an objective world out there. How do we know about that universe of epistemology? Well, we can only know about it by reason, by applying a reason to what we see. And then from that, she goes on to the principles by which we should live. You should live according in a way which is true to that reality. And to her, that means the principles of self interest. And then that brings her on to politics, where again, it's sort of self interest in social organization, which means capitalism. And she also bolts on romanticism in art. But those are the main things, objective reality, reason, self interest, capitalism, everything hangs together. And this is actually, I think what makes Rand's ideas so attractive, particularly I think to the young, because they're looking for an answer to everything. And she kind of gives you an answer to everything. This is all joined up. The world works in this way. We have to live by these principles in order to be at one with the world. When it comes to metaphysics that reality exists, or there is such thing as objective reality, I mean, we know about philosophers, whether it's like Bishop Barkley or people who said that, you know, could idealism might be a thing. But that doesn't seem, you know, terribly unique. I think most philosophers would say that something called reality exists. Was there something distinctive about the way that she made this claim? I don't know that it was distinct. It's a very, it's quite an old idea. I say it goes back to Aristotle and so on, some of the Greek philosophers. So they, yes, you're right. Realism, as it's called in philosophical circles, is quite, has quite a long standing. I think that the reason that it was interesting is because sort of the empirical philosophy was ruling the roots then. You had people like F. A. Hayek and so on who were steeped really in the Scottish empirical school, which is that we don't actually know the world. All we can do is make guesses about it. And we try those guesses. And if they work, then we do more of them. And if they don't work, then we do less of them. And that's how we find out about the world. And people like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher of science, again, saying that's how science works. It's a web of guesses. And we don't know what the world is like, but we have a guess. And we test those guesses. We do experiments and see whether they stand up. And if they don't, then we abandon them and make another guess. And Rand is sort of coming from it the other way around and saying, no, no, there is an objective world there. We can sort of understand it by using our reason to clarify how it works and what it's all about. So is it something which is out there that through applying your mind, you can work out what the reality is, like working out a mathematical proof? Or is it something you don't know what it is and you just have to stick your finger in it and see whether it hurts? What reason does she give or have for thinking that human reason is capable of that? So I mean, we can, we could say like, a dog, a dog's mind, we as higher beings than a dog and look at a dog and say that there are lots of things about the world that that dog not only can't figure out, but can't figure out that it can't figure out. It can't even be aware that it can't figure them out because its brain just lacks the capacity to understand the nature of reality. And so we're certainly, you know, smarter than a dog, but is there a reason to believe that we, our brains are so powerful, like that they're just kind of as good as it can get and that they're capable of understanding everything. And because that to me, that seems like a very large claim that I'm not sure how you would even set out to prove. Yes. Well, I think that's actually a very telling criticism because I mean, if you look, I mentioned F.A. Hayek, if you look at his view on epistemology, how we get to knowledge about the universe, he says our minds don't sort of above reality. We can't cover above reality looking down to see what it is. Our minds have actually been created by this universe because we've evolved as complicated social beings. And as part of that, we have a mind which works in particular ways and it works in particular ways because it manages to deal with the universe fairly well. And therefore we're sort of part of this world which we're trying to understand and therefore it's inevitably we can't separate ourselves from it and say, well, there's an objective reality out there and we can somehow detect that. So I think that's actually quite a telling criticism and I don't know that she overcomes it. I mean, again, one of her failings is that she doesn't, if you like, debate with other philosophers very much. She tends to like a few philosophers and everybody else, she kind of dismisses as how these people are just wrong and they've taken things on the long term rather than sort of going through their arguments and trying to meet them. So I think that's actually a very telling proposition. What she says is, of course, okay, we are human beings, right? We may have our limitations. The question for us is how do we human beings make our world our way in whatever it is that's out there? And she says the only way that we can do that is to apply our reason to the best of our ability. We might not always get it right and we don't get it right and we have to abandon things that are proved to be mistaken but only by using our reason where we get anything close to understanding what the world is like and therefore how we should live within it. Before we move on to her moral philosophy, since we're on metaphysics and epistemology, I want to ask you about something that I've heard Randians and Objectivists say quite often, which is A equals A. There's a particular, even there's a sort of notorious, at least for me, Linda Peacoff interview on Bill O'Reilly about 15 years ago during the outset of the Iraq War, I believe, and they're talking about bombing Iran, I think, and O'Reilly asked them some questions and what if this happened and Peacoff's answer is well, what if A didn't equal A? And I've heard this in responses. It's a very strange way of addressing a criticism. What if A didn't equal A? Why is that something that Randians commonly say? Let me just go through this. There are sort of basic axioms she says. First, we know that things exist. Our brains make us aware that there's a world out there. We don't necessarily know the exact nature how they behave, but we know they're there. So to her, she says, existence exists. Secondly, we're aware that things exist. We perceive them. So there must be something out there because we can't be conscious of nothing. We have to be conscious of something. So we know that there's something out there. And third, to be something, she says, implies that that thing has an identity. It has a collection of qualities that distinguish it as a particular thing and not something else. So a tree has a tree has particular characters that you and I don't have. A tree has roots that go into the ground and so on, and we don't. It has leaves and we don't. It has a whole variety of characteristics which other things don't have. So that brings her back to it. It goes back to Aristotle. The idea that existence is identity. That something is what it is. It can't be anything else. And that is what she calls the law of identity. I'm very skeptical of this line of reasoning myself. I think that this is about words rather than things and it's about how we try to identify things and quite often we get it wrong. Is there something that is specific out there? It's got certain irreducible qualities and somehow we get to know that. Or do we just have to make a guess and often there are deep boundaries. What's the difference between a stool and a chair?  It just depends on how we choose to think about these things and how we find it convenient and refer to them. It's not necessarily something which is kind of out there and objective. So that's the criticism that people would make that argument. Moving into her morality so we have the three basic questions of philosophy. What is there? How do we know about it and what do you do about it? Metaphysics, epistemology and morals. So where did she go after saying there's reality? We have awareness of it and we can use reason. What does that mean for what you should do about things? About your life? Yes, well moral values and actions are extremely important to human beings according to Rand because uniquely among living things we have the ability to choose how we behave, how we treat others and the virtues and ideals to which we aspire. So if we're going to make good moral choices we need to make another choice which is to think objectively. That is to use our reason and focus it on establishing what she says is the true nature of things without evading, without drifting and without getting confused. And when she boils that down she says well what is the ends to which people should live and the answer is life. That's our highest value, that's what we're aiming for. By what principle should we act in order to achieve that end of life? Well the answer is use our reason use your brain and who should we focus our actions at improving? Whose life are we talking about here? Who should profit from your actions? And the answer is yourself not anybody else. Her view is that in order to be consistent with this real world we should be pursuing life. We should be using reason to work out how to achieve life and the person that we're doing this for is basically ourselves not probably. One thing that I often find puzzling about this aspect of Rand's moral theory and I know that this is an issue that there's some debate on among Indian scholars is this life as the standard of value because she has she's a very robust and expansive moral theory that says there are certain kinds of things you ought to do and there are certain ways that you ought to behave and it's wrong to behave in other ways but it's not entirely clear to me how that stuff can be derived just from the notion of life or survival. So I mean to put it you know the very obvious counter example would be there have been billions and billions of people who have lived very long lives and I didn't know about or didn't follow Rand's moral rules. And so it's not the relationship between following the rules of objectivism and living because clearly there are non-objectivists who still live. So is there something more to just is this not just a mere survival standard is there something more like a baked in to put in Aristotelian terms like a flourishing or a eudaimonia or like a life that is the right kind of life? Well she says you should live according to your rational self-interest and then the