Switching between self-states, pseudo-identities, sub-personalities, ego-states, never mind what you call them. Switching is a common phenomenon in dissociative identity disorder, formerly known as multiple personality disorder, although it's not a single disorder, it's a family. It is also common in borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and in my humble or not so humble opinion, antisocial personality disorder aka psychopathy in the most extreme and malignant cases. Switching anyone who has witnessed switching in a borderline or a narcissist will never forget it. It is a terrifying experience. No wonder some people use terms like positions, position or demons to describe what's happening. The switch can be abrupt, it can be sudden, it could be unexpected, it could be ostensibly untriggered for no reason, or the switch could be gradual, incremental. But at any rate, it is discernible. It's visible. I'm going to teach you the science and how to tell that a switching event is about to take place. But I repeat, anyone who has witnessed switching in a borderline or a narcissist will never forget it. The change in body posture, the new personality that takes over, behaviors which are hitherto unprecedented, unexpected temper tantrums, narcissistic rage, or on the very contrary an eerie calm, acting out, recklessness, crazy making, drama, all these are typical of switching. Switching is a major regulatory mechanism in borderline personality disorder and in narcissistic personality disorder, and this is the topic of today's video lecture. And here I am, about to switch anew to Sam Vakney and the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited, and in my switched identity as a professor of psychology in SEAPS, Commonwealth Institute for Advanced Professional Studies and formerly in Southern Federal University as a visiting professor. Okay credentials aside, let us delve right into the maelstrom of the switching phenomenon in borderline and narcissism. The entire video was triggered by a comment that I've received on one of my YouTube videos. One of the few comments I haven't deleted. And it said, are there known signs of women with BPD, Borderline Personality Disorder, of how they are or were before and when they committed suicide, compared to those who have not or don't, especially during the holidays. Suicide, of course, is a form of acting in rather than direct aggression outwards. Aggression is directed inwards and becomes self-destructive to the extreme. Suicide is acting in but it is also coupled with acting out. So it's the equivalent of a temper tantrum, writ large. Acting in because of course it destroys the object of frustration, which is the person with BPD, but acting out because it punishes everyone around the borderline person. Mother, father, siblings, friends, they're devastated in the wake of a suicide. So it's a way to punish people. It's a way to act out against people. Even as the borderline person destroys herself in the process. So it's a very unique combination of acting out and acting in together with internalized aggression and externalized aggression. Suicide is self punitive and other punitive, generally punitive measure. Suicide, though, is preceded by switching. Before the borderline person commits suicide, she switches to another self state known as secondary psychopathy. Before the narcissistic person becomes self-destructive, before the narcissist destroys everything around him, everyone around him, his life, his accomplishments and badly, before he does any of this, which is the equivalent of suicide in narcissistic personality disorder, there is a process of switching. The borderline switches to a secondary psychopathic self state, and the narcissist ironically switches to a borderline organization self state. Let's translate this into English. The borderline is prone to suicide. About 11% of people with borderline personality disorder commit suicide before she commits suicide.  Gender pronouns in this lecture are totally interchangeable. About half of all people diagnosed with borderline are men and half of all people diagnosed with narcissism are women. So before she switches, before she commits suicide, I'm sorry, the borderline switches into a secondary psychopathic self state, and then she becomes extremely violent, and this violent is self directed and other directed. Suicide is used as a tool, as a weapon. Suicide is weaponized against the borderlines nearest and dearest. It's their punishment. Similarly, when the narcissist, for example, is mortified or under tremendous stress, or repeatedly narcissistically injured or collapses, fails to obtain narcissistic supply over a long period of time. The narcissist switches, he switches into a borderline state. He becomes emotionally dysregulated, reckless, and he tends to act out.  And this becoming, this process of becoming is what is known as switching. One last comment before I describe the phenomenon itself. Both people with borderline personality disorder and people with narcissistic personality disorder are prone to switching because they are very acquainted with and they often use the defense mechanism of splitting and self splitting. These are defenses, infantile, immature, childish, baby defenses that have survived in their initial primordial form in the adult. So borderlines and narcissists tend to split people. People are all bad or all good.  Something is all good or all evil. This is known as dichotomous thinking, splitting the world, splitting everyone in the world. And the splitting is not permanent. Today you could be all good.  But at any rate, you're bound to be all good or all bad. There's nothing in between. You're never going to be gray. There's never gray. There are no shades of gray in the borderline and narcissist world. This is the splitting defense. There's another derivative defense, self splitting. The same way the narcissist and the borderline split other people, they split themselves. The borderline sometimes feels that she's all good and sometimes feels that she's all bad. The narcissist feels that he's invincible and omnipotent and omniscient and godlike.  So this is a form of self splitting. Because self splitting is possible because both the borderline and the narcissist do not possess a core identity. They don't have a stable self-constellated, integrated, always there, consistent. They don't have a self. They are selfless in a way. And this is known as identity disturbance. When you have an identity disturbance, when your identity is not, is not, let's say, stable over the lifespan. When your identity changes on a dime and from day to day and in response to cues from the environment and from others. When you don't have a constellated self, when you don't have an integrated ego, when all you have is an emptiness inside you.  You are reactive to the outside, to the environment because you don't exist.  