Hello, this is Gerrit Leonhardt. Welcome to another edition of Meeting of the Minds. Today I have with me from Sydney, Australia, Ross Dawson, futurist, author, strategist and a good friend. Volume, variety and velocity. This is the thing that's happening now with data, is that data is exploding from what it used to be with the information that people have available at the fingertips and mobile devices. Now all of a sudden this volume is exponentially growing. Now we're at the takeoff point from 4 to 8, not from 4 to 5. So in a few years it means basically common global data pool is going to be absolutely humongous. Financial information, personal information, health information, traffic information, sensor networks, all these things. So data is truly the new oil now, switching from the energy economy to the data economy. That's driving lots of businesses and lots of companies are looking at this and saying how can this actually change what we do and how will it change what we do? Education, banking, research, media, essentially being data driven. Big data is making big differences between how effective organizations and individuals are. So Eric Brignolfsson of MIT says that he did a study which shows that those organizations that do what he called data driven decision making have 5 to 6% higher productivity than those organizations that don't. So there's a big divide now between those organizations that are able to capture and to analyze and to find the insights and make better decisions from data compared with those organizations that don't. As individuals, this idea of the quantified self, we can learn far more than ever before about what we are eating and when we are eating and what exercise we do and how we are sitting and what media we are receiving and how we are sleeping, all of which enables us to make better decisions, to act better so that we can be healthier. And that data can not just help individuals and organizations to be more effective and make better decisions. They can actually help them to know more about themselves. I think we are finding that computer systems actually often know more about individuals than they know about themselves about their preferences and what they like. So the potential of this is extraordinarily valuable. So clearly we also need to take into mind the implications for privacy. Big data potential has been clarified I think by McKinsey to be the neighborhood of 4 to 8 trillion dollars economy a year by 2025. I think one of the real issues with the collection and the use of data of course is the fact that it turns a lot of things into algorithms. So we can be quantified how valuable we are to our employer. We can be quantified how valuable we are to society whether we should receive money to do XYZ, how valuable our art is and so on and so on. So it makes things quantifiable, which in turn makes us quantifiable. So one of the issues of big data is how do we stay human on top of this pool of data that gives lots of objective, supposedly objective information.  So for me big data has a lot of upside but it also really needs some sort of way of humifying you could say making it human so that we can actually get a result from it that fits us rather than us fitting the result. One of the massive domains of explosion of data is social data and we tell not very long ago we had almost no data about what people felt about each other, how they interacted, how they communicated, the value they placed on each other. So the social media as we're experiencing and the way it's growing is giving us extraordinary amounts of information about amongst other things how reputable a person is, how good are they, what they do, are they somebody you'd want to go out on a date with, are they somebody you would trust to do business with. And we're still at the beginning of really what's this big explosion. Part of that is going to give us the beginnings of this true reputation economy, one where we are aggregating extraordinary amounts of data that we never had before. How much people look at the eye when they meet is part of that data set. So the challenge is that this reputation data will always be flawed. We'll never be right, people place a lot of trust in it and it will be valuable. We do have to be cautious about where these numbers lead us. There's one really big issue about data and this issue is the big data, big brother issue. Clearly because as humans we tend to value hard information and numbers and knowledge and science as being the truth and parenthesis. Well we don't trust so much the other part which is intuition or feelings or philosophy or whatever. So the problem with big data is that it amplifies this left brain thinking that now that we have the data we can clearly say that this is the best fit to be my future wife based on DNA and all these things. And of course when you think this too it's quite ridiculous in that we're leaving out, we're using this data but we're not using the sentiment, the actual thing in between the data. And this is one of the big issues about data driven economies is that it puts us all into little boxes and then we have to perform according to the box. And I think this is one of the major challenges going forward is to use that data but there are lots of factors that will make it, you have to amplify it in a human way. Otherwise we have to actually perform according to the data. But the question is why and how do we need this? For example there's an app that allows me to monitor if my baby's diaper is wet. So the diaper has a chip in it. The chip says I am wet, send a message to my iPhone that baby has a wet diaper. And after you worry about this basically saying that doesn't a mother know when it's time to change the diaper anyhow or are they miles away doing something else? I mean this is kind of a bizarre thing when we start needing those things it's like we're going to create a little bubble to do something that we could do just as well without the bubble just for the purpose of creating a business. I think sometimes we can say these are things that we can do perfectly well ourselves which we will get computers to do. I mean the use of calculator. We are very poor at mental arithmetic now because calculators can do that. So we can outsource some of the tasks we've done before. Others we can actually get better. For example now we have rain alerts. We can know when the rain is coming. We don't have to keep on looking out the window to see where the clouds are coming. We can say alright the rain is coming I need to take in the laundry. If we have the information to be able to run our lives better there clearly is a risk we can start becoming too dependent on that. Well the question is where do you draw the line? For me personally of course I'm 52, I'm not 15 but I'm worried about people drawing the line pretty much nowhere so that whatever comes along we'll do. So right now we can get an implant to hear better or to see better of course a cataract or whatever and people can do that but very soon I can get a Wikipedia implant and I'm advantaged writing my speaking to an audience because I have a Wikipedia implant and you don't. So you're not as good as I am in parentheses because you don't and that eventually leads to the matrix or leads to real science fiction scenarios to where I'm worthless because I'm not beefed up. And that has a lot to do I think with this question of ethics and of course the question of the technology imperative because basically what we're seeing right now and I'll be wondering what you think about this is that we're creating a very large matrix of services and platforms that are all benefitting from this and generating new businesses from this, the data economy. So does it actually have use for us or does it actually mostly have use for those that are providing it to us? I think one of the big factors in the future of humanity is that divergence between those who choose to augment themselves with technology and connect and be meshed in the matrix and those who choose not. And it's a perfectly valid choice to say okay I don't want to be connected all the time I don't want to plug my brain into different things yet clearly those people that choose to take that path supposedly the old human path have an massive disadvantage to those people that choose to take that other path. There are choices to be made and I think that the reality is those who take the choices are moving away from the potential of technology to augment themselves are simply going to certainly be massively economically disadvantaged so it's possible to live a virtual life. This is the Amish thing, right? Are they disadvantaged because they don't use cars? I think they are, they don't think they are but they're certainly not the mainstream. And the problem is I think this is a really matrix problem I'm going to be on the grid or off the grid and I can't be on LinkedIn for example and receive your ping about a deal at the same time where I don't fill out my profile I don't put anything in, you won't ping me. So me not being as open is a disadvantage and then sooner or later me not being connected or having the Wikipedia implant is a disadvantage and sooner or later not having an electronic arm that can lift a car is a disadvantage and so who gets to do all these things? It creates also massive inequality because if I have lots of money I can beef myself up. So two divergences, one is the choice. So there are some people who make the choice. I do want to take every advantage of every technology possible or saying no that's too much I want to get off I just want to remain as I was born. The other one is in terms of wealth. There are so many possibilities that are coming only to those who have sufficient wealth. One of the most pointed of those examples is longevity. So I think there is a lot of promising techniques and technologies to be able to extend our lives. Almost certainly they will be very, very expensive. Insurance companies certainly won't want to pay for them. So big data is a very real phenomenon as I say. Data is the new oil. If this actually happens and we have by 2025 we have a five to seven trillion dollar data economy as McKinsey has projected. How do we get from here to there? What do you think companies need to do today so that they can actually use this concept of the data economy? A few basic stages for companies. One is identifying not just what data is the ones they currently can get but also what they could get. What's the data which could be valuable? You're able to make sure that that is all tagged at source to be able to filter that. One of the really critical things is getting the data analysis effectively and I think more and more that's going to go to crowdsourcing. Not every company can get the pool of data scientists internally so being able to get the mechanisms where you can crowdsource the analysis of that data. But the biggest single challenge I think and what organizations need to develop as a capability is how do you get from the insights from big data to better decisions and better actions and that's a very human and cultural aspect. I think there's a few organizations that are good even that are good at data analysis to really taking that to better decisions. I think just to add on to this I think the idea of what's happening with data being like oil when I take it out and I mine it and I slice and dice it that's the intelligence but I still can't drive it and if I don't have a license I don't get to use the gas so to me what companies need to do is to create a sense-making mechanism from this data because most of the data mining and the slicing and dicing will be done by software agents and machines and robots like IBM Watson and so on and they're far superior on the speed of this but the sense-making and taking all the data and saying don't pay attention to this, pay attention to that and this is a distinctly intuitive imaginary basically a composition process you could say in my view and this is going to be our work as humans in the future we're not going to