important thing there is rational. She doesn't advocate that people should just dissolve into hedonism and drink alcohol and smoke cigars and acting ways that are irresponsible. She says you need to work out what is right for you in the long term and your ultimate value might be life but there are things that you have to do in order to achieve that in the long term and your long-term happiness which is another important factor for her depends upon doing the right things if you like the rational things rather than just doing whatever comes into your head and so it would be nice to do this today why don't I just do this and get myself completely blind drunk or get myself onto heroin and have a nice day because in the long term that is damaging for you and it will achieve the opposite of what you want to achieve but I think you are you've got it quite right that this the life standard is a difficult one because most moral decisions that we make aren't matters of life and death it may be that you could say well we really ought to be honest because if we weren't honest then in the long run we would never get on together and we would not be able to do anything and we would die because we couldn't cooperate or not at all that may be true but in a particular instance I've taken something from my young son because I think it's bad for him do I and he asks where it is what do I do, do I say it's lost or do I say I've taken it from you well you lie I mean parents do and in many cases you have to lie now is that good or is it bad is it pro-life or anti-life well it's very difficult to say that there's a little thing like that telling a 50 or some really for his own best interest it's difficult to say something like that is a matter of life and death but this is Rand's ultimate standard when she says selfishness she has a book called the virtue of selfishness collection of essays and a lot of people take that and read a bunch into it and say that that means you will do anything whatsoever to preserve your life like I don't know George Costanza on Seinfeld or something not even care about anyone else but what does she mean by selfishness in her we kind of got into a little bit but in her specific definition of that term well what she means is pursuing your own values now your values are not necessarily simply your own life and welfare it may be as she said herself when her husband died I have lost my greatest value so there are other things other people are important to you principles are important to you the fact that the world is working in some particular way is important to you and people will spend a lot of time and energy and efforts in trying to well convince people of political philosophies or clean up the planet or tell people they shouldn't throw a letter and all sorts of things like that because these are very high values to them and in many cases the welfare of other people and I think that one of the prisms I would make and is that she tends to draw human beings as rather individualists whereas we have grown up as a social species and the welfare of other people is actually very important to us so it's important how other people live and how we get on with other people and their happiness and life is important to us well if that's important to you that's what you should actually be focusing on so it's your values that you should focus on not necessarily your own life because if you lose your greatest value you may conclude that your life now has no meaning so in many cases suicide for example is perfectly rational according on the rent thank you so it's your individual values that count so on the flip side of that she has a specific definition of altruism too which she views as an evil in the way she defines it but as you pointed out it doesn't mean just caring about people which it's okay to care about people if it's your values it means something else yes that's right her worry about altruism she has many worries about altruism but she thinks it's she thinks it's an evil actually she thinks that the prevailing morality and you get this in religion and many other forms of reality they urge us to live for the benefit of others rather than ourselves they praise self sacrifice and they they say that self serving things that benefit you are immoral and that means she says that the standard of morality then is not the value of the action itself but the identity of who benefits and according to that serving others is good serving yourself is bad and she says on that criteria there's really nothing to choose between business people they're both evil because they're both self interested and she thinks that that's just of course completely wrong there is a big difference between gangsters and business people gangsters exploit other people through violence and force and business people enrich other people through voluntary exchange there's no moral equivalence at all and she says you shouldn't confuse altruism with kindness, goodwill and other others we can all do that it's core demand is self sacrifice which means self denial so that if you like makes morality everybody's enemy to be moral you have to do what's bad for you and she says that's no way to live and it's certainly not consistent with the way we're created and the way the world works how do we get from that to then you said so like the problem with gangsters is that they exploit other people for their their own ends but how is that wrong within this system as it's set out because if I'm morally obligated to do what's of value to me there may be instances where I could say steal something from Trevor because then it will enable me to do something that fulfills my principles or my values more so why should I why should I respect rights in this system especially when respecting rights in a given instance would be harmful to me yeah she draws the line of force it's the use of force which she thinks is one of the greatest evils that we can get along very well by mutual cooperation and just simply getting along with each other when you start to use force then there's no end to it and that way lies tyranny being brought up in the early Soviet Union that's not the place that she wants to be she sees a world which is morally superior in that it's not founded on force that's why she is so pro-capitalism because there's no force involved it's entirely voluntary you don't trade with people it's up to you so what she's against is people being told that they have to make a sacrifice to others and certainly being forced to make a sacrifice to others so that to her I think is the greatest evil it's the use of force and there's no once you start on that road there's no limit this defensive capitalism that comes from her and objectivists it has a little bit of a different flavor that we put together the pieces here from metaphists to epistemology reasoned self-interest but what we get from capitalism here is less hey capitalism is good because it helps the poor the best or it because it makes goods cheaper instrumental consequentialist creates wealth it's something much more like capitalism is good because it is the moral truth of a human flourishing life and creating value and pursuing your own ends in like a heroic fashion is what makes it good which is why sometimes randians get mad when you use instrumental or consequentialist justifications capitalism would they get mad at us a lot well I think both should be applauded quite frankly and any defensive capitalism is good these days to rand if you want a rational economic system economics is really the science of applying social principles to production if you want a rational economic system it's got to be rooted in the nature of the world the nature of ourselves and to be moral it's got to respect our basic rights and it's certainly got to avoid force and the only system that does that according to rand is laissez-faire capitalism capitalism without government intervention because only capitalism respects people's property rights and that makes it the only model system it's also the only model capitalism to her is a social system because it respects people's rights and their values and their right to have their own values but a capitalist society still value art or science or literature above material goods it doesn't make you focus only on money people decide their own priorities but in terms of production that's the rational way and I think you are right I think that her defence of capitalism is intriguing because it was so fresh and new and that she certainly argued that nobody had to sacrifice anything under capitalism and she saw that production itself was a virtue because it was creative and in her novels it's the applause of business people because they create something of value that doesn't go on trees you have to create it and capitalism is very good at creating effective efficient producers and it encourages and the freedom that is around capitalism encourages people to use their minds and apply their minds to problems so she's very much in favour of capitalism as the only model system but also I think she does say that it actually produces the goods there is a bit of attention you're right and people have debated this you're right but she actually if you look at her writings I think that she says both firstly it's a model system but secondly looking at her writings and articles in particular on say Britain sorry on America and Russia she's saying well the capitalism system is better it's producing more it's doing better with people people are richer so she is looking at the results as well as looking at the philosophy of it it seems like there might be a tension here between her her moral prohibitions on force and coercion once you allow those in you're on your way to tyranny and her rejection of anarchism because we spend a lot of time on free thoughts talking about the justifications for and the nature of the state and the state is effectively I mean by definition is a group of people who have been empowered to or entitled to use force and coercion against other people and so the anarchist would say if you're opposed to those things then you have to be opposed to the state she was pretty strongly not an anarchist so how did she how did she rectify that is that a tension and if it is how did she rectify it yes it's well you're right she was very critical of anarchism and famously split from Murray Rothbard to the great thinker on anarcho-capitalism she rejected the idea that we don't need government at all because she thought that that would expose us to predation by criminals and her view was we can't be rational we can't think we can't create we can't produce if we are living in fear that other people are going to steal our things or assault us and take our