Other people's decision-making push you to and fro like a cork on ocean waves. So this flotsam and jetsam existence of the narcissist and borderline, the lack of a stable integrated core identity, the constant use of splitting defenses against other people and against themselves. All this prepares the ground for switching. Switching is essentially, as the name implies, a transition from one state to another and back, back and forth. And this is possible if you can simultaneously harbor or include in your mind two states, three states, six states. And you can do this only if you don't have a unitary self and if you constantly split. So these are the psychodynamic or psychological foundations of switching. Now switching occurs in borderlines and narcissists when they are confronted with a threat, when they are threatened. But also when they are confronted with a promise, for example intimacy. Both borderlines and narcissists perceive good things such as love, such as intimacy as threats. What you would regard as a promising thing, something to look forward to, a reason to get up in the morning and to enjoy life. Narcissists and borderlines would regard as imminent, looming menace. Because in the narcissists and borderlines life, there's never been a happy ending. Everything ended badly. Every promise was broken. Every intimacy violated. Every love ended in hurt and pain. So they've learned to associate positive things with negative outcomes. And consequently they react identically to promises and threats. And so these promises and threats can provoke switching. So ironically when the borderline for example is faced with a wonderful partner who is proposing to her and you know she's about to start a great life together and to graduate and to have a career. And when things go extremely well she's likely to switch and destroy everything. So same with the narcissists. It's a form of asserting control. Things are going to end badly but on my terms and conditions. I'm going to make them end badly. I'm in control of this process. I'm making it happen. So this is not happening to me but I'm making it happen. And so threats and promises. These threats and promises can be real, they can be imaginary, they can be anticipated. They can even be recalled, figments of memory. So some memories can trigger switching. This is erroneously known as emotional flashbacks. Flashback occurs only in PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. There is no such thing as emotional flashback. It's a nonsensical juxtaposition of two words. There's no such thing clinically. We don't teach it in any university. This is rank nonsense. However, it is true that recalled situations, emotions in memory can trigger switching. And so this is the background. This is the landscape that provokes switching in borderlines and narcissists. Switching, in other words, is responsive to real or anticipated or imaginary or recalled environmental cues. The borderline and the narcissists switch in reaction to stress. Anxieties such as separation in security, also known as abandonment anxiety or engouchment anxiety. Substance abuse, medication, holidays, important events, life crisis, traumas, new people, crowds, modification and so on. All these can and very often do trigger switching. Even sensor, sensory inputs, smells, sights, sounds can provoke switching. Indeed, one of the biggest, at least in terms of number of pages, one of the greatest documentations of switching is Marcel Proust's work, Remembrance of Things Past. The book, which is, I think, the largest, I think it's 3,000 pages, the largest book ever written, the book starts with a smell. The protagonist of the book passes near a house and there's a smell wafting out of the house, a specific type of cookie. And this provokes an avalanche of memories and there is a great description of switching. And throughout the book there are multiple occasions of switching, expertly described by the amazing Proust, who spent most of his life in bed consumed by tuberculosis and possibly hypochondriathies and other mental health disorders. So, we have established by now that switching is essentially a splitting defense, self-directed, self-splitting, it's a form of self-splitting. It is a reaction to perceived, real, imaginary, anticipated, recall, threat or promise, because borderlines and narcissists perceive promises as threat. And we also understood that switching is utterly triggered by events outside the borderline in the narcissist, in the outside world, external events, in the environment. We call these environmental cues. Okay. Now, switching, as I said, is very visible, very discernible. By the end of this lecture, if you listen carefully and survive it, you'll be able to tell when a narcissist or a borderline is about to switch. Switching is preceded by a period of emotional dysregulation. Now, this period could be as brief as 10 seconds or it could be as long as 10 months. But there's always emotional dysregulation which precedes the switching. This has been first described by Hoban H-O-U-B-E-N and he coined the phrase emotional switching. So, there's always emotional dysregulation. Suddenly, there are speech acts, behaviors, body language, micro expressions, facial expressions, crying, screaming. Suddenly, there are behaviors indicative of emotions which overwhelm the defenses of the narcissist and the borderline, emotions which create a clinical process known as decompensation. The defenses are deactivated. The borderline of the narcissist remain face-to-face in direct contact with reality, external reality in the case of the borderline, internal reality in the case of the narcissist is shame, his reservoir of shame and guilt and rage, early childhood repository. So, emotional dysregulation. It's very easy to tell emotional dysregulation because emotional dysregulation in the vast majority of cases is somehow externalized. The borderline will suddenly cry, weep, weep or cry. She will crumble. The narcissist would throw a temper tantrum. Both of them would mumble and become paranoid. They would both begin to talk about dying or suicide. And so, emotional dysregulation is very easy to spot. I mean, you need to be seriously obtuse and insensitive to not notice emotional dysregulation. And then, typical reaction is, what has happened here? Why are you like that? What's wrong? So, if you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you want to ask, you feel compelled to ask the borderline of the narcissist, what's wrong, dear? Or what's wrong, not dear? Then you're faced with emotional dysregulation. Now, emotional dysregulation precedes switching. And this is a phase known as emotional switching. And then there are three types of switching, consensual switching, forced switching, and triggered switching. I will explain the difference. Now, these terms are borrowed from the study of DID, dissociative identity disorder, where switching is the regulatory mechanism among the various personality segments or figments known as altars. So, consensual switching is when the switching is anticipated so that the borderline knows, for example, tomorrow I'm going for an exam at school, I'm not prepared, I'm highly stressed, I'm highly anxious. And she knows that switching is about to occur. She knows she's going to switch. She knows she's going to switch to a secondary psychopath. Similarly, a narcissist is faced with a public speaking engagement, and he knows that he's not prepared or he knows that his enemies and detractors are in the crowd, in the audience. He anticipates bad things, a failure, public humiliation, modification. So, he steals himself, he prepares himself for this eventuality, and he knows that he's going to switch. He knows he's going to become temporary or transient borderline. So, when the borderline and the narcissist realize in advance that they're going to switch because they anticipate anxiety, that is known as consensual switching. Another type of switching is forced switching. For switching is when there is a war, a conflict, a battle between self-states within the borderline and the narcissist. Now remember that in Philip Bromberg's work on self-states as extended by myself, by your humble servant. So, in this theory of self-states, mental illness is when the regulatory mechanism, the allocative mechanism, the mechanism that allocates resources between self-states is defunct or deficient or problematic or dysfunctional. So, the self-states compete for resources. They're all active simultaneously