do that digging stuff anymore I think for a lot of jobs that means that they're going to merge over into the creative part into the sense-making and most companies will actually not sell the software the software will be free essentially they will sell the sense-making around it I think this is part of this whole domain of the shift of where is the human value and the human are good at either making decisions or checking decisions and so the computers can be good at the analysis but flowing through the human part so it's in a way this issue of how do you bring the humans and the qualities of the humans the creativity and imagination of the decisions together with that data I think there's a key trend here in saying that we can observe essentially that computers were never good enough to do this now they are and they're getting to be good enough we can talk to them, they can translate us they can measure our electronic streams they can prick our blood and do all these things so now they're getting good enough now we should let them do all that manual stuff and all that crunching stuff and we have to evolve to the next level letting go of the crunching stuff and focus on what we do when it's already crunched so rather than being the ones digging out the oil or refining it, we should be the one driving the car deciding where to go and this is a whole different cup of tea don't understand that they have to get out of this business of mining because basically software will take that over completely and hopefully what this brings us to is where there's more power to the people exactly so this concludes today's episode of Meeting of the Minds thanks very much to Ross Dawson for being part of this today if you want to know more about the show you can go to meetingoftheminds.tv we're also taking questions and inputs for the next show just use the twitter hashtag meetingoftheminds and we'll be responding and trying to work your comments into our next show thanks very much for joining us


I was debating on doing a video about the James Charles sisters tour because I have a lot of opinions about this and I'm going to do my best. I'm going to do my best. My promise to you is I'm going to do my best to have a balanced opinion on it. But for the most part, I think all of it is a little bit ridiculous. What is up everybody? This is Chris from the Rewired Soul where we talk about the problem but focus on the solution. If you're new to my channel, I am absolutely fascinated with YouTube culture and just humanity as a whole. And I like to look at it, analyze it and just talk about my opinions on it. So if you're new to that stuff, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. So, James Charles, who James Charles been in the news.  So any of you who don't know what's going on, James Charles had a very exciting announcement, something that he's been working on for two years he says and everybody's like, oh my god, what is this, right? And he is finally going on a tour. This is not something new. Many YouTubers have gone on tours. Many YouTubers have done meet and greets. I think one of my favorites. One of my favorite videos is the Drew Gooden video where he actually went to the Jake Paul tour. All right? And, oh god, please bear with me. This is just my opinion. I don't want to step on their new toes, okay? But just, I don't know, like YouTuber tours, I look at them like, oh man. Like here in Las Vegas, Rhett and Link from Good Mythical Morning. Not sure if they already came or they're coming, but they're coming to a casino near me. And my girlfriend and I, we drive past that sign all the time and I'm just like, what are they going to do? What are they going to do, right? And anyways, like first, first I want to jump into this before I get myself into trouble with my unpopular opinions. But anyways, there's the pricing, okay? There's the pricing for this thing. And there's different tiers and James Charles just put this up on Twitter because, you know, he had some backlash about the pricing and everything.  But here's what I just hope everybody understands. And first, I will say this. James Charles do love to make money. That dude loves making money. He loves money so much, but I ain't going to hate on him.  Like he, there's him, there's Jeffree Star and everything. Like good for you. Like I encourage people to be entrepreneurial. I like my biggest dream in life for a long time has just been able to work for myself. And because of all of you lovely people who support the channel and watch my videos or on Patreon or whatever, or sometimes you're like, you know, you've got some of the books that I've written and everything. Like I appreciate you. You've helped me make my dream come true. So I'm not going to knock that, but dude loves money. Okay. And, and like, here's the thing. When it comes to the pricing, because like people like, okay, general admission isn't too bad. Then there's like a few different VIPs, right? And then there's the most highest one, which we'll get to in a second. But in the Twitter post you just made, you talked about how 85% of the tickets are going to be general admission. All right. Cool. So this is very limited. It's very, very limited. Okay. But here's, here's the thing. This, am I the only one? Am I the only one who remembers what happened when James Charles did a free appearance and looked a little something like this inside? But there was like a major traffic jam in the city. And I think Philip DeFranco discussed this very, very well, like just in the idea of, you know, supply and demand. Philip DeFranco, he is a businessman as well. So I get it. And like I don't think, I don't think enough people look at it from the business aspect of it. Like, if, if he made, if he made it like the highest level of VIP, if he made that too affordable, like it would get sold out like that. And then people would probably complain about the amount of tickets that were available because now they can actually afford it. So in that idea, like they have to kind of raise the price to limit the number.  Like this was on the news over in England. You know what I mean? But here's, here's the thing too. Like I, I've seen the argument a lot that James Charles has a younger audience and all these other things and everything like that. And like, I don't know. I am of the belief and I'm a parent. I'm a parent of a 10 year old son. Like so many things fall on the parent. And that's my opinion. Too many people blame other people. Like, oh my God, James Charles, you know you have a young audience. Now your young audience is gonna bug their parents. Like my son would literally ask me once and that'd be it. Because the second time I would get a little bit more stern with him. Like I just, I'm not of this belief of like, listen, you need to do everything to make parents have easier conversations with their children. Like I just, I really feel that I, that idea is ridiculous. I personally feel that we live in a world where we try to justify the lack of accountability for as many ways as possible. And I am not a fan of that. Like I am somebody who comes, you know, from a background of addiction recovery where I had to realize like all of my addiction problems, they were my fault. Despite my childhood and everything like that, I'm not gonna dive too far deep into that in this video. But part of my recovery is learning to have like personal accountability. You know what I mean? I can't control all the things that my kids gonna see or watch or want or whatever, but I control how I have that conversation with them. Now the other argument that's come up is that other YouTubers have done things like cheaper. And I get that, but at the end of the day, you know, the dude can set whatever prices he wants. And if people aren't showing up, the price is too high. But he did mention that he has a whole team that he has to pay and everything like that. But like here's the thing, like nobody is forcing you to go. Like you don't have to go. Kids don't have to go. Nobody has to go. I don't have to go. Now the second half of this video is something that might be a little bit unpopular. And here's the thing. I've mentioned this in a video just the other day. I think the one I did about Drew Gooden.  You do you. But like I believe that should be something that's a little bit more fulfilling, a little bit more long lasting. And I just am not a fan of the idea of paying a massive amount of money to see a YouTuber. Like it just, it doesn't click for me. Like I remember being a kid. Some of you saw my Buffy the Vampire Slayer video about that embarrassing story when I was a kid. And I get that, but like, I really feel that we live in this world where we idolize certain people way too much. Like way too much. And that's just my opinion. All right, you may not agree with it, but I can't, I cannot think off the top of my head, one person on planet earth who I would be willing to pay $500 to see or meet. You know what I mean? Like I, the most nervous I ever got, I don't get nervous meeting just about anybody. The most nervous I got was when I got to ask Gary Vaynerchuk, a question that did summit last year. That was the most nervous I got, but like he provides me with a lot of value, a lot of motivation and things that are like kind of long lasting. And I guess people could argue that for James Charles. Like maybe James Charles has impacted their life in a positive way and everything like that. But still, still like $500, like yo, dude makes videos. Like the dude makes videos, you can watch those, you can play those. Like, and again, I'm not hating. Like I love going to concerts. I absolutely love going to concerts. I've been going since I was a teenager. I'm gonna go see Taking Back Sunday this next month. I love seeing bands live, but I have a certain personal cap on the amount I will pay for a concert ticket. Like there is a certain amount that I am going to pay. And same thing with it when it goes to like comedians or other shows and things like that. I'm just like, and maybe, maybe I'm just a cheap, cheap dude. Maybe that's part of it. But like, again, I think this all circles back to like our value systems, what we value in this life and how we idolize people. And it's like, and it's like for what? And I'm not saying James Charles is a bad person. Like that's not what I'm saying. Like I don't really have an opinion on him or his character. Right? But he's just a dude, just a guy, right? Like it's not like this is a guy who like cured cancer or like saved like starving children or like saved animals from a burning building or anything like that.   And again, I just kinda disagree with the argument that, oh my God, now these kids are gonna bug their parents. Like you guys, whether or not James Charles goes on tour with high prices or not, kids are gonna bug their parents. And that's just the brutal honesty. My kid bugs me for V-Bugs on the daily in Fortnite. And it's up to me to say, no. All right, so I don't think putting the responsibility on James Charles to like manage people's children is like a really good expectation. All right, but anyways, anyways, I just, I had to talk about this. I wanna talk about this. It's been all over, you know, the news and YouTube lately, so thought I'd talk about it. Let me know your thoughts about this subject down below. I would love to hear your thoughts. And what do you think about idolizing like YouTubers and just people in general and holding them, you know, in this godly status where it's worth hundreds of dollars to just meet them for however long it is, right? Let me know down in the comments below. Anyways, that's all I got for this video. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up. If you're new, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell because I make a ton of videos. And a huge, huge thank you to everybody supporting the channel over on Patreon. You are all amazing. Again, you help me live out my dream of being my own boss and just kinda doing my thing. All right, so thank you again so much and I will see you next time.