property or our lives so we can't live as rational human beings if we are living in fear having to carry arms with us having to fortify our homes and to form gangs for our own protection having a state of some sort she believed sent out a signal that there's no point in initiating force because force will be returned and to her the sole purpose of the state was to to make sure that using force wasn't worthwhile because the state had more force and it would flatten you if you tried it so yes I think this is it is very difficult because again many people have argued that well once you start saying well we need a state then the argument is well where does that stop we've seen in the past countries like the United States for example started with a fairly small government with very specific aims and now it does just about everything frankly and lots and lots and lots of things it shouldn't do and which can't be justified under its founding principles so I think that is a bit of a problem in range she called herself a radical for capitalism rather than an anarchist simply because she thought that anarchism just precluded having a state entirely and that you couldn't live without something which would protect you of course Murray Rathbard would say no that's no problem at all people just get together and they hire people to protect them just as they hire people to unblock their drains or fix their electricity if you look at her books as you mentioned ahead and that was shrugged the heroes are makers they're people making things for some reason trains are really big deal and that was shrugged and there are architects and there are people who are takers who are parasites who want to take what they produce this leads to a criticism especially in these sort of fraught inequality times we're talking about inequality a lot that that for therefore it implies that the distribution of wealth that results from a capitalist system is morally justified that the people who have a lot of money at the top deserve it because they're titans of industry and they're making things and their heroic beings and the people who don't deserve it because they're not heroic beings beings and this is something you hear from Robert Reich I think recently this is exactly what Mitt Romney's world view is and what Paul Ryan's world view is there are makers and there are takers is that a fair criticism or description of the implications of her views I think it's a fair description yes I think that I mean Nozick puts it Nozick philosopher puts it quite well he says take a basketball star or something and people want to see this person play so they they pay a few dollars and they go to the stadium and they watch the game and they are each a few dollars poorer and the basketball star is many thousands of dollars richer but nobody has acted in an unjust way nobody's been forced to do anything so even if they started equal in terms of their income all wealth they haven't finished equal but if nobody's acted unjustly how can that result in distribution be unjust itself and so I think the focus is really more on those heroes themselves you know her heroes are individualists they live by their own creative talent so they produce things which of course benefit all of us they exist for nobody else but themselves they don't ask other people to exist for them their rebels they don't conform to social norms but they stand by their own vision and they understand they have a version of truth in their minds they understand it and they build their vision and their values their vision on those values and on that truth of facts and reason and not on the false authority of others so their creative minds and that means they're discovering new things they're discovering new knowledge they innovate and therefore they drive progress and that consequently benefits all humanity and you can't do that of course you can't force people to do that creativity depends upon being free to act and think and this is why she's so strong on capitalism as a moral system it leads you free to think free to act and then yes you pursue your own values and you you benefit accordingly of course it may be I've known a lot of very rich people and indeed they're so rich they can't actually they don't have time to spend what it is they've made so what do they do the answer is that they set up charitable foundations or they do other things in order to use that money and to promote causes which thereby promote their own values Bill Gates thinks it's important to wipe out malaria in the developing world he gives his fortune to causes like that and in so doing benefits a lot of people in the developing world what do you think is the biggest it depends on which side it's coming from of course but the biggest misconception of Rand there's a ton of them she's kind of operates as a figure that you can sort of put everyone like I said Paul Ryan and everyone who believes in capitalism for many people on the left are just unrepentant randians who want the poor to die but if all these kind of misconceptions are out there what do you think is the most pernicious one yes I think it's that that life is all about selfishness that the language is unfortunate we don't really have anything which is a simple word that expresses what she's trying to get at what she's trying to get at is we should look for ourselves now we're complicated creatures and yes we do actually value what others think and what others do and so on and we value some people more than we value others but we should live for those values and in doing that we will actually create a better world we'll create a better human society because we will be encouraging the things that we ought to encourage and we'll be discouraging the things which should be discouraged and her objection to traditional morality which says it's all about self sacrifice you can help other people and think of them first no that simply encourages people to take advantage of other people it encourages them to make themselves worse off you know as they can get the benefits of being self and get other people to shower them with money or the government to shower them with money so we want to encourage people to be independent, strong-minded but at the same time good citizens and that is actually her idea of selfishness but because the word has traditionally meant something different people think it's all devil take behind most capitalism and law no regard for other people it's not that at all we live in a rather different world from the one Ein Rand lived in when she wrote The Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged so what value I mean you just published a book about the ideas of Ein Rand what value do you think she still has today and what do you think her legacy is well I think that on many levels I think probably that there's a sort of philosophical level and then there are more practical levels and certainly on the philosophical level the fact that she worked out a way to integrate so many different parts of philosophy I think is quite interesting and new and radically different and she brought brings new ideas on life on personal morality, on politics and economics all based she says on reason using your mind now that's actually a very powerful idea that it's not about what you happen to like it's about what works what you can work out about the world it's an objective morality rather than just one that you just choose because it sounds good or you can't cross it in a book and that's to her the virtue of selfishness and the same in politics and economics as well but these are political systems that are founded on rational principles and I think another thing I would say that that she's is remembered for is really her robustness that she believes all this so strongly and that there's no grey in I'm Rand you either use your reason or you're revolting against reason and then you're all over the place she's an absolutist only in the sense of she's absolute about reality and that causes her views to be seen more like a religion sometimes than a philosophy but at the same time it's very robust when it comes to arguing these things and so often we argue about markets and the choice and competition and all these things and people on the other side say oh well yeah that's just your view but no she's able to root it in something to say no this is actually all part of a single system and it's a rational system it's very difficult for people to argue against them


Ben, Kevin Byrd did his zoom driving down the car, driving down the street in his car.  But it looks like you're at the facility. I guess Derek's gone for over 105 straight now, leads the league in rushing. What's going well there? Maybe as a group, what maybe are you guys focused on to be even better going down the second half of the season? Yeah, we got to clean some stuff up on combinations and stuff like that as an offensive line, but he's running hard. When he's getting his opportunities, he's making the most of it. He's making guys miss. He's finishing runs hard. He's making the one and two yard runs, turning to four and five. So you got to give him credit too. He's a guy. If we do our part, he's special. And Derek's, you can tell he wants it. And when he has the ball in his hands, any place special and he has it. Teresa. Ben, what seems to be happening after halftime? I mean, I think there were five penalties in the second half, not saying that they're all on the offense, of course, but get a run, then there's a flag, seems to be wiping some things out, kind of, you know, leading to some three and outs. How challenging is it maybe to come out of halftime and execute as cleanly as you guys were in the first half? Yeah, we got to be better. And we know that that's what really haunted us in the second half is penalties and getting behind on the chains. And we're not able to execute like we want to and getting to the groove, running the ball like that. When you put yourself behind on the sticks, it makes a hard living for the style of ball we're playing right now. And that's what kills our drive right now.  