and they compete for resources. That's a definition of mental illness in the self-states, in my self-states work. So, forced switching is when several self-states compete for dominance in a specific environment or under certain circumstances or in reaction to situations, triggers and cues and provocations. So, they compete and there's a battle going on, a war going on. And in this particular case of forced switching, you are likely to see in the borderline and the narcissist elements of each self-state appearing for a brief minute moment and vanishing and then another self-state emerges. And the new self-state, the second self-state can be diametrically opposed to the first self-state. So, you see kind of a whirlwind, a tornado, a hurricane of self-states in a mixer and the narcissist and the borderline, they actually switch between multiple self-states within minutes. It's an extremely disorienting experience to the observer because you can't tell who are you faced with, who are you talking to. And finally, the conflict is resolved and one of the more dominant self-states takes over and the narcissist and the borderline settle. So, fourth switching ends in settlement, settled switching. So, at that point, one self-state is evident and observable. But again, in forced switching, this is preceded by a period where multiple self-states manifest, are expressed, are visible and discernible, observable. And again, this is extremely disoriented. And the final type of third type of switching is the triggered switching. It's when, as I said, triggers in the environment, cues, messaging, signaling, events, including memories, anticipation, anxieties, internal cues and external cues trigger the switching.  And there's a self-state that is best suited to respond to the challenges of the new environment or the new person in the borderlines and narcissist life or the crowds or the challenge or whatever, modification or whatever, and this self-state takes over. But it is triggered from the outside. So, consensual switching is triggered from the inside owing to anticipation of challenging events or stress or anxiety. Forced switching is internal battle between self-states that has to do with a change in the environment. So, the battle is triggered but not any specific self-state. Triggered switching is when the environment triggers a specific self-state. There's no conflict, there's no battle, there's no argument. It's clear that this specific self-state is best for this new environment. These are the three types of switching. But what are the signs of switching? Switching, exactly like circumstances, is preceded by a prodromal phase, prodromal phase. Prodromal phase is just a fancy way of saying the phase that precedes the switching itself. And it is this phase, this stage that you can observe signs, harbingers, red alerts, warnings that switching is about to occur. Number one, a rigid body posture. The body becomes almost catatonic. There is strong muscle tones. There is a very stilted type of motion. So, there is sensory motoric impairment. And this could lead to pseudo-fainting, kind of loss of consciousness or at least dislocation or instability, physical instability. So, something in the body. And the body, it's a reaction that is very similar to the way we react to a threat. It's like a deer in the headlights. It's as if the borderline of the narcissist were about to switch, freeze, because they perceived it as a threat. So, a rigid body posture could culminate in pseudo-fainting loss of consciousness, momentary loss of consciousness. The next sign is calm before the storm and eerie calm, menacing, ominous calm. A little like in a horror movie, you know, when we know something bad is going to happen. And it's just the music that cues us into this. The music informs us that something horrible is going to happen. So, there's this calm before the storm, the eye of the cyclone. And behavior changes. The borderline and the narcissist, during this calm period, they're atypically kind, reasonable, even submissive. They're averse to conflict. They say yes to everything. They don't react to criticism or disagreement or even abuse in any way. And it's as if they have changed and became normal, healthy, or even, I would say, codependent and people-pleasers. And this is extremely eerie, very creepy, because it is a polar change. It is a radical, dramatic transformation. It doesn't last, of course. It's just a sign of imminent, looming, switching. But this phase is always there. When you see the narcissist on the borderline, calm, pacified, reasonable, consensus-seeking, submissive, conflict-averse, kind, nice, compassionate, affectionate. Empathic, one would say. Something's wrong. They're about to switch. Next. The next sign is changes in body self-image, somatophone changes. So the narcissist and borderline are likely to suddenly begin to dissect their bodies, to analyze their bodies. They're going to say, I've gained a lot of weight. I'm too fat. I'm too this. I'm sick. I'm having palpitations. I'm overswetting. I can't sleep. So they begin to emphasize their bodies. What they're doing is actually they're somatizing. They're somatizing the stress and the anxiety and the adverse environmental cues. They're using their bodies to express the pending looming trauma. This is van der Kolk's work. And Gabo Mates, to some extent. So there's a change in bodily self-image that precedes switching. Because switching is experience mostly as bodily. When you ask the borderline and the narcissist how they experience switching, they typically would describe changes in their bodies, not in their mind. As far as they're concerned, they're the same person. Nothing has changed with their minds. The minds are the same. Something has happened to their bodies. So they somatize the switching. Next is a dramatic but a seriously radical extreme change in identity. Suddenly behaviors change. Preferences change. Values change. Beliefs change. There's over-emotionality. There's a transformed cognitive style, unrecognizable cognitive style and so on and so forth. When you see a new personality emerging that has literally nothing to do with the previous personality. When you see a new identity coalescing where no identity has preceded it or another identity has preceded it, which doesn't share anything with a new one. There's no common denominator. It's as if a new person is born in front of your eyes fully formed with new ideals, new values, new hopes, new dreams, new wishes, new beliefs, new commitments, new behaviors and so on and so forth. When there is such a massive transition, these are self-states. What you're witnessing is switching. Of course, this is most expressible and manifest in multiple personality and dissociative identity disorder. Not all forms of DID, but in the extreme forms of DID, this is most manifest. But anyone who has witnessed a borderline transition or switch, anyone who has been the unfortunate observer of a switching event, in a narcissist, can tell you that it is no less dramatic. No less dramatic than the most dramatic switches in DID in multiple personality. Absolutely no less dramatic. The changes in the borderline and in the narcissist when they switch from one self state to another are equivalent of the same potency and intensity as switching in DID, in dissociative identity disorder. Now, this is usually followed by a phase of talkativity, hyperverbalizing, which is essentially a psychotic feature. Talkativity, hyperreflexivity, there is a huge confusion between external objects and internal objects. And this leads, for example, to extreme paranoia because objects that are interacting inside your mind are perceived as external and vice