All right, this topic they gave me. This is a fun one because I could do anything with it. Libertarian culture wars is the topic. And that may sound like I'm going to spend all my time talking about internecine culture wars among libertarians. And since I hate to disappoint people, I will say a little bit about that. But then I have a lot more to say about other things because we're engaged in culture wars not just among ourselves but in relation to the regime under which we live and I'll have a lot to say about that as well. But I guess I do need to start with a little bit of this, but only a little bit because I do on an almost daily basis write an email newsletter and a lot of times when I just can't think of anything to write about, I think, what is the latest innanity going on in the libertarian world that needs to be corrected, right? People join the Republican Party, they don't stop, they don't say, I can't criticize the chairman of the Republican Party, you join any group, you want that group to prosper. And sometimes the correction of errors is necessary for that group to prosper. So what I recommend you do is on your smartphone, believe it or not, if you text the word snowflake to the number 33444, you will get my book called Sane Space, see it's a play on safe space, right, except this is for libertarians. But my book Sane Space is an example of me kind of going after some people who need correction, that's all. We all need correction from time to time, nothing wrong with that. So text the word snowflake to 33444 and you'll get that. So anyway, I'm going to say only a little bit about this here. What we believe in and as when we talk about our view of society, I mean abstracting from Austrian economics, but just thinking about our social philosophy, how society ought to function, the core bedrock of that is private property. And that helps keep our version of libertarianism grounded in something specific and concrete. And it is upon private property that the other features of civilization are based. So the international division of labor, for instance, economic calculation and human cooperation itself, all these things have their foundation in private property. And private property helps us resolve a lot of disputed questions. Who is the owner of the property? So for example, the old saw about shouting fire in a crowded theater, well that's supposed to be an exception to the freedom of speech.  And the person interrogating you in this way thinks, I got him.  Doesn't that go to show that we can have wise regulation of the freedom of speech? If it's dangerous for you to be speaking against our troops during wartime, well that's just like shouting fire in a crowded theater after all, isn't it? You wouldn't support that? All right. But you know what the answer to the old fire in a crowded theater question is? Private property. See how it resolves everything? Whose theater is it? The theater belongs to some guy. That some guy probably has some terms on which you are permitted to use his theater.  And you see that resolves it. It's his property, his rule. Now there could be, maybe Walter Block would conceive of some crazy lunatic person theater where the object is to scare everybody for no reason and shout, and it's a positive virtue to shout fire in that theater. Maybe that would be up to that theater owner. Again, resolved, problem solved. Well I happen to hear, I don't want to mention names, none of the names matter, okay, none of the names matter. But I heard somebody not too long ago say libertarians should not emphasize too much their opposition to anti-discrimination law because this will undermine our pro-LGBT position. See this, here's the problem, again. Instead of just conceiving things as matters of property, these people are thinking in terms of identity politics and that society is made up of a series of warring groups and we have to show that we also pander to each of these groups. That has nothing to do with what libertarianism is. At root it's private property and everything that follows from that. Whatever you want to do, you got your private property, you go ahead and do it and that resolves it. Now private property, when you believe in it strictly and absolutely, it can take you down some very radical roads. For example, if you believe strictly in private property that means that some explorer from heaven knows where cannot show up on some continent, plant a flag in the ground and say I hereby claim all the land as far as the eye can see for good king so and so. You can't do that. That's not how you acquire land. So that makes us seem like we must be on the left but then on the other hand we say private property also means no transaction occurs unless both parties consent to it because that's how civilized people interact with each other. They don't use other people as means to their ends. We view each other as ends in ourselves and so that makes us seem very right wing and I just say just another day in the life of a libertarian. I have this one I'd like to read to you before I leave this section of my remarks. This is a tweet so you know this is going to be top notch, this right here. This was from my Twitter feed from somebody calling himself a libertarian and he says this is a person, again I don't want to mention his name, I believe he's mentally ill. He has a habit of calling other libertarians Nazis because that's a plausible thing to say right doesn't sound like something somebody mentally ill would say. He says he's speaking about my podcast which I have the Tom Wood Show and he says I was told you don't have people on your show who call you a Nazi. See I have these crazy requirements for the show. He says let's make a deal. I retract the word Nazi that's very generous by the way. I'm the exact opposite and he's going to retract that very good and then so that's what he does for me that's the big faith this guy with 12 followers is going to do that and then what do I do in return I give him access to my entire platform of many many many thousands of people. He says I'll retract the word Nazi and you have me on to learn about why watchdogging right wing populism is so important for gender and sexual minority liberation. And I said you know what I'm going to say no to that I see no upside to this whatsoever. So that to me that I could spend my time just talking to you about that but what would really what would the point be right I don't I don't think most libertarians are going down that particular road. I think the more important culture wars that we find ourselves engaged in are not not with the oddball crazy people but I suppose a different brand of oddball crazy people namely the regime under which we live and the culture of this regime was laid bare to us under with the passing of John McCain. Now I'm not here to say terrible things about John McCain but what I do want to do is observe what we can learn about the regime we live under based on what happened in the wake of his death. Here's what we read from probably future Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez she said and she's a social she's a democratic socialist this is what she tweeted out John McCain's legacy represents an unparalleled example of human decency and American service. As an intern I learned a lot about the power of humanity in government through his deep friendship with Senator Kennedy. He meant so much to so many my prayers are with his family now you may say to me woods she had to say something she has to acknowledge his passing no doubt but did she absolutely have to say John McCain represents an unparalleled example of human decency is that what happens automatically to you when you pass from this veil of tears. So I wonder about this here we have a democratic socialist and yet she automatically knows exactly what the rituals of the regime are that when one of its favorite sons passes this is how you speak now even if you thought McCain's war service was something to honor then at least just go ahead and say that but this language is bizarre and cultish not normal this is not the way normal people think and so I thought this was an opportunity to reflect on the regime and the media culture in which we live she's learned that the regime showers with preposterous honors those people who served the interests of the empire and so no matter what enormity is a normal moral reckoning would condemn someone for he is to be canonized and anyone like her who has ambitions within the regime had better join in the hazzas I frankly am astonished that Trump somehow managed to refuse to be steamrolled into these creepy canonization rituals I didn't think even he could resist and there there was a CNN reporter standing there in the Oval Office barking at him Mr. President are you going to say anything about John McCain Mr. President Mr. President can you hear me Mr. President you just ignored him this is bizarre I can't believe somebody resists the regime and this guy runs the regime one person now I know we're supposed to respond he's supposed to respond with platitudes he's supposed to say I deeply respect John McCain's life of public service and his commitment to human rights around the world but you know what I don't I don't I don't respect any of these people or their BS public service or their laughable so-called commitment to human rights I don't believe a word of it now I don't like to see anyone suffer and I don't rejoice in that but I'm not going to say some something that I would have to have a lobotomy to believe and yet we're taught to believe that what has happened now is that we've lost a maverick the media all got the memo you are to refer to this man to everyone as a maverick and so they did everywhere all the news magazines on the cover maverick maverick maverick and I know I I honor Ron Paul a lot and you know maybe that's one of my big faults you know how you go to a job interview and they say what is your biggest fault and you always give some ridiculous response I work too hard you know you give like some fake compliment to yourself so I because I don't think it actually is a negative thing to say nice things about Ron Paul but think about a real maverick and then think about Ron Paul they're the same thing aren't they here's somebody who stood up to the entire establishment not just its left-wing version and the all of its beloved institutions here's a man who cast the sole no vote in the house more than any other congressman and in fact more than all other congressman combined that's a maverick he opposed the Federal Reserve when nobody else so much as mentioned it much less criticized it he stood up to the Empire the whole rotten system not just one particular intervention somewhere and he even got it through the thick heads of some conservatives that the bipartisan foreign policy consensus represented the very opposite of conservatism so will our gatekeepers of approved opinion have such kind words for Ron Paul the question answers itself for these people a genuine maverick is like a crucifix in front of Dracula the very last thing the regime and its media want is a maverick a true dissident who asks the questions we are supposed to keep to ourselves McCain loved the regime and the Empire at no time did he adopt a position that the New York Times or the Washington Post would consider a fundamental attack on the state and that's why they loved him he played by their rules they were thrilled to call him a conservative all the better to police opinion in America why if you're conservative why we have this John McCain fellow for you McCain's legacy lives on in every politician and journalist who jumps on every propaganda report to justify another round of bombing and intervention it lives on in every politician who after 15 years after another idiotic intervention has occurred finally admits it was a mistake never apologizing to the people he smeared at the time who tried telling him as it was a mistake and who predicted every obvious consequence at any damn fool should have known it lives on in a media that craves bipartisanship but bipartisanship in the service of the state and bipartisanship in which the left gets what it wants and the right gets a nice photo op it lives on in the families who are missing children because of a war that McCain finally admitted had been a hideous mistake and a ludicrous expenditure of scarce resources McCain was a man of the state in every fiber of his being and that is why they cheer him and that is why we on the other hand have to tell unpopular truths about McCain and about the the empire he served now I say these things because this shows how culturally radically different we are from the entire mainstream they respond one way we think the other when we look at our heroes we think about the things we might say about them and how we might honor them and our heroes are scarcely to be acknowledged at all even though our heroes truly are fearless they weren't going to get a favorable profile in the Washington Post and yet they said they spoke the truth they said things that no one else would say for no reward other than the reward that comes from knowing you've done the right thing how about the culture of the universities we find