John, go on. Hey, Ben, you guys are obviously such a run heavy team which kind of goes against the green of a lot of teams in the NFL. Do you think that makes a challenge sometimes for defenses simply that you guys are so different? You know, and obviously also the fact that you have a guy like Derek Henry, so is different, Sue is so different as well. Does that represent a change and a challenge for defenses, do you think? I think they know what they're getting with us. It's the style of play that we play good defense here and like to run the ball. It's how we're built here, it's how they built our team and I don't know if it's a challenge for other teams because they know what we're doing or anything but I know watching tape, you have to really focus on teams that really run the ball because I feel like teams play us different. We get different from what other teams are getting so it's not as much film out there to watch but we know we love to run the ball here and you have a guy like Derek in the backfield we want to run the ball and there's an offensive line and anytime we can call it run, it's a plus in our favor. Tron. Ben, obviously, you know, coming into this season you knew that Derek was going to get back to himself but actually after, you know, a couple of games that seemed to really kick in the gear, was there a point like, can you put your finger on a point where it was like, yeah, that's that guy that we usually have in the backfield? Yeah, I got cares. I know after the first two weeks, just watching tape with him, he's so critical about his run track, where his cut's going to be, how we're blocking certain plays and I'm happy for him to come alive and I know just seeing how he ran the ball versus the Raiders and his mindset, like one guy wasn't going to tackle him at the line of scrimmage, he was making guys mess, he was making those ugly one-yard runs turning the three and four and when you're turning out three and four-yard runs it's a lot easier to call the run on second and eight, first and 10 because you know you're going to get three or four yards and you hand it to him. Jim White. Ben, what is Malik like in the huddle and maybe where'd you see improvement from him from first start to second? Yeah, just the operation, he was cleaner, just getting the play in, the more he does it, the more he understands the offense and I would say that was the biggest change, just him actually executing the huddle and getting the play in and out so we can execute at the line of scrimmage. John Glenn. Yeah, Ben, maybe a similar question to that. I wonder, is it pretty much the same situation for you, whether you're centering a rookie or a 10-year vet or if not, what are maybe some sort of subtle differences or changes that you have to make as a center? Yeah, just from our checks and cans, I make sure I know everything that, what entails the coverage and everything like that to make sure we're in the right play. With Ten of Hill, I know he knows the cans like the back of his hand, so I'm able to anticipate a little quicker and not have to say like, hey, can it, but that's part of it. I'm doing the same thing with Ten of Hill's in there because once the cans happen, I have to make my call so it's just maybe, hey, doing the can and doing it. So I enjoy it. The run game, I really have a passion for the X's and O's side of the game, so not much different, just who's behind me and just depends on who's back there in the hotel. Can you just, for a dummy like myself, can you just elaborate a little bit on what a can is? Yeah, we'll call two plays at once and depends on what the defense gets us. We try to get ourself in the best play possible. Thanks. Jim, Jim, are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Ben, I guess obviously a tough one on Sunday, one that could linger. I mean, how important is it for you guys to turn the page on this one with two games coming up here in about nine days? Right, that's what Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, is put this game to bed, make the corrections and you can't let it carry over. We know we got a lot of football ahead of us and it's important football right now in November to separate from our division, so we know we got to take care of business and we can't let this one carry over. Our defense played so well and we got to go out there and help them this week and take some plays off them. And it's funny, Tron's getting me to want to ask you about, I was just asking Kevin Byrd, what he listens to driving in his car. What do you listen to pre-game? Do you listen to pre-game music or what's your kind of music ritual? Pre-game, if I was a home, there's a truck and if I'm driving, she's a country song. If it's in the stadium on Sundays, I listen to worship music. And one more for me. I don't know if you've ever met Jeff Saturday and if so or if not, what do you think about a center being a head coach? You think a center makes a good candidate for head coach? Could you see that in your future one day? I grew up watching Jeff Saturday and trying to, the relationship him and Peyton had together and the passion they played with. So I know I love watching and growing up and a guy when I first got in the league, he was on the tail end of his career. So getting to watch him that way, happened for him to get opportunity and hope for the best, but he's in our division. So, you know how that rolls, we want to lose every game. What about a center smart, pretty smart guys, probably as a center?  Hopefully, I know being in that offense with Peyton there, he's run their scheme. So he's played for a long time. So my take, well, I guess you'd be pretty smart. Teresa? I'm just gonna follow up on Sunday's worship music. Who's in the playlist? Do you have a favorite artist? I like Zach Williams, Northport's church in Atlanta. I like Deliverer, that song. The Anchor by Crowder. So depends on what mood I'm in, but Crowder, Northport church and Zach Williams usually.


SCP-001 is an O5's tale. Good evening, doctor. No, no, don't stand up. And yes, I am who you think I am. Let's not make any more of this than it is. You know my number, and I know enough about you to make a duplicate that even your mother wouldn't be able to tell apart from the real you. No, that's not a threat. Just a fact. Now, as to my business here, it seems you have stumbled upon something above your clearance. Well, no. Stumbled is not the right word. Dug up? Perhaps. And you are getting to the point where further digging would end in some fairly lethal gunshot wounds. This would be a sad state of affairs, as you are otherwise quite a good researcher. Therefore, you are getting something very few people in the Foundation ever get. An explanation. Yes, we were alerted when you first started digging into SCP-001. Every researcher who's been around for a while looks into it. Most are satisfied when they uncover the angel with the flaming sword. It's buried under enough levels. But then, you started looking into the factory. And that is when I knew you wouldn't stop. So, here it is, plain and simple. The factory is SCP-001, but it will never be written up. It was a choice I made early on in the creation of the Foundation, and a choice I still stand by. You researchers are far too curious. I'm not sure which scares me worse. That will never understand the factory, or that we one day will. Ah, well, I'm sure you're eager to learn more. The factory was built in 1835. Back then, it was known as the Anderson factory, named after James Anderson, a rather well-to-do industrialist. It was built in, well, we'll just say America, and was the largest factory yet designed, a good mile across at its widest, three stories tall throughout, with a special seven-story tower by the front gate that Anderson lived in. It was designed to be the ultimate factory, capable of taking care of everything, including the housing of workers. People could be born, work, live, and die, without ever leaving the confines of the factory, and work they did on everything, from cattle raising and slaughtering to textiles to everything else under the sun.  It's just as likely that he followed some kind of pagan gods. What is known is that he was very exact in the building of his factory, and in the placement of his machinery within it. Survivors claimed the floor was engraved with arcane symbols that were only visible when blood flowed across them. But then, the survivors claimed a lot of things. What is known is that Anderson made his money on the blood and sweat, and sometimes his body parts of the lower class. His journals indicate he thought of them as less than human, being put on this earth only to serve his will. Of course, at that time, no one knew about his predilections, and so people flocked to the factory. A place to both work and live, at the same time, well, of course people wanted in. Never mind the harsh hours, working conditions, sadistic security force, and all the rest. Factory workers were forced to work 16-hour days, work only shutting down on Sundays between sunrise and sunset. Workers were not given individual rooms, instead sharing rooms with eight other people, sleeping in shifts of three. Medical attention was unheard of. If you were injured in the course of your duties, which most people were, you were expected to just keep working. Anyone too injured to work was dragged off by the security, never to be heard from again. For forty years, the Anderson factory cranked out all sorts of things for people. Meat, clothes, weapons, never mind that the beef might be mixed with human. Don't care that the weapons were forged in blood. No attention need be paid that the clothes were dyed with… well, you get the idea. Rumors leaked out, but the products were so good, why bother? Until someone got out. I never met the brave soul who managed to escape, but she managed to meet with President Grant, and in 1875, he enlisted my aid. At the time I was… well, it doesn't matter. Will say I was military, kind of, and that my people were the same. A hundred and fifty good men and some few women, who were often given jobs that weren't supposed to be common knowledge. We'd been cleaning out some Confederate holdouts, and some of the worst things we found down south. So we did some research, didn't like what we saw, and went in, loaded for bear. I don't actually remember much about the night it all went down. Most of it blends together in my head. I get flashes sometimes, of the people chained to the line, living next to dead. Damned hard to tell which was which. Children working underneath machines, the majority of the flesh scoured from their bones by the great wheels and cogs, and the other things. No, I'm alright. I haven't thought about that night for a very long time. The security force wasn't much of a problem, but then, Anderson's creations showed up. He'd been taking the injured workers and, well, experimenting on them. Then, if you could call them men, with multiple arms sewn together, some of them combined with animals, horrible monstrosities out of mankind's worst nightmares. They kept coming, wave after wave of not quite living creatures. I lost a lot of good people that night. And then, we found Anderson's breeding pits. As young as a chain to the wall's force to be nothing more than... I'm sorry. Even today, more than a century later, the memory makes me see red. When we finally found Anderson cowering in his office, we hung him from his tower window with his own entrails. As he died, he laughed, saying it didn't matter. We could kill him, but his factory, the factory, would go on.  