versa. External objects are perceived as internal. When the narcissist and the borderline switch, the boundaries between internal and external, inside and outside, here and there, me and the world, these boundaries dissolve. They don't become fuzzy or blurred, they dissolve. And this is known as hyperreflexivity. And coupled with hyperverbalizing, talkativity, this is extremely reminiscent of schizophrenia. Extremely reminiscent. Schizophrenia, we have what is known colloquially as the word salad. It's disorganized speech, and this happens in switching. This phase is usually short, but doesn't have to be, could last for a few days. But typically it's more like, you know, a few minutes to a few hours. And this psychotic phase, essentially it's psychosis. This psychotic phase, known as a psychotic micro-episode. This micro-psychotic state, or pseudo-psychotic state, is followed by a period of subdued, slow-motion, hesitant reactivity. It's very reminiscent of waking up from a dream. It's as if they're having switched from one self-state to another. The borderline and the narcissist are waking up into the reality of the new self-state. The previous self-state is not perceived as some kind of nightmare, some kind of dream from which the narcissist and borderline have awakened. So there's the new self-state takes over, but there is this transition, which is again the equivalent of waking up. Having transitioned fully to the new self-state, there is impulsivity. There is pronounced impulsivity, acting on impulse recklessly. It's as if the narcissists or borderline are testing the limits, the capacities, the potency, the abilities of the new self-state. Let's see what you can do. Let's see how far we can take it. They're testing the new self-state the same way they're testing intimate partners, because exactly like an intimate partner, it's an internal object. So they are abusing the new self-state. They're putting it to the test by misbehaving. They're actually creating adverse conditions which the self-state has to cope with and somehow will urate, mitigate and solve. So there is a period of impulsivity and recklessness, which are reminiscent of psychopathy. As you can see, switching involves a tour across multiple mental health disorders. So it's like the borderline and the narcissists kaleidoscopically transition between psychosis and psychopathy, and they are kind of all over the place in terms of mental health diagnosis, which makes switching exceedingly difficult to capture in rigid clinical terms. It's a flux. It's a situation of flux. And finally, the last stage of switching is dissociation. The narcissists and the borderline dissociate the previous self-state away, deleted, eliminated, forget it. This creates a memory gap. This creates lost time. The narcissist compensates for this by confabulating. The borderline compensates for this by denying that there are memory gaps and so on, by feeling guilty, by developing self-directed paranoia. She doesn't know what she may have done during the lost time, and by relying on an external partner or an intimate partner to regulate herself and her memory. Dissociation usually is the last phase, and the narcissists and the borderline settle into the new self-state. Now the new self-state could last hours, days, months, years, even decades. There's no telling. It all depends again on a variety of triggers, stimuli, provocations, events, people, behaviors of people, choices and decisions of others, and so on and so forth. They're going to trigger perhaps the next switching event, and maybe not. So, narcissists and borderlines are regulated from the outside. They are utterly responsive to the environment. They're creatures of the environment. Everything that's happening inside them, including switching, is in 90% of the cases. An import. They are importing stimuli and so on, and reacting to it. There's some signs in switching that perhaps can be of help to you. Muscle twitching, confusion, slow, heavy blinking, memory loss, headache, clearing the throat repeatedly, changing the pitch of voice, changing vocabulary, different temperament, different functional abilities of skills, lack of eye contact and changes to the eye itself, not black eye and all this butchery, but changes for example dilated pupils and so on, changing handwriting, appearing spaced out, adjusting clothing, totally different wardrobe and sartorial fashion preferences, and changing posture. These are all external visibles. There's an article about emotional switching in Borderline in the literature in the description of this video. So, be alert, be attuned to your Borderline or Narcissist partner. Switching is an inevitable and oft recurring situation in both narcissism and Borderline. You can't avoid it. If you're the Narcissist or Borderline's partner, you are going to be exposed to multiple events of switching in your partner. And you better be prepared for them. You better be able to identify when this is happening, the warning signs, the prodromal stage and prepare yourself. Switching implies that your partner has changed in very fundamental ways and you need to change equally. You need to somehow accommodate this new version of your partner in order to not create adverse situations and problems and worse. So, the partner's switching forces you in a way to switch. Identity disturbance is therefore a bit contagious as you need to adapt your identity to your partner's new identity. It's very disconcerting because sometimes the switching is so radical and so dramatic and so extreme that you feel that you're in the presence of someone you've never met. And this could last, you know, as I said, could last for months or years. Although in the vast majority of cases it lasts only for hours or days, luckily, for everyone involved. But there's no guarantee that the next switching, the next switch, would lead the Borderline and the Narcissist back to the original. So you have met a Narcissist, you've met a Borderline, you create a relationship with them. You form a relationship with them. As a friend, as an intimate partner, whatever. And then they switch. They switch from Self-State 1 with which you have created the relationship. They switch from Self-State 1 to Self-State 2. And you say to yourself, OK, right now they have switched from Self-State 1 to Self-State 2. If I wait long enough and I'm patient and adaptable, if I accommodate them, if I don't engage in conflict and so on and so forth, they're going to switch from Self-State 2 back to Self-State 1. No, there's no guarantee of this. They can as easily and as likely switch from Self-State 1 to Self-State 3. From Self-State 2 to Self-State 3, you may end up having to cope with 20 or 30 or 40 versions of your Borderline and Narcissist throughout your time together. Perhaps this is the most difficult task to accept that your intimate partner, the Narcissist or the Borderline, is nobody there. It's a kaleidoscope. It's a mirror, a reflective mirror. There's no core. There's no identity. There's no person. There's no Self. You're not interacting with someone. You're interacting with an assembly, a troupe, a theatre troupe, the cast of a film. And you need to be in flux in order to remain with this kind of part, because if you are rigid and if you are unitary and if you do have a core and if you insist on it, your relationship is going to be very short lived. In a way, the Borderline and the Narcissist force you to flow, to evolve, to change, to switch, to become someone else every now and again. On the one hand, it's an exhilarating, fascinating experience. On the other hand, it could be very disorienting and disconcerting and frightening. It's not for the fate of heart, that's for sure.