ourselves in opposition to that because well half the time we find ourselves in uncomfortable positions on universities some of our folks don't get promoted they don't get hired they get harassed they get the terrible office in the corner with no window they get screamed at when they appear on campuses they get called all kinds of crazy names that make no sense and meanwhile the people in the universities doing these things portray themselves as dissenters we are the resistance we are the resistance so these are the people who hold and push for push views that are held by the entire media all of academia all of the entertainment and cultural world the intelligence agencies and the deep state this is hardly Guinness Book of World Records level courage going on before our eyes you want to see real resistance how about standing up against ideas that are relentlessly pushed by the media the political classes academia and the culture etc now that's resistance and as we've been seeing all it takes is one high-profile figure saying no and the foundation begins to totter now Ron Paul was that example in politics he stood there and refused to apologize when he was told by Rudy Giuliani why you can't say such a thing I hope he'll apologize not only did he not apologize he doubled down on what he said nobody does that in our society we all know that you stray from the 3x5 card of allowable opinion you get called on it instantly and you are expected to go get the official 2018 version of the liturgical book of apology where you stand and say I deeply regret what I said and how insensitive and hurtful it was I deeply regret the pain I cut and you say it and then they come back with it was very good of you to say that and then it's a back and forth is liturgical act and we all know we're all expected anybody goes off that 3x5 credit we immediately expect the apology for having been truthful we know that's gonna come forward it's an apology for being truthful and he wouldn't do he would not apologize for being truthful and if you asked him unfashionable questions you ask him questions that any focus group would have told him stay away from change the subject run away he just give you the answer no I'm gonna tell you that I don't believe in this this or this even though by telling you this I'm causing myself all kinds of avoidable grief I could have avoided if I just ran away from the question like everybody else does but I refuse to do that now I'm gonna get back to him again in a moment but within the university context we've seen that one man who simply says no I am not going along with the leftist cause of the day and I won't be steamrolled into doing it and that's of course Jordan Peterson now Jordan Peterson is saying things that two generations ago we're just common sense that everybody knew and today we've got left libertarians who are appalled by Jordan Peterson and how right wing he is he's just saying be a decent person try to get your life in order do sensible common sense things and this is incredibly right wing and yeah okay it just goes goes to show our completely out to lunch the left libertarians are this is a professor he teaches psychology at the University of Toronto after having taught at Harvard he is the most unlikely hero you can imagine and he just refute now he's became well known because of the whole transgender pronoun issue but obviously that issue went well beyond the surface matter of mere pronouns but on Canadian television Peterson said I'm not doing this if they find me I won't pay it if they put me in jail I'll go on a hunger strike I'm not doing this he said those four magic words I'm not doing this and suddenly people realized wait a minute there's one person who standing up and saying nope I'm not going along and I'm not apologizing because I unlike you people have nothing to apologize for and everybody rallied to him now if the left had any sense they'd stop attacking him because every time they attack him he just earns more money in fact he used these very words on Joe Rogan's podcast I have figured out how to monetize the social justice warriors he used those exact words but they can't they can't help himself even though they're just fueling the fire they say they want to extinguish they keep throwing gas on it they don't know what else to do well people who admired him just for bucking PC pressure started watching everything of his they could find and we see countless young men crediting him for helping him find meaning in their lives and getting their lives in order so again it takes only one articulate dissident to spark a true liberation movement and Peterson has been very much that now I just saw footage it was from earlier this year but I only just saw it from a Peterson event in Ontario Canada at Queens University earlier this year and the usual antics went on because I mean you know that the university system is all about the free exchange of ideas where we politely address each other and see where that takes us well you'll you'll be surprised to learn that there were students yelling there holding signs on stage one of them was opposed to bigotry now that's a really bold statement I'm against bigotry what now I think one of these days they're gonna really come out boldly and say they're also against cancer they really can summon all their strength and courage so the protesters were finally removed physically removed and as one shouting protester was escorted out Peterson told the audience matter of factly that's pure narcissism at work by the way and the crowd roared and the beauty was no one could distinctly make out what the protesters were saying because they didn't have the mic the only thing they could distinctly here was Peterson saying that's pure narcissism at work by the way and everyone cheered and the protesters were helpless they were being mocked and there was nothing they could do and Peterson went on to say to hijack an event like this and he said this in an even tone not even as animated as I am now to hijack an event like this that other people put time and effort into and to use the civility of the crowd and the civility of the organizers as an excuse to blatantly yell out your ill-informed opinions is no way to conduct a civil dialogue it's absolutely appalling the people who do that should be embarrassed of course they have no capacity for embarrassment these people but the audience cheered again a little later the savages outside that's my editorial comment started pounding on the doors and windows and they began chanting lock them in and burn it down another woman who broke a stained glass window was found to be carrying a garret which is used to strangle people these people are not your friends Peterson said to the crowd huge cheer and then the pounding continues and he said that and mark my words that's the sound of the barbarians pounding at the gates so again he's smashing them left and right there's nothing they can do all they have is and he's articulately smashing beautiful and he says that use of inchoate sensation is the best formulation of their argument and there's not much difference between knocking on the doors and knocking on you now during the entire episode he remained cool and collected speaking in an even tone and defying the character of him that they were trying to paint that he was the winner of that exchange in every way every person who came to see him is now twice as strong as supporter and he provoked the SJW crowd into revealing its hand even a mild mannered professor can't be allowed to speak without incident and without intimidation what normal person is going to side with an angry mob pounding on the building from outside so again with Ron Paul and with Jordan Peterson and as I'll note later the Mises Institute what do you have people who are fearless who do not care what people who are going to hate their guts no matter what they do say about them they just carry on promoting the truth they're not bootlickers they're not looking for the approval of those in power they just speak the truth and look what happens Ron Paul spoke the truth millions of people rallied to him Jordan's Peterson spoke the truth he now earns over a million dollars a year in donations by people who know he's making a million dollars a year who maybe earn one tenth one hundredth of that and they send it to him because they just want him to have it thank you for doing this thank you for doing this now let me say a little something about another let's say another cultural war we have and that's against one of the regime's alleged values the regime says it believes in equality ha ha if it believed in equality then it wouldn't say that it lives by a separate set of moral rules in the rest of us but it loves ideas like equality because they can never be attained and therefore the state can get its tentacles into everything forever because it can never be attained even if you could reach absolute material equality that equilibrium is uprooted the very next moment as soon as people once again begin to enter into voluntary exchanges that rearrange resources that was Robert Nozick's point so you have this unattainable goal that's why the state loves it that's why the great Emmy Bradford who was a conservative rather than a libertarian but but a man with very great insight that's why he warned about this concept I mean of course there you can think of a way in which concept of equality could be used sensibly like equality before the law but it's almost never used that way and once you begin using it there's no way to bottle it it begins to be perverted for all kinds of bizarre causes now when I pointed this out on my email list I got a I got a criticism oh woods you're exaggerating people who talk about equality we don't believe in absolute equality well then why are you using the word what do you mean by equality less inequality than we have now what kind of non-rigorous inane idea is this you see you don't believe in absolute then what do you believe then don't if you just want to help the poor then just say that what does equality have to do with it if you don't believe in absolute equality and there are philosophers who call for absolute equality I'm not making that up Larry Temkin calls for absolute equality Michael Atzuka calls for absolute equality there are such people or my friend Jared Casey has this wonderful history political thought and in there you find reference to the philosopher she's still with us Cecile Fabre and she has a series of papers and books one of them is called justice fairness and world ownership okay not quite sure what that means but okay then a book called whose body is it anyway justice and the integrity of the person all right well that's starting to sound a little bit ominous and then her paper justice and the compulsory taking of live body parts because after all after all if it's true if equality is the mission then what we very often see is the sort of argument that runs like this you're not entitled to the things you have you're not entitled to your attributes you're not entitled to luck that you may have had these things ought to be redistributed you don't have no you have no moral dessert here these things just came to you and you may say but I worked really hard for them and they'll come back with you don't deserve your work ethic either you know that's just something that you are just lucky to have and so this idea of we have to make everything equal means that well you even get to John Rawls who could barely bring himself to admit that yeah okay I we can keep the family I guess we don't really need to abolish the family even though the family is also a source of inequality oh I'm really relieved at that ringing defense of the family so there are no institutions that can't be destroyed perverted in one way or another in the name of implementing so-called equality and they say you may say but woods I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of results that's what a republican politician will say that's what I believe in okay then what they'll say to you is if we're going to give people equality of opportunity we have to redistribute wealth how do you expect a poor child to have equality of opportunity so try as you might to put a lid on it equality takes on a life of its own it was used to justify busing kids 90 minutes each way in order to achieve racial balance in schools what was the result the schools became war zones the students hated each other the local patriotisms built around local school systems atrophied and eventually even the NAACP declared this to be a stupid and destructive policy that should be immediately discontinued now if you didn't predict that that was precisely what was going to happen you're probably not entitled to an opinion on any of these issues equality has been cited as the reason for throwing out standardized tests it looks like the LSAT may be next or dumbing down civil service exams to the point where everyone scores a hundred so they can no longer claim that the tests are discriminatory the only sense in which equality can be useful is this everyone is equally forbidden to initiate physical force against anyone else there it is that's the usefulness of the term now finally