The entire time, he uttered blasphemies that I don't like to think about. We spent a week cleaning that place out, freeing the workers, putting down the things we found in the basements and many lightless rooms. We pulled out things that were useful, stocked them in a house near the gate, tried to make sense of everything. 150 of us went into that hell pit that night, and only 93 came out. By the end of that week, we were down to 71. But the things we found in there, my god. Well, you've been with the Foundation a while, they wouldn't seem as amazing to you, but we found toy guns that shot real bullets. A yo-yo that would flay the skin from anyone it touched. Hammers that only worked on human flesh. A breed of skeletal horse that ran faster than anything we'd ever seen. Cloaks that seemed woven from the night itself and let man access a shadowy dimension that I get away from myself. We found tools, both wondrous and horrible, and we were faced with a choice. I gathered my highest ranking, well, we'll call them officers, to me. And we tried to figure out what we would do. They all had opinions, the chaplain he had gone a little crazed, thought all these objects must be miracles sent from God, holy relics to be worshipped. Marshall and his little toady Dawkins thought there was a fortune to be made here, making and selling these things to the highest bidder. The engine we all called base, due to his deep speaking voice, he called these things an abomination, and declared that we should hunt down and destroy everything we could find. Lloyd Smith thought we should take this stuff back to the president. The only one without an opinion was the old man, but he never said much of anything anyways. We argued for hours, days trying to work it out. Me, I thought we were sitting on a gold mine all right, but that we could use these things, these objects, to hunt down some of the scary things we'd run into down south. The other monsters this world had to offer, and use this factory for good, as a place to contain these things, find a way to make them work for our fellow man, or at least protect our fellow man from having to deal with them. I'm sure you can figure out what happened. The chaplain snuck away at the night with his devotees, taking a couple of small items with him. Marshall we kicked out when we found him, abusing his authority.  Police and his people tried to light the whole damn thing on fire, then just left when it didn't work, and Smith left to report back to the president. I did manage to get him to promise me he'd tell Grant the factory had been destroyed. I had big plans for that place. Of course, it was kinda hard to follow through on big plans when you only have 12 other people to work with, but it was a start, and it worked for a while. We had these amazing toys, and finding people to work with us was easy. Back then, going off the grid was as simple as leaving town. We knew what we wanted, we knew what we could be. Leventhal set out getting us backing. A simple invention here, some well-invested money there. It all worked out. White and Jones set out getting us...other backing. In our previous work, we'd found out some interesting things about people, some secrets that powerful men didn't want getting out, and, with our new position helping keep secrets, we got more people asking us to deal with their secrets. Blackmail is a dirty word, but it works. Bright, Argent, and Luminew got to work cataloging the items. Light and Bright's wife, the nurse, they made sure we kept ourselves healthy. Heh, no, it's just remembering Light. We had such unusual ideas about hygiene for the time. Brilliant woman. Jav, Flescher, and Karnoff dealt with training the troops. Tesla and Tamlin were in charge of figuring out how to take advantage of the items without making it obvious. We were amazing. The city we built around the factory, which we took to calling site Alpha, was self-supporting. Agents, researchers, operatives of all sorts. Not by those names, of course, but those positions. We expanded. I'm sorry, I am an old man. I know I do not look it, but the body lies. The mind doesn't always remember right, and sometimes I get lost in my memories. Things get confused, but the long and simple of it is this. We used the factory. It always seemed to have more empty rooms to store things in. Back then, that was the word for them, things. No skips, then, no. We thought we had the factory tamed. That's one of the reasons I refused to quit this job. If there's anything I can do here, it's remind people that we will never tame these things. Contain them, yes, but as we saw with Abel, tame them, never. After a decade or so, we were pretty organized. The 13 original of us were being called by numbers, not names. We knew how to make things work. And if a thing or two vanished inside of the factory, still? And the occasional D-class? What? Yes, we had D-class back then. Disposables. That's where the D comes from. I had to have someone to test things on. Tesla and Tamlin were both very firm about that. Yes, sometimes we lost people who didn't matter. Adam, sorry, Dr. Bright, was fond of saying it was the factory taking its toll. You can't get something for nothing. 1911 was when it all went wrong. Things, we called them fairies, an entire race of things. Living beside us, they could look the same as you or I. The only obvious difference was an allergy to iron. Yes, that's why we called them fairies. No, you haven't heard of them. Why? Because it's the one time the Foundation wiped out an entire race of things. Root and branch. And I'm the one who did it. We'd been hunting them for some time. We'd run into them a time or two before, come out on top. So when a certain royal asked us for help, of course we were eager to get them in our debt. We've always loved having people in our debt. We sent a team to help out, take care of what we thought was a hunting party. The next time we saw them, their heads were on poles attached to the saddles of the creatures the fairies rode when they attacked the factory. It was horrible. Three words, but they conveys so much. I've never. I'm sorry. Please, give me a moment. I've never told this part to anyone.  People think Procedure 110 Montauk is a walk in the park compared to what I do to you. We lost.  I watched my 13 go down, left and right, just trying to hold the factory. And I, I, their leader, their friend, their father figure, godfather to the brights four young children, confidant, sometimes lover, always the confessor, I ran. I ran like a scared little boy, deep into the dark guts of the factory. I was chased by the things, always just one step ahead. I could hear them behind me feel their breath upon my neck and I came to a door I'd never seen before, a bronze door covered in Arabic script of some sort. I'd never been one for languages, especially not the curvy bullshit the musclemen use, but I didn't care. They were coming for me and I threw the door open and dive through it. Everything inside was different. There was a feeling of peace that nothing could hurt me here. The light was this dark red, but still felt right. My ears were filled with the steady thrumming of a gigantic heartbeat and in front of me were the remains of Anderson. It spoke to me then, but I'll be damned if I could tell you exactly what it said. What it told me was more meaning than exact. It offered me hope. It told me, it told me that each of the things we had used from the factory, no matter what we did with them, fed it, helped it grow, but if the fairies took the factory they would destroy it and we couldn't have that. It offered me a deal. It could remove this event, make it have never happened. All I needed to give it was us. I didn't want to. I knew it was a bad idea, but then I saw them again.  I agreed. It smiled, and I found myself once more upon the ramparts, watching the horde of fairies crest the hill. My foundation alive once more in my hands was a weapon. I won't bore you with the details, but we slaughtered them, and with these new weapons continued to slaughter them everywhere they lived, everywhere they bred. My fellow O5s questioned my decision, thinking we should save some in case we might ever need them. I overruled them. We moved away from the factory, shut it down, moved our things out of there. We changed the name from things to special containment protocols, focused on containing them, not anything else. The others were curious, but understood I had my reasons. I boarded up the factory, locked it shut, buried it under a ton of rubble, saying it was too dangerous. I thought, thought I'd gotten away with it, until I found a thing on my desk. One of the old toy guns that shot real bullets, and it had the factory label on it. I've sent people in from time to time to see what it might be doing. Last time I sent people in to look, there was nothing there. We keep finding factory items out there. I can't help but think of how many more we don't find. The people who use them and keep it hidden. I think back to the body telling me how each item used gave energy to the factory. I never asked it. Energy for what? I don't think I want to know. What do we give it? D-Class, mostly. Where did you think all those bodies went? There's a place. Bodies are left, and they vanish. Everyone thinks I'm a genius for figuring it out. Sometimes, sometimes I have to feed it other things. Agents. They never know it's coming. It just reaches out and takes them. But in the end, we're doing more good by being here. Whatever the factory wants, whatever it is, we're doing good here. I have to believe that. And now you know. Are you happy? I didn't think so. I tell you, I'm getting old, Everett. Should I die, someone will have to keep feeding it. Maybe you'll be different. Maybe you'll figure out how to stand up to it. But I doubt it. Item number, SCP-133, Object Class, Safe. Special Containment Procedures. All instances of SCP-133 are stored in their original shipping crates, which are to be stored within a standard safe glass storage container at Site-19. Experimentation with SCP-133 may only be performed with prior written permission from at least two Level 4 personnel. Description. SCP-133 are a set of 613 black, circular pieces of a waxy, paper-like material, 5 cm in diameter. When placed against a solid surface and rubbed, SCP-133 will instantaneously transfer to the surface and create a circular hole. Testing has shown that SCP-133 is capable of penetrating up to 61 cm of structural-grade steel, though the exact degree of penetration is reduced by extremely smooth or highly dense materials. Examination of holes