So this is Jason Hicko, 100 and, what did I say, 191,000 followers, he's a professor, I think of economics at ICTAUAB, I don't have no idea what that is, and he's a visiting senior fellow at the LSC, that's the London School of Economics, very prestigious place. He's the author of The Divide and Less Is More. He's an expert, according to his own profile on global inequality, political economy, and ecological economics.   So in Florence, 191,000, for an economist, that's a good number, certainly followed by a lot more people than I am followed by. And this is the tweet. People often claim that capitalism performed better than socialism in terms of poverty and human development in the 20th century. This story is repeated so frequently that no one even bothers to back it up. Is it true? Is it true? I wonder. The question was explored in remarkable paper published by the American Journal of Public Health. Using World Bank data, it finds that at any level of development, socialist countries outperform capitalist countries on key social indicators. In 28 of 30, there were comparisons. He says socialist states had lower infant mortality, lower child death rate, longer life expectancy, better literacy, better secondary education, better food access, more doctors and nurses, and better physical quality of life. The paper's paywall, so here's a fee copy here, open access version is here. Wow, I mean, that's pretty amazing. I didn't know socialism was this good. I just didn't know socialism was this good. So what's going on here? So first, he doesn't mention that this paper was written in 1986. But okay, doesn't really matter, 1986. Okay, so I went to the paper and I look and there's a bunch of empirical problems with it, using averages and all kinds of stuff like that. But I mean, even given that, socialism comes out. Wow, doing really, really well as compared to capitalism in this paper. I mean, socialism beats capitalism hand down on almost every measure. So I wonder what's going on here? How could this be? Because I know, I know, without a doubt, based on empirical evidence, based on personal experience, based on knowledge of history, based on, I don't know, the Berlin Wall, East-West Germany, North-South Korea, all of that, that it's just not true, just not true. So let's, so what's the problem? How do you explain this phenomenon? And I've seen other socialists claim this. Oh no, socialist countries do really, really well as compared to capitalism, probably based on this paper. The first time I've seen this paper, 1986. And it's good. I'm glad that he put it up so that it is available for everybody to read, so we don't have to go through the paywall. So that's good, it's, so here it is. So I went down to the appendix and I said, okay, I wonder, I wonder. I think you would wonder too. I wonder how he defines capitalism, how the paper defines capitalism, and how the paper defines socialism. So I wonder what countries get defined as capitalist countries that he's comparing to the countries that he defines as socialists. So I mean, socialist countries, this is 1986. I'll give you some examples. He defines socialist countries as low-income China, lower middle income, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Albania, upper middle income, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany. So he's basically defining as socialist countries, countries behind the Iron Curtain, countries that are part of the Soviet Union, which is interesting. First thing to give you a little hint about, maybe there's problems with the study is that no high-income socialist countries, they're upper middle income and one wonders if USSR was really upper middle income, but no upper income countries. And all Soviet era, okay, China, 1986, define as socialist, maybe, depending on your purpose, okay, I can roll with that, that's fine. So socialist countries, okay. These are socialist countries, that's good. These are real socialist countries. Now let's look at how he defines, who he defines as capitalist countries, capitalist countries. Now this is where it gets really, really, really interesting. Right? So low-income capitalist countries, are you ready for the low-income capitalist countries? I didn't know there were any low-income capitalist countries, but it turns out they are. Here's the list of low-income capitalist countries. Bhutan, Chad, Bangladesh, Bangladesh in 1986 was a capitalist country. Nepal, Burma, Malay, Malawi, Zaheer, Uganda, Burmati, Upper Volca, Volta, I don't even know what that is, Rwanda, India, Somalia, Tensin, Somalia, Somalia, Tanzania, Guinea, Haiti, Haiti is a capitalist country. Sri Lanka, Benin, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Nigo, Pakistan, Pakistan, oh, the bastion of capitalism, Sudan, Tango, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Mauritania, Yemen, Liberia and Indonesia. Wow, that's low-income capitalist countries. How about low-middle-income capitalist countries? Lesotho, Bolivia, Honduras, Honduras. Did you know Honduras was capitalist? I did not. Zambia, Egypt, Egypt. El Salvador, Thailand, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Morocco, Nigeria, on and on, Jordan, Syria, Paraguay. And in 1986, South Korea, Upper-income, Upper-middle-income, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Brazil, Brazilians out there, did you know your country in 1986 was capitalist? High-income. Well, high-income is all the Western countries. And then he has high-income oil exporting, but these are oil exporting capitalist countries. Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates, 1986. Let's see, here's a link. I am putting a link in the chat for the paper. There you go. Link for the papers in the chat so you can go look at it. Now, basically what they've done is they've taken socialist countries and then they've defined every single other country in the world as capitalist because they're not socialist. Because I've told you before, people, people generally, cannot think beyond two categories. Socialist, well, if these countries are socialist then everybody else is a capitalist. That's it. That's the way they can think about it. Imagine the results would be a little different. If I defined capitalist countries as the Western countries, United Kingdom, Japan, Finland, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, USA, Belgium, France, Denmark, West Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland as capitalist, and then said everything else is socialist. Which is, by the way, much, much, much, much, closer to truth.  What does it mean to say that Bangladesh is capitalist or even worse? What does it mean to say the Central African Republic? What does it mean to say that authoritarian regimes, that monarchs, that Anarchy, that, well, Anarchy, or that countries that have zero, zero respect for property rights, country that have no respect for contracts, country that have, I mean, that's enough. If you don't have property rights and you don't have contracts, nothing else matters. You don't have capitalism. You just don't. Capitalism is defined by even on the most simplistic level. Now, I would define it by the protection of individual rights, but okay, that's a difficult concept to comprehend. Property people get, contracts people get. And capitalism is inconsistent with authoritarianism. Now, that I think people have a hard time with. But at the very minimal, at the very minimal, property rights, protection of contracts, rule of law, how about rule of law? Those three, at a minimum, would be required to qualify as capitalist. So I'm okay with saying there's a third category that neither socialists nor capitalist. Fine, although most of these countries in Africa were run by rulers who considered themselves socialist. Now, he claims that these definitions come from the World Bank.  