let me say a word about how to carry on these wars where we find ourselves up against everything and everybody which by the way I positively relish and thoroughly enjoy and by the way I don't say that in the sense that I want to be gratuitously belligerent and unreasonable and not persuasive I want to talk to every audience I have in a language they can get so that they come on board with me I went on an evangelical Christian radio show in 2012 to defend Ron Paul against a you know what was a very unsympathetic audience and I think by the end I had made some pretty good inroads there so I can do this but I'm not going to back down even if you ask me a tough question I'm going to give you the honest answer I don't see what the benefit of not doing that is well I want to make reference once again to the example of Ron Paul because of what he teaches us in this respect how he carried on in those presidential campaigns is highly instructive there's a fellow out on the west coast you've never heard of named John Arden and he was watching in 2007 when that whole exchange with Rudy Giuliani over foreign policy took place and he said this Ron Paul without a friend in the world nothing but hostility aimed at him from all directions stood his ground and did not back down just reiterated his points even stronger I was blown away I felt at that moment that the world changed forever that here had been this massive shift in reality and what could happen and of course it wasn't the last such moment I mean he goes to Florida of all places and says we ought to open up trade with Cuba he goes to South Carolina and says we ought to end the drug war at a speech before an Arab-American association when they asked him do you have a special speech prepared for us well every politician has a special speech for every group he speaks to and Ron Paul said I have the same speech for you that I deliver to everybody who is this man so why did he do these things why didn't he just take the path of least resistance just speak in slogans take no political risks all right well one reason is obvious he's honest he's an honest man but the other reason may not be so obvious and that is he was seeking out what Albert J. Nock called the remnant and once in a while we used to hear Dr. Paul talking about the remnant and what did he mean by that he's referring to a famous essay by Albert J. Nock called Isaiah's job and in that essay Nock borrowed the example of the prophet Isaiah to describe the task of the honest man in public life and now he adopts the Lord's instructions to Isaiah into a modern of adapts them into a modern vernacular let's say so this is what he has God saying to Isaiah tell them what is wrong and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up don't mince matters make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you that it won't do any good the official class in their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen they will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life well then what's the point of doing this ah the Lord said you do not get the point there is a remnant there that you know nothing about they are obscure unorganized inarticulate each one rubbing along as best he can they need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society and meanwhile your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on your job is to take care of the remnant so be off now and set about it and that's what he was doing he's looking for this remnant he's giving them comfort he's making them aware of themselves he's providing them a rallying point if he's sold out for the sake of mainstream respectability he would defeat that purpose entirely that kind of approach repels the remnant but the truth teller who appeals to the remnant will find them now a lot of people probably the majority don't want their worldviews challenged what they want are endless goodies they want checks with their names on them they want to be flattered they want to be told you are the awesomest of the awesome and that's why your government is hated around the world because of your awesomeness now somebody at that level of moral and intellectual development is not going to understand iran paul much less support him and it is frustrating and fruitless to appeal to such people nox says and he says they ask you to give them what they want they insist upon it and will take nothing else and following their whims their irrational changes of fancy their hot and cold fits is a tedious business the remnant on the other hand want only the best you have whatever that may be give them that and they are satisfied you have nothing more to worry about and what's more you will repel the remnant if you offer one of these ritual apologies for straying from the three by five card of allowable opinion you rally them by burning that card because they get a whiff of the smoke and they come running now ron paul had so much fundraising success because the remnant had never been deliberately sought out by a presidential candidate before here was a man of intelligence who defied all political convention taught the public about things they didn't even know they should be concerned with and could boast a record of consistency that impressed even the most hardened cynic that got their attention now knock had things mostly right but i would amend his presentation just a bit he appeared to speak as if the remnant were a fixed number of people they might be sought out but that's it but dr paul has shown that the remnant can be increased not just found and inspired his commitment to the truth even when it seemed to yield him only grief seized the attention of a great many apathetic americans and added them to the ranks of the remnant now knock described the task of finding the remnant as a largely thankless one a job for which one would search in vain for tangible results he said this in any given society the remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity you do not know and never and will never know who the remnant are nor what they are doing or will do two things you do know and know more first that they exist second that they will find you except for these two certainties working for the remnant means working in impenetrable darkness now knock lived before the internet ron paul now knows who the remnant are he has a sense of their numbers he knows some of the things they're doing he knows he's had an impact knock didn't think this was possible in his his day it wasn't but today we live at a moment of opportunity we could scarcely have imagined even a generation ago a revolution in information transmission is underway anyone can express his ideas before the world all of a sudden ideas books and people shunned by the three by five card can get a worldwide hearing one way or another next to this guttenberg looks like a lazy bum ron paul did his job he found and built up the remnant and it's there rather than in the fleeting passage of legislation the genuine long-term change will emerge and this is how the mesas institute has been proceeding seeking out the remnant not caring about what idiots say just ignoring all that is so much flotsam and jetsam seeking out the remnant by being consistent and fearless not clamoring for respectability not inviting the fed chairman to its events that's your strategy good luck but what we with the mesas institute are doing are finding and building up the remnant that's the only strategy that can possibly work we appeal to people who want the truth told to them who don't want political correctness who don't want people who crave mainstream respectability but who will tell them the truth come what may and we are not able to carry out that mission without you folks here in this room and we're deeply grateful for your support if this sounds to you like something appealing like something history making like something that makes good sense then i urge you to continue your support for the mesas institute which i frankly consider to be the most important thing in the world thank you very much


My paper today is about the growing role of digital technologies and information goods across our economy. And what we find is that digitization is really a game changer. You see, digital goods, information goods differ from traditional goods in that once you have produced them, you can reproduce them and copy them and distribute them to a wide market at almost zero cost. And that implies that digitization creates increasing returns and a role for natural monopolies. And if you look at the effects of that across our economy, what you can see is that we have increasing monopolization or oligopolization of the economy, a rise of superstars and increasing importance of rents in the economy, growing inequality, but you also have effects on monetary policy. So what digitization does is it flattens the Phillips curve and that makes it more difficult for central banks to affect the real economy through their policy actions.


Welcome back, let us try this out. Let us say that we now have three temperature levels T1, T2 and T3, all three distinct from each other. That means we have T1, T2 and T3 such that T1 is not equal to T2, T2 is not equal to T3 and again T3 is not equal to T1. When we have inequalities, these three distinct inequalities are necessary. And let us say that T1 and T2 are such that an engine, let me say E12 works between them and produces W12 which is positive. And let us say this is Q1 of engine 12, Q2 of engine 12 and T2 and T3 are such that an engine E23 works between them like this. It absorbs Q1, 23 from the reservoir at T2, it rejects Q2, 23 for the reservoir at T3 and it provides a positive amount of work W23. So, this is given such an engine works and also such an engine works. Now, the question is if we attempt an engine between T1 and T3, which way will it work? The options are A, notice it has to be T1 and T3. The options are A, the engine 13 will work by absorbing from T1 and rejecting to T3 and producing W13 or B. Option B is T1, T3, let me say this is E31. It absorbs heat from T3, rejects heat to T1 and produces W31 greater than 0. We have to decide on whether this works or this works. Is it A or is it B? Since we have already gone through such exercises, I will leave it to you to show that the first option leads to no inconsistency. We will now look at the second option. What we will do is we will lay out the three reservoirs like this, T1, T2, T3. We have one engine, I have called it E12 working between T1 and T2. We have another engine E23 working between T2 and T3. Here we have, here also we have W23 greater than 0. Now our option B said that we have an engine E31 working between T3 and T1 such that it absorbs heat from the reservoir at T3 and rejects it to the reservoir at T1 and produces a positive amount of work W31 greater than 0. Now let us rename the interactions. Let us say that the first engine E12 absorbs heat Q1 from the reservoir at T1. Let it reject Q2 to the reservoir at T2. Let us adjust this engine E23 in such a way that it now absorbs Q2 from the reservoir at T2 and rejects Q3 to the reservoir at T3. And let us adjust this engine E31 such that it absorbs Q3 from the reservoir at T3 and rejects say Q4 to the reservoir at T1. So the heat flow rates are Q1 from T1 to E12, Q2 from E12 to T2 and then to E23 and Q3 from E23 to T3 and then to E31 and finally Q4 from E31 to the reservoir at T1. Now notice that W12 is positive, E being an engine so we should have Q2 less than Q1. Again E23 is an engine so W23 is positive so we should have Q3 less than Q2 which inter is less than Q1 so Q3 is less than Q1. Then E31 has an output W31 which is also positive so you must have Q4 less than Q3. So we must have Q4 which is less than Q3 and since Q3 is less than Q2 less than Q1 finally we should have Q4 less than Q1 giving you Q1 minus Q4 to be a positive number. Now let us consider this system T1 is out of it but the reservoirs at T2, T3 and all the three engines are included in it. Now look at this, this is an engine because the work output is W12 plus W31 plus W23 each of the components is greater than 0 so this is greater than 0. What is the heat input? The heat input is Q1 minus Q4 so heat supplied is Q1 minus Q4 which by first law will turn out to be equal to W and only one reservoir T1 so this turns out to be a 1T heat engine which violates the Kelvin Planck statement and that means that going back to our earlier work this is not possible because if we assume that this is true it will violate existence of such an E31 will violate the second law of thermodynamics as mentioned by the Kelvin Planck statement. So what does this finally mean? This means that if an engine works between T1 and T2 like this and an engine works between T2 and T3 like this then if we try to create or run an engine between T1 and T3 then it will run like this absorbing from T1 rejecting to T3 and producing some work output and not like this this we can keep in brackets just to emphasize because this is just reiterating what is in the left part such a thing cannot exist and that means now we know that if we say using this that T1 is higher than T2 and T2 is higher than T3 then T1 must be higher than T3. Thank you.