created by SCP-133 show that they are superficially smooth, but exhibit tool marks consistent with that of extremely fine boring implements at a microscopic level. The exact mechanism by which SCP-133 operates is still under investigation. SCP-133 came to the Foundation's attention following a string of high-profile burglaries in the city of R.I.P. Suppressed surveillance footage and forensic evidence were brought to the attention of embedded Foundation agents and local law enforcement agencies, and upon attempting to apprehend the culprit, subject placed an instance of SCP-133 over his chest and data expunged. Local law enforcement officers were administered Class A amnestics and released. The original shipping crate in which SCP-133 was found has been shown to be immune to SCP-133's effect, despite being composed of ordinary wood, and has been incorporated into the containment procedures for SCP-133. Addendum 13301. Shipping label found within SCP-133. Holes trademark, a product of the factory, 800 units. Item number SCP-161. Object Class, Euclid. Special containment procedures. All three instances of SCP-161 are to be kept in separate containers in containment locker 34 Zeta. Each container is to be triple locked, with all nine keys to go to separate members of the senior staff. Once every three months, each individual instance of SCP-161 is to be removed from containment. Current scheduling allows for only one instance to be removed in any given month. When removing SCP-161, the remover is required to not be a member of senior staff. However, they are to be accompanied by the three members of senior staff with the keys, at all times that SCP-161 is out of containment. The remover is to be dressed in a full environmental suit, with extra reinforcement around the wrist joints, to avoid contact. The senior staff accompanying the remover are to be dressed similarly. Before removal, a cell is to be set up for activation of SCP-161. Two D-class will need to be requisitioned. One D-class is to be strapped into a chair, immobilized, their left arm at a right angle to their body. It is imperative that their wrist be locked in, so that they cannot turn their hand, or move the angle of SCP-161. The second D-class is to be strapped to the wall directly in front of the first D-class's hand. When removed, SCP-161 is to be immediately moved to the prepared room. SCP-161 is to be placed into the locked hand of the immobilized D-class. Once the D-class has activated SCP-161 once, it is to be removed from them, and returned to containment. Both Class D are then to be returned to general populace, but are never to be assigned together. Description There are currently three copies of SCP-161 in Foundation Control. SCP-161 appears to be a brightly colored plastic child's pinwheel, with a The Factory stamp on the back. SCP-161 only displays its unique properties when held in the bare hand of a human being. Approximately 3 to 7 seconds after grasping SCP-161, the holder will find himself made aware of how to activate the device. From this point on, the holder is completely convinced that SCP-161 is capable of emitting energy pulses of varying strength. This conviction only affects the bearer, as no one else can see these pulses, nor do they appear to do any actual damage. However, anything the wielder destroys with these energy pulses becomes no longer capable of affecting the wielder, even when no longer in contact with SCP-161. Walls affected by the energy pulse can be walked through by the wielder, and living beings so affected not only cannot touch the user, but anything wielded by said beings will be unable to touch the user of SCP-161 as well. A minor side effect causes the wielder of SCP-161 to develop megalomania, and delusions of grandeur. Addendum 1 Original procedures altered when a security guard with no prior knowledge of SCP-161 broke into the containment locker and began using it freely. After security contained the breach, researchers discovered that if SCP-161 were not used occasionally, the artifact would begin to radiate a telepathic lure. The lure would affect those with low self-esteem and willpower, and call them to SCP-161. At that point, they would take the artifact in hand, and begin to use it as described. Addendum 2 A junior researcher attempting to cultivate the approval of senior staff noticed an unusual trend in beings and objects supposedly destroyed by SCP-161. Investigation into beings affected by SCP-161 before containment revealed all of them had committed suicide, many within a year of being affected. A review of objects affected by SCP-161 showed that, while many were still standing, most had fallen apart, and those still together showed signs of decay many years in advance of where they should be. A review of researchers who had been affected by SCP-161 revealed that over 50% of them had since died. Of those that remained, interviews consistently contained the idea that, life just wasn't fun anymore. As of this finding, SCP-161 is now exclusively to be used on Class Ds, and never near support walls. Use of SCP-161's effect for the acquisition of SCP objects that create an environment hostile to terrestrial life, including SCP-2933, has been proposed by several research staff. Final approval pending. Approval denied. Item Number SCP-248 Object Class Safe Special Containment Procedures SCP-248 is to be kept in a fireproof safe in Dr. Meis's office, unless being used directly for testing purposes. The safe has a keypad style opening mechanism. Any personnel of at least level 2 security clearance have full permission to access SCP-248, as the numeric code is... Description SCP-248 is a 25 page booklet of stickers, each reading 110% with a small pressed imprint of the words, the factory, in the bottom right corner. The booklet itself is 7.5 cm in height, and 15 cm in length. Each page of SCP-248 contains two of the stickers, making a total of what would be 50, but circumstances before its discovery have left only 49 stickers. SCP-248 was discovered at a small house in ... Georgia. The object came to the Foundation's attention after one of the stickers was placed on an old half disassembled tractor, in the family's barn by the youngest son, Ronnie ... The tractor was suddenly able to operate as if it were fully functional, despite lacking much of the engine and frame. Agents removed SCP-248 and the tractor from the family, in exchange for a bogus coupon for free pesticides for the farm. The family was administered standard class A amnestics. Dr. Mize received SCP-248 upon its arrival to ... and took deep interest in its apparent abilities. The tractor is now labeled SCP-248-1. Testing of SCP-248 has been approved by Dr. Mize. Including stickers in SCP-248. 46. Addendum 248-1 SCP-248-1 is a 1979 John Deere tractor in an extremely rusted state. Most of the engine is missing, apparently from a restoration that was never completed. The frame is also partially missing near the rear of the tractor, where the driver would be positioned. A sticker from SCP-248 is located near the back behind the left wheel. Upon turning the key to the ignition, SCP-248-1 starts up, and operates as if it were in pristine condition. It is capable of achieving speeds up to 42 km per hour, slightly faster than a typical tractor of that specific model. Though the tractor operates with no engine, gasoline is still required to maintain power. The removal of the gas tank resulted in SCP-248-1 becoming non-functional in all aspects. The whole of SCP-248-1 is to be held in one of the hangars at site for future tests regarding the need for fuel, but lack of engine to create forward motion. Addendum 248-2 Testing of SCP-248 on a brand computer. A sticker from SCP-248 was placed on the motherboard of the computer, which was then started up like usual. The speed of the computer was greatly enhanced, as noted by Dr. Pru... The owner of the computer. Diagnostics of the PC reveal the disk space to have increased from its maximum of 250 GB to 275 GB, as expected. The RAM had also reached the expected 110% efficiency. However, the interior was also experiencing similar results. The heatsink was pulling off 10% more heat than usual, and the conductivity of the wiring was allowing electricity to flow 10% more smoothly than the best modern superconductors. Why the wiring is achieving such a high rate of non-resistant flow, compared to the heatsink slightly above optimal cooling, is not understood at this time. All of the battery rendered the computer useless, just as in Addendum 248-1. Further study of SCP-248 in power supplies has been noted for future tests. Dr. Pru...'s computer is now labeled SCP-248-2, and is to be kept in Dr. Meis' top desk drawer. The drawer is opened via numeric keyboard. The password to which is Pru... Dr. Meis has requested that future tests regarding electronics attempt to focus, at least partially, on the implications of this high conductivity. Some form of electricity-producing turbine or power plant could potentially increase energy production a thousand-fold. Addendum 248-3 Testing of SCP-248 on Organic Matter A sticker from SCP-248 was placed on the forearm of a Class D who volunteered to work with this unknown SCP, rather than being transferred to Site-19 for Keter duty. Initial reaction to the sticker yielded no results. Subject received none of the additional enhancements as seen in previous tests. After 60 minutes of exposure, the subject was still unchanged. Retrieval of the sticker was ordered to test the item's adhesive properties. Agent had difficulty removing the sticker, while the subject was claiming to experience extreme pain during the attempted retrieval. After a small talk with Dr. Meis, Agent removed the sticker with much of the subject's skin still stuck to it. Microscopic examination revealed that the resin had bonded to the subject's flesh in the same way navy grade tape bonds to the sides of submarines, to withstand tremendous pressures. Chemical testing of the resin itself shows that it is consistent with average mass-produced resin used in everyday scotch tape. The chunk of skin was labeled SCP-248-3 by Dr. Meis, and is now held in a vacuum-sealed plastic container. It is stored in the same fireproof safe as SCP-248 in Dr. Meis' office. Addendum 2484. Testing of SCP-248 on SCP-248-1. Attempted removal of sticker. Asked to try and remove the sticker with his fingers. After a few moments of failed attempts at scratching it off, said agent is given tools to use. Tweezers, a pair of pliers, a pocket knife, a chisel, and a hunting knife had no effect on the sticker itself. This test, along with Test 248-3, confirm that the adhesive has properties beyond our understanding. After failing to remove the sticker, a second sticker was added near