And I'm being nice to them right now. So this is to tell you, I mean, the reason I mention this is that how you categorize things, how you define things, what things you put together in a bucket in under the same conceptual folder matters a lot. If you put Bhutan, Chad, and Bangladesh together with the United States and then you say, well, capitalism didn't cure poverty, then yeah. But are those three capitalist? Obviously not. So how you categorize things? What you mean by different things? How you define them and even having a definition is crucial to understanding, to knowledge, to going anywhere in life, to getting anywhere in research, to doing anything constructive. You have to have your conceptual house in order, which means having clear categories, clear definitions, and making sure that what you include in those categories fits the definitions. Obviously, the World Bank had no clue. Now, I'm curious, to what extent this is reflective of the World Bank. I find it difficult to imagine that the World Bank is a stupid, but it's completely possible. It's completely possible. Possible. I mean, a Brazilian says, in 1986, Brazil was not allowed to import computers and software. Capitalism? Is capitalism related to free trade? Anybody? Anybody? Going once, going twice? So truly mind-boggling. When this is considered research, when this is considered an academic paper, refereed, peer-reviewed, published, and that a senior, whatever, fellow, a fellow at the London School of Economics with 191,000 followers thinks this qualifies as science in any sense. I mean, they have, I noticed this, Richard Wolff does the same thing, right? And Varsh did the same thing in my debate with him. Anything that's not socialist is capitalism. So ancient Egypt, when they built the permits, capitalism. The slavery in the South, capitalism. Feudal society, capitalism. I mean, Karl Marx would be embarrassed by these people. Marx had a better understanding of what capitalism actually was, and he didn't have a good understanding of what capitalism was, but he had a better understanding of what capitalism was. And it's results than these people. The standard, and I'm curious to see the research, the standard should be property rights, contract law, rule of law, and some semblance of free trade. Something like that. You can come up with some criteria, but it has to be anyway. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support, by going to Patreon, subscribe star, locals, and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Hey guys, welcome to my channel, The Asian Theory. So right now it's October, and you know what that means. Spooky scary skeletons and shivers down your spine. Yes, I do love Halloween, but October is also Filipino History Month in the United States. A celebration of Filipino heritage, history, and culture. Now, culture can mean a lot of things. Language, music, arts, traditions, but most importantly, food. Lots of things come to mind. Sinigang, lumpia, pancit, now there's one dish so iconic, so legendary, yet so classic. Manok, Tuyo, Suka, Bawang, Paminta, and Bay Leaves. Combine Manok, Suka, Bawang, and Ibabad ng isang oras. Iguisa ang Manok sa Kawale, lutuin hanggang lumambot at Pabaya Magsimer ng 40 minutos hanggang isang oras. Isilbi ng mainit at Maginjoy. Adobo, oftentimes referred to as the national dish of the Philippines. So what exactly is adobo, and why is it so important? Simply put, adobo is meat marinated in soy sauce, and vinegar, and garlic. Everything else is up to the cook. Sure, adobo is popular, and you already know that, but not only that. Adobo is literally the food that shaped the Philippines into what it is today. To understand, we need to go back. No, no, way back. It comes from the Spanish word adobar, which means marinade or pickling sauce. Many Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin American countries have their own version of adobo. However, Filipinos were cooking adobo way before the Spanish even set foot in the Philippines. When the Spanish first arrived in the Philippines in the 1500s, they noticed that the dish had a lot of similarities with Spanish adobo, so they decided, hey, let's call it adobo. So the original Filipino name was lost in history, so the Spanish name stuck. The full name was adobar de las naturales, or adobo of the native people, even originally signifying a difference between the two. The two dishes actually aren't related at all. The base of Spanish adobo is made with chili peppers, and chili peppers, and chili peppers.  Filipino adobo is made with a base of soy sauce, and most importantly, vinegar, which gives it that sour, tangy, but distinctively Filipino taste. If you've ever been to the Philippines, you know that it's really, really hot. And hot weather makes it easy to spoil food, and refrigerators didn't exist, so how did people preserve their food? That is where vinegar comes in. Vinegar made it so ancient Filipinos could actually preserve their food for longer than a couple hours. With the introduction of Chinese cuisine came the advent of soy sauce. It became a deterrent to most bacteria because of the high salt content of soy sauce, along with the acidity of vinegar. In addition to preserving qualities, the ingredients are very simple and very cheap. Chicken, soy sauce, vinegar, and a couple of peppercorns. Throw in some bay leaves, and you're good to go. Pretty ideal for the common Filipino. It became the go-to dish, and one of the life staples that supported our early ancestors. And not only that. It's delicious. If you're familiar Filipino food, Filipino food is almost always made up of two components. The first is called ulam, which is the main dish. And the second is rice, what the ulam is served with. The adobo dish is almost always served with rice. There will never be a time that you'll eat adobo without rice. Now rice is the most significant food in the Philippines. Ideology exists concerning the origin of rice. Rice plays an almost sacred role in Filipino culture. The legend states that before rice, the early people had to rely on vegetables and fruit for their primary source of food. But then the gods felt pity on the humans and gave them a gift. Rice. Rice is believed to be literally a gift from God. And I don't disagree.  And I mean every meal with rice. Chicken, hot dogs, other carbs like ramen, spaghetti, even pizza. Now when I have a meal without rice, it feels like, I don't know, my meal's incomplete. Like there's a hole in my stomach or something. Know what I mean? According to the legend, eating rice made man strong and gave them the strength to do their duties. Because of rice, the early Filipinos learned to till soil and cultivate the earth. No more hunting and gathering for us. The Filipinos learned to raise animals and make permanent dwelling places. They didn't have to worry about catching their food every day. They could focus on important things like agriculture, science, and dancing. Every single advancement in Filipino society can be linked to the advent of rice. The Philippines was built on rice. The sacrality of rice is such that waste of rice is highly discouraged.  Now, when I was a young boy, I remember my nana would yell at me for not eating all my rice. It wasn't me, your rice, or your rice. Filipinos will eat rice at almost every single meal. Every birthday, every wedding, every fiesta, every special event will involve eating rice. You think I'm joking or this is an exaggeration? It's not. The average American weight 9.5 kilograms or 21 pounds of rice a year. The average Filipino consumes 119 kilograms or 262 pounds of rice a year. That's approximately the weight of two and a half full-grown Filipinos. On average, 75% of a Filipino's diet will be rice. That's insane. We eat so much rice after producing 4.5 million tons of rice a year and becoming the eighth largest producer of rice. We still need more. So what do we do? We buy even more. Per capita, the Philippines is the largest importer of rice, importing 2.3 million tons of that white grain goodness. Adobo and rice is truly a special dish to Filipino people. So special that it transcends the barriers of social class. Rich, poor, big, small, thin, hefty, young, old. Adobo and rice are linked to so many cultural aspects of the Philippines. This dish right here was talking to me about an hour to make. This is Filipino history. This is Filipino culture. This is... ...Night Pride.