Hi everybody, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com coming at you with a mosaic baseball quick pick quick pitch pack quick pitch pack I say that Five times day in the mirror random team 18 with 10 flawless baseball spots being given away a big thanks to Carl Michael Brian Kevin and Anthony for getting into this one. Appreciate you all teams are in So we're gonna do the break itself first and then second dice will be the randomizer for those flawless spots Let's roll it. Let's randomize it five and a three eight times for names and teams one two three four five and three six seven and eighth and final time Five and a three eight times for the teams one two three four five six seven and eighth and final time All right, and as you know by now no trade windows in these little filler breaks Here's the first half of the list Here's the second half of the list Print and rip after we alphabetize Josh good work. Peace out. Ready for even even better work. Yeah even better Even better. I'm excited. I'm excited. I kept talking about it. I texted all my friends are in there. Oh my god I can't believe we actually got it The one notch.  I literally texted all my friends and I was like I'm sorry. I know a lot of you guys aren't baseball fans, but I'm gonna be insufferable for six months. We're gonna be insufferable We're gorgeous fans. We're gonna be insufferable. Thanks Josh. See you Oh, yes, please. Thank you All right, so quick pitch pack All right, nothing too crazy here. Sure an apostle might be interesting this year, right? That's his rookie car That's for the rangers. That'll go to Carl All right. Now let's whip back over to the list again the moment we've been waiting for Who is going to get get those uh flawless spots. So new dice top 10 after Four and a five nine times. There's a there's a chance that carl could sweep this one two three four five and a four six seven eight And good luck ninth and final time so after nine from 11 on down sad times but the top 10 You got flawless spots carl carl Anthony sneaks in carl carl carl carl carl carl and carl nine of the 10 spots Hey, sometimes it works out like that All right Anthony you snuck in as well. So there you go. Uh, thanks everybody for getting in We're gonna do one more of these and then we're in breaksville jazby's case breaks.com. Bye. Bye


Thanks for checking out this movie review video. Yes, these are things that I think I'll start doing. I'm gonna mainly do it as Request only so this one is for the return of the living dead the 1985 film and this was requested by YouTube user Uncle Pete so uncle Pete I know you're probably feeling after after you asked me a few times. Have you watched the return of living dead yet? Have you watched it? I'm sure you felt he's never gonna watch it, but I did and That's why I'm doing this video to show you. Hey, I did and hear my feelings on it So I did a like a slight bit of research So I'm gonna throw out some interesting things that I found about the film, but also just give my overall Breakdown of what I liked and potentially didn't like about the film and then I'll give it like a star rating out of five stars at The end and let you know how I felt But if you have ideas for other films that you would like me to do a Review on go ahead anyone put it in the comments, but please subscribe first I'm gonna start doing a thing where I will only I only take the the Suggestion if you subscribe as well, so please hit the subscribe Even if you're not playing on putting a suggestion out there hit the subscribe for me It literally takes you like a second and it can help the channel out a lot So if you see me continually looking down is because I actually wrote a bunch of notes Because I wanted to make sure that I say everything I wanted to say as I was watching the film. I was just kind of putting things down I actually used to do a movie review podcast for about a year and a half ish It was called Carlin and Jordan's most excellent movie night. It's still available a bunch of the episodes on iTunes maybe some other stuff. I'm not sure but you can look it up if you have interest, but That stopped some time ago But anyway, let me get into this. Let me talk about the return of the living dead from 1985. So this film was Based on okay, it was written by Dan O'Brien who also directed it It was based on a book by John Russo who worked with George A Romero on the original night of the living dead So after that film was over basically John Russo and George A Romero kind of split ways And they both went on to make more zombie films or be involved with more zombie films But they were kind of doing them separately doing their own thing So it was like this kind of release of dual zombie films, which is really cool Directed by Dan O'Brien like I said, but this is I think the only thing of note that he's actually directed I think he directed only like one other feature-length film after this So this is pretty much all he's really known for directing wise He was a writer and he's written a bunch of screenplays and I wrote down the most important ones that people might know 1979's Alien Obviously a great one 1981's Dead and Buried which I hadn't seen but I've heard really good things about I plan to see that 1985's Life Force, which I've also heard quite good things about and have not seen I believe it's a vampire or vampire-ish film and 1990s Total Recall, which I know a lot of people who really like Total Recall Full Disclosure haven't seen it yet And this is kind of a theme like the fact that I haven't seen the return of the living dead in town today Right before I started recording this is crazy. I know people are out there.  So how have you never seen the return of the living dead? It's because there's so many films out there And the big thing is I didn't really start getting into watching film until I was in college Because when I was living with my parents throughout high school middle school and elementary school They were very very strict very strict about what I wasn't was not able to watch so once I got to college is when I started, you know trying to catch up and I've been trying to catch up ever since there's so many good films that I will eventually watch that I just haven't gotten to yet. So this was one. So thank you, Uncle Pete for making sure I got to this It was on my list. I just because of your Requests I moved it up much quicker So the budget for this film was originally four million dollars It made it the box or office 14.2 million, which is pretty good considering 1985 being the year that this came out So that's awesome Like I said, it was based on that novel As far as directing goes I like I said Dan O'Vannon did it But originally it was supposed to be Toby Hooper who was going to direct it But he ended up pulling out kind of last minute because he was going to direct Life Force which Dan O'Vannon wrote the screenplay for which I thought was a kind of cool tie-in So at that point they just kind of approached Dan O'Vannon. We're just like Do you want to give it a shot? Do you want to direct it? And I think he did a good job? I think it is directed pretty well. I think the cinematography is solid So I think it went well It's kind of weird though that uh, Dan O'Vannon then didn't really direct much else Yeah, who knows so I'm just going to go down the list of Talking about things as I kind of wrote them down my thoughts So the first thing that really struck me in the film is The character of Frank Oh, by the way spoilers in this before I go forward. So if you want to watch it first and then come back, whatever Uh, so the guy who played the the character of Frank James Karen Crazy over the top acting and at first I was just like whoa Whoa, this acting is like aggressively over the top and nutty but I kind of Looked forward to it after a while. I got used to it and it was just like this is like Enjoyably bad in my opinion So I was very much looking forward to seeing more of that every time he popped on the screen I was like, oh how ridiculous is he gonna be now?  So I actually hated it at first and then ended up really liking it So I'm sure other people have felt that way Interesting thing about James Karen when they were making the film Originally in the script his character was supposed to end up turning into a zombie and like going out in in the rain and terrorizing the the city Or at least in the cemetery slash mortuary industrial area But James Karen did would like vehemently did not want to do any filming in the rain He did not want to get wet So he came up with the idea of having his character throw himself in The oven which honestly, I think it worked I think that portion of the film worked pretty well And I guess dana bannon signed off on it and kind of agreed he was like, yeah, I mean we could do that Sounds good. So I mean it ended up working But at the same time I was kind of like when I read that I was just like james karen was like Oh, I don't want to get wet. It's like come on Whatever anyway, uh practical effects were great Really like the practical effects, especially like that half zombie that was very much skeletal Who they ended up strapping to the um embalming table and talking to Really good tarman everyone everyone cites tarman even though he's not like a huge part of the film I mean plot wise he's a huge part of the film because that's where the initial infection basically comes from but Um He doesn't have a lot of screen time But his design is really awesome Like he looks great and the fact that he can talk Actually, the zombies can talk at all in this is a really cool thing And I'll talk a little bit more about that later one thing that really hit me about the practical effects The scene early on when there's that body that they they cut the head off And the the headless body is just kind of like running around aimlessly I was like, oh man, that's a lot like reanimator It just reminded me of reanimator because that happens in that film And I looked it up and I was just like both these films are from the same year Because I was wondering if like one had seen the other and kind of was like, oh, I like that idea and they used it But it's not I don't think so because both those films came out in 1985 So I just found that kind of that kind of interesting that they're very similar Scenes and concepts and practical effects that were used And they came out the same year just interesting The music the music is really good The use of the punk soundtrack I felt like kept the film Kind of light and fun, which I really like that feel of it. It's a really good mix of like horror and comedy slash camp and I don't know. I just I just really like horror films from the 80s like that So this was really hitting the kind of sweet spot for me when it comes to that like I like comedy. I like horror Separately, but I also really like the the nice mix of comedy and horror and it can go wrong There are films that I've seen where it definitely goes wrong. It just doesn't work It's either too much on the horror too much on the comedy or they just don't mesh properly But there are plenty of films where it does work and the return of the living dead is definitely one where it definitely works And I don't think either of