the first to test if SCP-248 has stackable abilities. The first speed trial observed SCP-248-1 reaching 84 km an hour, which is indeed 220%. However, after a 15-minute period, the tractor showed advanced signs of oxidation wear. After a total of 36 minutes of use with both stickers, SCP-248-1 had almost completely turned to rust and lost all form. At this point, the stickers fell free from the pile of rust and were gathered by Dr. Meis for testing. Results show that the resin had formed a chemical bond, as with the biological matter, and only broke that bond after the original composition of the matter it was attached to had changed. Results should be noted that there is no longer resin on the stickers, and they no longer stick to surfaces. SCP-248-1 neutralized. If this item was mass produced, like it is assumed that other factory SCPs were, we could have potentially struck gold. If a power grid can be made to function without the degenerative effects of SCP-248, free-flowing power could be possible at room temperature. I will personally begin researching the factory and its whereabouts, as soon as High Command approves. Dr. Meis. Item number SCP-385 Object Class Safe Special Containment Procedures SCP-385 is locked within a standard fireproof container at Storage Site-23. Experimentation with SCP-385 requires written approval from any Level 4 researcher. After the incident outlined in Report 385-C, all further testing must take place in a facility located within 5 degrees of either of the Earth's poles. Description SCP-385 is a waste-mounted harness, crafted from heavily antiquated leather and brass. A curled electrical cord connects a handheld push-button switch to the mechanism mounted on the front of the harness, which itself contains a superfluous set of interlocking gears and colored LED light bulbs. The harness has sustained significant impact damage. A damaged engraving on the front of the mechanism reads, Special Edition 3 of Eligible and Eligible by the Factory. Also retrieved with SCP-385 are a cardboard storage box and instruction manual. Both the box and manual feature a retro art style, reminiscent of 1950s science fiction pulp illustrations. The manual describes the harness as a personal anti-gravity field generator and contains simple illustrations in the proper use of the device. When operated according to instructions, SCP-385 does create an energy field that counteracts the influence of outside gravitational forces upon the device and an individual wearing or holding it, as well as neutralizing their inertia. Measurements of velocity and direction with high-speed video cameras tentatively indicate that inertia is neutralized relative to the sun as the inertial frame of reference. Much to duplicate this effect is ongoing, but the mechanical components of the device appear to be non-functional. The harness will still produce the anti-gravity effect even when all mechanical components beyond the activation switch are removed. Addendum. Except under strictly controlled conditions, use of this device is invariably fatal due to the speed of the Earth's rotation and revolution around the sun. An individual removed from both the Earth's gravitational pull and momentum would either be flung into space or experience a fatal collision with an object blocking their trajectory, which will at least result in the device's deactivation to allow for retrieval. SCP-385 was recovered from the room of a 13-year-old boy and shortly after what appears to be its first activation. It is unknown how many other SCP-385 mechanisms may still be at large or how large the production run was. Interviewing the deceased boy's parents traced SCP-385 to a downtown antique toy store where the device was purchased as a novelty. The store was found to be abandoned and had not been occupied for some time. Downtown residents do not remember the shop ever being open. Item number. SCP-449. Object Class. Euclid. Equal Containment Procedures. All instances of SCP-449 are to be stored in a standard containment vault outside of testing. To minimize additional production, between 3 and 5 kilograms of SCP-449-A will be available for testing in a low-risk chemical storage container. Excess SCP-449-A generated in testing of SCP-449 must be incinerated. A network of D-class spaced no closer than 1,500 kilometers apart are to consume one grain of SCP-449-A per day to monitor for use of SCP-449. Should use by parties other than the foundation be detected, agents are to follow the dragnet procedure outlined in document 449-5 to locate and confiscate the SCP-449 instance. Description. Each instance of SCP-449 is a twisting aluminum cone, loosely resembling a cornucopia. Each is 40 centimeters long with a mouth approximately 15 centimeters in diameter, weighing slightly more than a kilogram. On the side of each is stamped the word joy. For unknown reasons, all instances tarnish very easily. Unsqueezed by a human, SCP-449 instances produce SCP-449-A. The user may control the rate of production by thought, ranging from single grains to about 6 liters per second. SCP-449-A is a clear crystalline substance resembling sand and texture. It may be shaped, crushed, or dissolved in water or alcohol, though not in bodily fluids other than blood. It is odorless and tasteless. Eating large quantities of SCP-449-A may cause erosion of tooth enamel, damage to the elementary lining, and diarrhea or vomiting, consistent with the consumption of other abrasive substances. If consumed in any quantity, it causes the consumer to enter a stage of extreme pleasure and euphoria for up to a day, as long as it remains within the digestive tract. This effect is not modulated by dosage, and takes effect immediately. SCP-449-A is neither digested nor externally damaged by its passage through the elementary canal, though when excreted or removed through other means, it no longer exhibits anomalous properties. The euphoric effects of SCP-449-A cease immediately if any person within approximately 1300 kilometers has more SCP-449-A by mass within their digestive tract. To date, all individuals SCP-449 instances have been recovered from had gone to extreme lengths to retain the effects of SCP-449-A, including killing at least four other users of SCP-449, permanently residing in a boat far away from any population centers, undergoing radical gastric surgery to add an additional estimated three cubic meters to their digestive tract. In almost all cases, the SCP-449 users had abandoned activities other than producing and consuming SCP-449-A. To date, 83 instances have been recovered, out of an estimated 100. Addendum 449-2 Several SCP-449 instances were accompanied by the following note. Joy from the factory. Any will let you have joy. Interfers within 761 miles, very unfortunate, regrettable, apologies, etc. Happy way for you to be one to feel joy. Joy, joy, joy, better than joy. As much joy as you like. How much joy to have joy, how much to have sorrow without joy.  You use. Factory only provides. Item number SCP-528 Object Class Euclid Special Containment Procedures All items designated SCP-528 are to be kept inside of their individual containers when not in use. In the case of a missing or damaged container, a new, non-individualized container will be commissioned. All containers of SCP-528 are to be kept in secure storage lockers Z-12 at Site-23. Senior staff at Site-23 are to be given the combination to said locker. No one of lower class than three is approved to work on SCP-528. The combination is to be changed on a weekly basis. Description There are currently seven instances of SCP-528 in Foundation Control. SCP-528 can be found in small red plastic containers, visually identical to those used by the Silly Putty Corporation, except that the Silly Putty logo has been replaced by the Factory. SCP-528 appears to be an inorganic polymer, composed of 65% dimethylsiloxane, hydroxyl terminated polymers with boric acid, 17% silica, crystalline quartz, 9% thixotrol ST, castor oil derivative, 4% polydimethylsiloxane, 1% dechemethylcyclopentysiloxane, 1% glycerin, and 1% titanium dioxide. All similar to common Silly Putty, SCP-528 has several differences. It has proven to be completely resistant to tearing, although indentation and apparent cuts are possible. When formed into a ball and thrown, SCP-528 bounces twice as much as the regular kind. The main difference, however, is that SCP-528 is capable of copying any picture of a human being it is pressed upon. No matter if ink is involved. It can retain an image from paper, photopaper, even from a television or computer screen. Once an image has been placed on SCP-528, the only ways to remove it are to crumple SCP-528 into a ball or to apply rubbing alcohol. Any actions taken upon SCP-528 affect the individual pictured as well, usually resulting in the death of the pictured individual. SCP-528 applied to picture of D-528-1. Pressure applied to SCP-528, causing the image's arm to stretch. D-528-1 screamed in pain, his own arm stretching 1 inch per centimeter the image was stretched. Detailed X-rays reveal bones and flesh of D-528-1 to have been data-expunged. At approximately 5 inches stretching of SCP-528, a gap formed in the image. D-528-1's arm came off at the same place, bloodlessly. Further testing revealed that while D-528-1 was still affected by SCP-528, his arm no longer was. Test 2 SCP-528, still bearing the image of D-528-1, is doused in rubbing alcohol in attempt to remove image. As alcohol is applied to parts of the image, analogous parts on D-528-1 vanish. When the torso is wiped away, D-528-1 ceases life functions. At this point, SCP-528 ceases to apply to D-528-1 and is cleaned with no further incidents. Test 3 SCP-528 applied to image of D-528-2. SCP-528 is then crumpled into a ball, the image of D-528-2 on the inside. D-528-2 is condensed into a ball as well. However, his bones do not break, and subject continues to scream until his head is rolled into his abdomen. At this point, it is believed subject suffocates, as SCP-528 stops applying to D-528-2. When unrolled flat, image of D-528-2 is no longer visible on SCP-528. Test 4 SCP-528 applied to image of D-528-3. SCP-528 is then immersed in boiling water. D-528-3 begins to complain of the heat. After approximately 5 minutes, the image of D-528-3 on SCP-528 begins to run. D-528-3 begins to scream as he melts, flesh and bone both sagging equally. Testing is concluded when his nose melts over his mouth, blocking his breathing, and leading to his suffocation. Note, although clothes are duplicated in the transference of ink, they are not affected by SCP-528 in any way. Lesson complete. To continue with your orientation training, subscribe to SCP Orientation right now and make sure you don't miss any of our upcoming videos.