At Audiology Associates of Prestonsburg, you can live your life the way you want and find the freedom of better hearing. You'll experience patient care that is specific to you with exceptional follow-up care that ensures your hearing and balance needs are being met. Audiology Associates at 1428 Northlake Drive in Prestonsburg. Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Charles Booker was in Pikeville on Sunday, joining a protest against the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a 6-3 majority ruled Friday that the High Court aired 49 years ago when Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right to an abortion. That set off a flurry of protests around the country over the weekend, including a Bands Off Our Bodies rally organized by Pikeville Pride inside of the Pike County Courthouse on Sunday. During the rally, Booker and other speakers said the decision had nothing to do with saving lives, but was an effort by a minority to exert control over others. This was never about protecting life. If it were about protecting life, we'd make sure everyone has quality health care. If it were about protecting life, no child would go hungry. If it were about protecting life, no school would be shot up. Kentucky would not have one of the highest maternal mortality rates. If it was about protecting life, our state would be one of the poorest in the country. We have some of the wealthiest politicians in Washington. Many also expressed fear that the court's conservative majority could also eliminate protections for contraceptive use and marriage equality, and they vowed to fight back in response. Keeping us pregnant? It is our responsibility to recognize that this is the first in a cascading effect of rights that are the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to overturn. Our state is worth fighting for. You are worth fighting for. Every single one of you in this tournament, everyone in this entire state and nation are worth fighting for. And yes, this is an issue for all of us, all of us, men, women, non-binary, our trans brothers and sisters.  Because you are. Booker, who is challenging Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, predicted he will win in November and said he will work to codify the protections previously guaranteed by Roe into law.


Brown Dodge City and in the territory on west, there's just one way to handle the killers of the spoilers and that's with a U.S. Marshal and the smell of gun smoke. William Conrad, the young America, and the story of a man who moved with it. I'm that man, Dylan, the United States Marshal. The first man they look for and the last they want to meet. It's a chance, they job, that it makes a man watchful and a little lonely. All right, there ain't any guts in them rooms. Nighting that bed out there, don't get no softer. What's that, Chester? I was just telling you, Mr. Dobby, the bed up in number four don't have no more gift to it than an old McClellan saddle. Well, I don't know. What were you doing up there anyway? I seen that drummer pack his duds out of here so I know he wasn't in there no more, so I went on up. I had no right to go in my rooms, no right at all. Well, now, Mr. Dobby, I've been figuring I might take that room someday and I was just kind of looking it over. Oh, for heaven's sake, Chester, you're talking a lot of foolishness. You can't afford to stay in the Dodge House. Well, I don't hurt none for a man to think about better than yourself. What in the world is that? Oh, it's a fight right outside my home town.  They don't pay any damages, you cull them out.  I said move along now.  We didn't mean no harm. We were just trying to get him to stop ragging at us to quit his talking. Yeah, don't make no difference to me what you were trying to do, go on, get.  I said get. You hurt, Charlie? No, no, I ain't hurt. You take more than them young buzzards to hurt me. What was they pushing you around for? Oh, I was just trying to tell them something, that's all. Young folks ain't got the gumption to listen when they do them the most good. Well, now, they got shot down easy. Shot?  Well, anybody they draw on the way they is handling them guns. I didn't hear no shootin'. Of course you didn't, there wasn't none. They was talkin' about a fast draw. They'd have been shot down, sure. Charlie, was you trying to tell them how to do it? Well, young ones, they just don't listen. You tried to tell them, but they just don't listen. Well, now, you just sat there quite lightly. They won't bother you no more. Rio Joe, they've got both of them before they even slapped the letters the way they used to do any time. Well, sure, Rio Joe would've outdo anybody. That goes back a ways, don't it? Young smart Alexi won't listen to all of them. Hey, they kinda winged you and I, didn't they? Yes. I guess maybe they did. There was a few elbows flying around. Well, you better put some beef steak on it. Man, need you to die sight these days. Seeing's a good part of shootin'. Yeah, yeah, sure. Well, all right then, you just sat there, Charlie, now. And you let me know if you get bothered more. Ain't nobody willing to listen no more. No matter how much you got to tell them. Yeah, well, I'll see you sometime night. You take care of yourself, Charlie. Ain't nobody willing to listen no more. Hey, thank you, Kitty. Can't you sit down with us? Ah, maybe, for a few minutes. Ah, good. I gotta check over the whiskey supply with Sam pretty soon. Well, now I wouldn't want to interfere with that. It'd be a terrible tragedy for Dodge if a saloon ran dry. Yeah, most of these men would rather see the river go dry. Well, you're both soundin' pretty high and mighty with a couple of fellas who aren't exactly teetotals. Well, just philosophizing, Kitty. Nothing personal.  Because I won two games of checkers. That's fine. He's slowin' up, Kitty.  Yeah, I've noticed. Oh, uh, Doc, yeah. Mind if I see you for a minute? Well, sure not, Chester. Well, no, thank you. I think we might want over to your office. Oh, Chester, look at me. Chester? Well, Miss Kitty, you've got a black eye. Yeah, let me see that, Chester. Well, you sure have, and it's a beaut. Well, yes, sir, I guess it is. Uh, Doc, you've got something put on it. A man ought to protect his eyesight. Well, it's a little late for that, Chester. You should have ducked there. Yeah, why'd you pick that up, Chester? Well, I was just tryin' to help, that's all. You just don't pay a body to try and do a good deed anymore. What were you tryin' to help? Well, that old Charlie, what's his name, sets out in front of the Dodge House, talkin' to anybody who listens. Charlie, don't tell me he gave you that eye. No, Doc. No, of course not. Company young smart Alex is pickin' a lot of them, and I mixed in it, and come out with this. Yeah, it doesn't look like you accomplished much. Now, stop teasing him, you two. That was a nice thing you did, Chester. Thank you. All right, I'm off, all right. But the old coot's bound to get into more trouble. Oh, how's that?  