them take away from each other because there definitely are times where You know, you can have too much comedy where it actually takes away from the horror too much Horror where it takes away from the comedy. It just doesn't land But I feel like this is integrated in such a way and I think the soundtrack helps Uh to make sure that those things are symbiotic. So There's that I like the tie into night of living dead How they were basically saying I think it was frank's character was like, oh, yeah The the movie night of living dead everything that happened in there is actually true. It was just exaggerated So I like that tie in and the fact that tarman is basically supposed to have been involved in those true life events Which I don't know. I just like that. Also the fact that I think it was freddy the character freddy had referenced the fact that um In the movie if you take care of the brain That's supposed to kill the zombie. So that's what they tried, but it doesn't work So I thought that was also a really nice tie in so um, the choices of setting to shoot at I thought Um, we're effective for what for the film they were doing, but I also felt like It definitely made sure to keep the budget low. That was just I mean When doing my research, I didn't find anything saying that but just me You know staying on on my toes while I'm watching the film just started thinking all of these Probably would have been very easy to get into and would be super super cheap for shooting And if you notice they didn't really hit a ton of different locations. They I think they really only had like three main locations it was the industrial building where the medical supply company was the mortuary and the The cemetery and they were all supposed to be right there. I I don't know if they really were or not the other thing to say about setting is that the film supposed to be done in um Louisville, Kentucky But actually I think only the outside of the cemetery was actually shot there And everything else was done in california, which You know really no big surprise there because that's that's something that that film has done for a long time They'll be like, oh, this is set in this state, but everything was filmed in california. That's common So, you know, but I just thought that, you know, all those settings probably kept the budget low, uh The acid rain twist with the infection Of you know, when the body was the initial body was burned and then it just goes into the air And it basically took the infection into the air and then right came down in the rain And the tie into acid rain was cool I'm assuming very timely because acid rain I remember was something that was really just starting to be talked about in the 80s So it was very topical. So I kind of like that tie into it. Also I just think it was a cool vehicle for the larger infection that ended up happening. So And that's one of the things that I think this film did in general was to Bring a bunch of new stuff to the zombie film Not that it was necessarily needed at this point in time because The zombie genre wasn't mined as heavily as it has been over time But back then in 1985 like it had been done a little bit, but people weren't tired of it at the moment I don't know about you people, but I am tired of it. I've been tired of it for I don't know at least 10 years to be honest. It's just I don't know But this was refreshing to go back to and be like, oh, this is good. Uh, yeah, so the acid rain really liked Uh real quick I wrote in my condolences to Linnea Quigley I felt bad for the fact that she was nude like the entire film pretty much the entire film And not to mention that a large part of that there was rain involved So she's like naked in the rain. She must have been really cold So I hope that in between scenes they had Very warm uh bath robes for her to be wearing The other thing is this is not something that would really be happening nowadays in a horror film as much I mean, you still had nudity, but back in the 80s and into the 90s nudity in horror films was a really big thing It was very acceptable. Everyone really liked it. It was just a different time Nowadays that's not really happening. So, um, I just thought that like Linnea Quigley What a trooper to go along with that role and put herself in that position because there are a lot of people who wouldn't and I believe I had heard On a podcast where she was being interviewed as a Mick Garris's post mortem podcast That her mom like vehemently was like don't do this But she ended up doing it anyway. So Or actually, I think she was also saying that the there was someone else who's offered that Role and their mother found out about the role and was just like, oh, you're definitely not doing this. So You know big ups to her for You know Being bold being bold to do it I'm not sure I could have uh, so this Like I was saying before like the fact that there was a lot of new stuff that came up with zombies The other big thing was the the eating of brains. This is the film that marked uh, the incorporation into the zombie Genre the idea of them needing to eat brains and even further I really like the fact that they kind of developed the zombies as being Not quite sympathetic But like a little bit sympathetic because when they find out when the one the half one is strapped to the the um Embalming table basically says we eat brains because we're in pain like it hurts And Eating brains is the only thing that that relieves that pain. It's interesting because We're in a lot of other um, zombie films, especially prior to this one. You don't get that Understanding it's just kind of here are the evil things and they're just evil. Like that's just how it is They're they're reanimated And they they can't really think so much. They're just like primal now and they just eat they just eat flesh And that is the thing before they just ate flesh So this is where the brain things started and I just like that they had a reasoning behind it It's a an additional level of development in the story that I really appreciated so that uh Fun mix of horror and comedy already went over that The the feelings of the zombies being brought into it just talked about that Uh, I liked this the zombie food delivery service in this film basically where they Because they could talk which I at first was like, I don't know how I feel about the zombies talking But it ended up being incorporated very well Uh, that ended up going very very well for me because I loved every time they were like Send more paramedics or more cops and they just kept coming paramedics cops And you just see them get out of their cars and then mobbed by the zombies and it literally was Delivery food delivery for the zombies. That's exactly what they're doing And I I don't know if it was intentionally thought of as that But that's how I viewed it and I thought that was an additional level of comedy to it for that reason And I appreciated it. It was fun And then the last thing I have written down here is that The soundtrack I think I talked about this a little bit, but the soundtrack really helped to keep it fun Like I was saying like the mix of horror and the mix of comedy Um It sometimes actually needs a little bit of help and the soundtrack really did help with that The stuff that was not like actual punk music that was just more instrumental Was a good mix of like dread and kind of like campy Uh kitschy horror music and it just kind of like set the tone for you let you know like hey It's there's dread in here and there's horror, but it's also Very much kind of light and you should laugh a little bit and just have a good time so anyway I don't want to make this like a half an hour or anything like that But those were all my feelings that I had that I wrote down And overall like I said, I'm going to give it a star rating out of five I would give this four out of five stars Um It's not a perfect film obviously, but it is quite good and considering what it is and what it was going for. I think they Accomplished a lot of it. I think they accomplished so much and I'm glad I finally saw this film. So thank you uncle Pete for recommending it and I'm happy Well, I have to see what uh, if anyone makes any recommendations coming up that I haven't seen I'll still rewatch stuff that I have seen if you're putting it in the comments and you subscribe And you say hey, could you do a review on whatever? But no that when you ask for that it might take a week or two for me to get it done because I use um netflix dvd service So they have a really good selection. That's why I still do that I do the streaming obviously and I also do like the shutter streaming service But the thing is I keep the dvd option for netflix because their library is very good Because there's a lot of stuff that's not on blue right now Or not on streaming services because streaming services are very limited So I just like to have that continual option of getting older stuff through dvd option And that's how I got the return of the living dead because it wasn't available on any streaming services. So Yeah, and I don't own it, but maybe I should now anyway But just know that if you make a recommendation it might take a little bit for me to get it because I have to Get rid of whatever dvd. I have right now You know get the other one sent to me all that jazz, but Thank you for checking this video out once again. Thank you uncle peed. Hope you're happy with this review Please comment down here and let me know how you feel about it And just in general like give a little bit of your own review on it If you want to do a video in response to this and give your full review That would actually be awesome And if you do let me know because I would enjoy that I'd watch it But everyone please hit the subscribe takes you literally a second can be very helpful And especially if you're going to recommend a movie for a review Put it down there hit the subscribe also just comments in general likes are fun I don't think it really does anything, but it's fun Like hitting that But anyway, thank you everyone for checking this out And until next time keep it brutal range