Chat, what's up YouTube viewership. What's up? This is the first installment of the needed podcast My two co-hosts Gina rock are not here. The holidays really messed up. They scheduled they get in here soon So they'll probably join us midstream But it's just opportunity for me to get Just a show to talk to y'all about was everything that's going on in competitive man throughout the week Also was going in our lives what we have going on for the show Also, and what we have going on in that, you know, because I mean the biggest thing for me is It was about a year and a half ago February 2017 when I won man bowl and that situation Really Really changed my life. It really focused me on You know really wanting to Make man a career make man my life and I have this last year and a half That's pretty much all the energy that I had And all the you know the money that I had and everything I did focus to get them put back into Madden and I've so far been pretty successful I'm not really need to support from you guys and you guys have given it to me and Nothing gets done without the support from you guys. So essentially right now Madden is kind of my career. It's kind of where it's going and I've been joining it a lot You know and obviously the things in Jacksonville kind of changed everything for for everybody Obviously for different families and for the man family in the whole So the biggest thing I want to tell you guys here is just that Because of Jacksonville the last two weeks obviously the Eagles club series is coming up. So the last two weeks Essentially I've been trying to get ready I mean I've been on the mic with skimbo talking with those guys really getting ready to play this club series grind and It's just something that I mean I've used Madden to the best of my ability to get through everything that's going on in my mind and everything that happened to all of us in Jacksonville and it's kind of It's kind of a double-edged sword in that I use it to escape. I use it to have fun I use it to communicate with you guys. I use it to You know involve the whole community and something and it's also a double-edged sword because when I start competing and I start thinking about You know sitting down playing another live game of Madden around a group of people I mean the last time I played a live game of Madden around a group of people a bullet hit my head and some of my friends died You know, so that's something that's been going through my head the last two weeks and I've tried to really Push through that really because I feel like, you know, obviously playing in the tournaments and playing At that level Madden is something that you guys love to watch and something that I love to do It's my biggest passion in my life But in the last two weeks I've really I haven't been able to get some of the images out of my head from the last time I played a game of Madden so because of that I'm going I'm going to go ahead and not compete in the mcs this year I'm and obviously this is Brought on because today is the first day where the Eagles club series is And this is the the day I had to play So essentially I had to come up with this decision in the last couple days It's something that I talked to a lot with my family and my friends And it's something that really uh has been troubling me obviously since it happened and obviously since uh you know probably about a month and a half ago and Preparing for this tournament like we have been the last two weeks and really getting our lineups together Really trying to focus on the game and and focus on that level that we did You know the weeks before Jacksonville is really something, you know bringing those same recurrent thoughts into my mind So it's something I think is best for me and for my family is to go ahead and sit out the mcs this year You know because I mean I wish everything went better, but it's really had a drastic effect on Madden and really has a Had an effect on my family obviously so this is something that I'm not going to play in mcs this year And it's tough because this is the biggest The biggest tournament of the year right now, you know and Essentially if I'm not gonna play in this one, I'm probably not gonna play in anyone so I said I want to still I still want to be as big a part of community as I can I still want to continue to grow this because this is like I said I put all my energy into this to grow my brand and continue to have a career in Madden And I really want that and I really want that you know for the rest of my life And You know I want to continue to do that continue to do the things because I feel perfectly safe I feel fine when I'm playing weekend league when I'm making videos from the comfort of my home You know, it's just the thought of having to play another tournament game around live people is something that I really don't want to go through again not ready to go through it again And so I'm going to go ahead and sit out for the rest of the year And my biggest fear in this decision in the last couple weeks in the last couple days is that I don't want to lose any of the support that I've gotten from you guys You know, it's something that I feared immensely because if I you know, if I don't play in a tournament Or if I don't go, you know, if I'm not on the top tier competition that it's not the same It doesn't have the same validity to it as it did before and it won't have the same impact So that's something that I really was worried about and really tried to push through to playing these tournaments Because I felt like that's really What's important to my stream and the value of it is that I am one of the best players in man And I do feel like regardless what I'm playing and I'm one of the best players in man So I just the tournaments kind of validate that and That's essentially my biggest fear in that, you know what I mean because It's uh, definitely It's been the most fun for me is to play in these tournaments and really represent myself and With the Eagles having a club series event. That's something that really Messed me up a little bit But I honestly I had to do what's best for me and what keeps me and you know Who keeps my mind off of what happened because it all affected us differently And it all I mean we all got to deal with it differently And this is what I'm going to choose to do kind of remove some of that stress and remove some of them thoughts From my mind to the best of my ability I hope and pray that you guys still continue to you know to come by the stream to support because This is something that I did use all my money all my energy For the last year and a half to build. This is not something that's on a whim This is not something that isn't what I want to do. This is truly You know my passion in life and truly something I want to continue to do so if If I still got the support from you guys I'll continue to do this and hopefully by the time next year rolls around Or even by the time uh draft champions rolls around is something I I can put aside and go ahead and compete But right now as far as the mcs and the club series is just something that's really not and Not in my best interest to competing So that's where that is


...Penguin, which was a solar-powered plane that they flew using the same model, the entire airplane in 1980 weighed 68 pounds. Not including the pilot. And, you know, like I said, I want to have, and that's one reason I work in Ruby because I can do this, is I want to have an engineering philosophy that allows me to iterate fast enough that I can create the equivalent in software of a 68-pound solar-powered airplane, a mere, you know, five years after I've started working on human-powered flight for the first time. And one of the ways we do that is with our own champagne. And that's pretty much all I have to say. The marketing department said, if you type in this magic code, LA Ruby Conference, you can get a free month of the thing. And besides that, that's the end of my address.