And this is looking at the welfare of the group rather than the well-being of the individual. And it says, what's good for, quote, society as a whole? How should we distribute society's resources in a fair way? I think the better way, the more rational way to think about political issues is to focus on the individual. And I think if you think about what's good for the individual, you come to a very different conclusion. So the two essentials in my judgment of what makes us happy and successful life, and I think this came through in all the talks today, is thought and effort. This is Isaac Newton and Steve Jobs. It's thought and effort. The willingness to challenge conventional wisdom to think about what's true, what's right, what's good, and then the effort to execute and carry out your plans. That's really what is going to make you happy, successful, and achieve the things you want to achieve in life. And therefore, if we're thinking about what a good political system is, it's one that encourages and protects your ability to exercise thought and effort and then to keep the results. This is my daughter, Olivia. She's about one and a half now. More her. More her. I promise this will end at some point. So just to illustrate this point that the welfare state is interfering with thought and effort, the core activities that we need in order to live a happy, successful life, when my wife was pregnant, we thought a lot about, well, how the heck are we going to raise this little creature into something useful? Like, what are we going to do? And are we going to encourage her to be independent? How are we going to encourage her to tackle life with all the vigor that it requires and so on? But it also occurred to me at a certain point, what if I were evil? What if instead of wanting to raise her to be a happy, independent adult, I wanted to crush her little infant spirits and just completely turn her into a record dependent of a human being? And I made a list. So I wouldn't teach her to make good decisions. I would just tell her what to do and demand that she obey me. I wouldn't make her work for anything. I'd just give her stuff, make her an entitled brat, unless she was so evil as to go and try to get her own job and work for stuff, in which case, now she's going to get charged rent. I would tell her, hey, forget property rights, help yourself to other people's stuff, and don't object if they help themselves to yours.  So that would be pretty rotten. But that, in effect, is the whole essence of what the welfare state does. What the welfare state does is it stops and punishes us from doing the right things and rewards us for doing the wrong things. The more rational, productive, independent minded we are, the worse we are under the scenario, and the more lazy, dependent, unambitious we are, the better we are. That's really the whole setup. And let me give you one example to really drive this home. So my dad and I have very different goals for retirement. He's been running two tech companies for now over a decade. And he's looking forward to just a couple of decades playing golf, traveling the world with mom. I want to be doing this speaking and writing and so on as long as I can. Now, given those different goals, we would have very different approaches to preparing for retirement, right? We'd save vastly different sums. We'd probably start saving at different times. We'd put it in different kinds of investments. We'd make a lot of different decisions. Yet the welfare state, even if it worked the way that we're told, it should work, right? Even if it really was, the government was setting aside your money into a 401k or something so that when you were tired, you had an earned benefit. Even then, it would interfere with you making those kinds of assessments. It would say, hey, Watkins, no, no, no, you've got to save 12.4% today rather than use it on things like starting a family or starting a business or buying a home. No, you have to do what we say. You have to do with it. That is the whole essence and the deeper meaning of the welfare state is it interferes with our ability to make those independent judgments. And so I think if we think deeply about political issues, we need to think about the need for the freedom to make the assessments about how we plan our lives, including our old age. The last thing I'll mention is what I call the Garden of Eden premise. So this is the idea that thought, effort, that's unfair that life should require these sorts of things. Why should you have to think so hard and make good decisions and set aside resources and work and so on? Life should be like a Garden of Eden where it just guarantees you all the things you want without thought and without effort. Well, clearly life's not like that. What are we going to do in order to make it like that? Well, we're just going to take from the people who do think and produce and give to those who don't. People often say, well, what about the people who don't actually save for retirement? Yeah, that's the whole idea behind the welfare state. If you're not so farsighted as to plan for your life, we're going to take from the people who are farsighted and give to you in order to try to guarantee you this effortless positive existence. Now, that sounds pretty unfair on its face, right? So what we're also going to do is we're going to concoct a bunch of arguments to make it not seem that unfair. So for instance, you didn't earn it through thinking and producing. You didn't build that. Society gave it to you. Luck is what created your wealth. So we're not really taking what you earned. We're just taking what you happen to stumble into. And then we're going to have a bunch of arguments that say, and by the way, you don't have a right to what you earn. You have a right to what you need. And this is the idea that we talked about before about need being an entitlement. What you need entitles you to something morally, that's what gives you a right to it. And so when we take from people who, quote, earned it and gave to those who didn't, that's a moral endeavor because, after all, that's what justice is all about. Well, the fact is we don't live in a garden of Eden. But we do live on a glorious earth. An earth where we can have anything we want. If we're willing to pay the price. If we're willing to exert the thought and effort that life requires. And that is what the debt draft interferes with. It's depriving us, step by step of our ability to exert the thought and effort in order to make our lives as glorious as possible. And that's why I think the solution is not to reform it, not to rein it in, not to make it sustainable, but to, as the other draft, abolish it. Thank you. Let's give it up for Don Watkins. Who has got some questions for this gentleman? First of all, excellent. Thank you. Good read. Have you read The Forgotten Man? By Amity Schlays? Yes. Yeah. I had Amity, so she wrote a book for those of you who don't know and The Great Depression, very well done. And of course she covers the fact that this is the era when social security is created. I actually interviewed her for my podcast, The Debt Dialogues. Feel free to look it up on iTunes. It's free, so hey, we can't go wrong there. And we talked about this and a lot of other issues, yeah. What are your thoughts on change? And I asked the question, I hope I don't take you on a rabbit trail, but we vote change in this country, like it or not. Well, except for I actually think there's a dime of difference between the left and the right in this issue. I mentioned that social security, for instance, enjoys 8% support. So the first talk I ever gave, I remember it was at least one of the really early ones. I was giving on why we should abolish social security. It was to the Beverly Hills of California Country Club. So I'm driving up to LA from Orange County where I live and I get there and I'm ready to tell people why we need to scrap the whole program and I get into the room and it's about this size. And the average age is between 80 and dead. And I said, there's going to be a riot here. It's going to be the slowest riot in history. I mean, they'll be kind of limping towards me. Hey kid, but nevertheless, but I actually got a standing ovation. And I thought, well, maybe it's because they're rich people and they care. But actually part of what I found is that although support for social security and support for these programs is wide, it's not as deep as one may think. And part of what we can see is that this is why people have to lie about how it works. If the program really was to its roots popular the way, say, like, you know, mom and apple pie in the military is popular, you wouldn't have to lie about it. You wouldn't have to like say, oh, we only take 6.2% of your income. No, they'd be up front. They say we take 12.4%. You wouldn't have to say, oh, it's insurance. Does anybody know what FICA, your social security comes from FICA taxes. Anybody know what the C stands for there? Contribution. I worked for a 5.1c3 nonprofit and guess what? If you don't give us a contribution, we're going to treat you the same way as social security. Like, no, they have to disguise taxes as contributions. The more that people understand about just how it works and where it's leading us, the less the support is. Nevertheless, there is support. And my view is because it's an issue of ideas and that people think that these programs are right and necessary. And my view is that until that's challenged, then you're only gonna get politicians who support it. If you look through the history of social security, the right has promoted and pushed it and expanded it as much as the left. Often more so because they can get away with more. And so until we change our thinking and we're willing to challenge conventional wisdom, the way we're willing to challenge it over diet and exercise and so on. Until we're willing to challenge that conventional wisdom, we get nowhere, even though we're on this kind of no-win path to 205 trillion dollars in debt. And so there really is no shortcut besides change your thinking, challenge yourself to think independently about these issues and then try to get other people to think that way. But if you do that, part of what I was trying to stress is I think there's actually less resistance to good arguments than you would think. There's really no argument for social security for the welfare state. There is none. There's emotions, there's appeal to emotions, but there's no argument. And so that's really where the battle lies. We're taking a different look of something that we've been diving into in the last couple of years. Now we have Don Watkins right here. How social security is sabotaging the land of self-reliance? Bring it on home, good stuff man. Thanks man. Yeah, you got it. By the way, if you can do the math is longer than we've had social security since 1935. Now did the elderly starve in the streets? And it turns out that amazingly no. Amazingly people figured out a way to live without handouts for over a hundred years and it's pretty fantastic when you think about it. They were very entrepreneurial in their whole approach to life. And so I'm just gonna go through some of the mechanisms that they took in order to not, as they say, starve in the streets. So first of all, people worked. It's kind of funny today where we think of like, ah, work's a real burden. But actually the people pushing for a welfare state complained for many years because the elderly, those darned people refused to retire. The fact is that they found their lives more meaningful, more meaningful, more valuable, more enjoyable with work than without it. So the first reason I think is what I call the collectivist premise. And this is looking at the welfare of the group rather than the well-being of the individual. And says, what's good for, quote, society as a whole? How should we distribute society's resources at a fair way? I think the better way, the more rational way to think about political issues is to focus on the individual. And I think if you think about what's good for the individual, you come to a very different conclusion. So the two essentials in my judgment of what makes us happy and successful life, and I think this came through in all the talks today, is thought and effort. This is Isaac Newton and Steve Jobs. Thank you.