Draw a gun? He's always talkin' about the gunfighters of olden days, and folks get tired of listenin' to that. Well, you better not listen, either, Chester. You only got one more eye. Now, don't pay any attention to him, Chester. I'll fix that eye up for you. Yes, a little raw meat, Kitty. That's about the best thing. Yeah, and a few less jokes.  Come on, Chester. Hey, boy, you gotta be careful about how you work the barrel. You gotta have a good, true barrel on your gun. You sure can whittle nice, mister. Oh, well, uh, boys don't take much to do some whittlin'.  Well, you gotta remember it's for that gun, mister. Oh, my. Like I have for the blade of the Texas sun on my back. Man, don't forget them things. It don't look like my pa's gun. Uh, that, that part there is different. Uh, this here? Yeah, yeah. Oh, well, they got new fangled ideas. You don't need no notch in the cylinder to make a good gun. Well, pa shoots better, I reckon. Well, ain't nobody needs nothing better than his gun. While Rio Joe could hit anything he could see. You know Rio Joe? Yes, I know him. You seen him doing a shooting? Oh, stood right with him. Bye, jingle, mister. Well, you recollect things you could tell me? Well, sure, boy. I recollect real good. I recollect the time down in border country when he faced down three men using a gun like this. Was they drawn on it? Well, yes, they drawed. But that was the last thing they ever did. It don't seem likely no man could do that. If Rio could do it, he was good with a gun. Real good. Go on, mister, tell me how he done it. Well, the way it was, Rio was coming along a trail by some cutlerwood and still spinning them yarns, old man. He's telling me about Rio Joe. Rio Joe, he's telling you about Rio Joe. He's seen him. He stood with him. Ain't that so, mister? Of course that's true. Don't listen to him, boy. He's like to himself talk. He's never seen a gunfighter like Rio Joe his whole life. Well, I did treat you too, I did. Or if he did, he'd run, saw hard, and knew it and stopped you. He does talk so much the whole town. I'm tired of it, boy. You don't want to get took in by an old blow-hard. Now, you look here. Rio Joe. I was telling you straight, boy. You believe me, don't you? Can you poop? I don't know, boy. I don't know. You're asking fellow to give that Marshall's help for a black guy. Chester? Well, he was asking for it. He wasn't out of his business. You know, first, I thought the old man would give it to him. Oh, Charlie? Well, he does his talk. Oh, he sure does that, though. Don't he? Yeah.  Well, he don't even wear a gun. No, no, he don't. I ain't never seen him draw. He just talks about it. Yeah. You don't seem like fellow talks that much out of back his play.  Might be mighty interesting to put it up to him. What you mean? Yeah. Mighty interesting. What are you aiming at? I just got me a smart idea how to get rid of that old man. Wait a minute, Raph. He ain't done nothing bad enough to get shot for. No. Who's talking about shooting? I ain't. You said get rid of it. Well, sure I did. I mean, it'll work. All you gotta do is just call his bluff. How's that?  Yeah, that'd be calling him all right. He sure ain't gonna draw. No, not a talker like him. That'd be nothing for him to do but get. Come on, let's go fetch him. Tonight? Sure, tonight. Right now, ain't no reason to sleep on it. Come on. Oh, you outside. But it's a middle of the night. Well, it ain't gonna make much difference, old man. Jumping together to get away with this? What if you're talking?   He sure is making a lot of noise for old man standing around his drawer. Hey, yellow bellies, dragging a man from his bed. You just give me a chance to get at you. We're giving you a chance, old man. Down in Texas, we just strung you up.  Yeah, and you're lucky I don't. Yeah, now, we just see about that. We're gonna give you one. We're gonna see just how much you learn from Rio de Janeiro. You can't do that. Here, let's go. Right now. Let me throw him. Let him go. Oh, Marshal, we were just having some fun with it. Let him go. He sure needed the lesson. He doesn't need any lessons from you. Go on now and get away from here. Well, there ain't no call to get rough about it, Marshal.  You listen to me. I find you pestering him again. I'll be rough in a way you're gonna really understand.  Come on, Charlie. We'll go back to your room. You don't need to give me no help, Marshal. I can take care of myself. Sure. I know that, Charlie. I wasn't scared of him. I just stood up to him. Yeah. Come on upstairs. Nobody never got by with nothing like that before. Don't worry about it. It's not gonna happen again. I know it ain't, Marshal. I know it ain't. Charlie, you mind if I come in for a few minutes? Huh? Oh, well, yeah, you can shoot yourself.  Well, I did try to have it in my mind.  Yeah. You don't need to change your mind because of those roughs, Charlie. Yeah. No need of that, Marshal. Oh, uh, would you step over this way? I'd like to get in that trunk. Oh, yeah, sure. I've had those guns a long time, Charlie. Yes, I have. Oh, friend, Marshal. I take good care of them. They kind of comfort me to have them with me. I wouldn't get any idea about starting to wear them again, Charlie. They're old guns. Oh. And I'm an old man. Is that what you're saying?  What do you remember that? Well, they didn't hurt the old man. No, they didn't hurt him. Physically, anyway. Well, I guess his pride took a beating. Yeah. That's a terrible thing they did to me. Do you think he's going to leave town now? I don't know, Kitty. I wouldn't blame him if he did. No.  He wasn't doing any harm telling his stories. And the kids seemed to like him. Yeah. But Ras didn't. That Ras killer.  Unlike I hear my name mentioned, Ras. You did, Ras. And I'm glad to repeat what I said.  Ha, ha, ha. Well, now that ain't real ladylike, Miss Kitty. It isn't Marshall. Why don't you move along, Ras? I keep forgetting you're the big Marshall taking care of the ladies and the old man around town. I have an idea that one particular old man can take care of him. So you've been listening to too many of his stories. I'm not so sure they're just stories. What do you mean? I saw a pair of horse pistols in his room last night. And they look like they had a lot of work. That old coupe don't wear no gun. He's wearing one now. Old Charlie? I wouldn't get in his way if I were you. You mean that old geezer might draw on me? No. You've been took in by his talk. I'm just telling you to be careful. He's not gonna forget what you did to him last night. All right, Marshall. I'll play along. I'll tell you one thing. That old man better not start nothin'. I wear my guns all the time. So do I, Ras.  I'll be around. So will I, Ras. Really think there's gonna be trouble, Matt? I don't know, Kitty. That old Charlie was pretty upset. Well, you gotta stop it.  I can't take him away from him, Kitty. Why can't you? Because he hasn't done anything. Oh, well, I forgot. You have to sit and wait until something happens. Until somebody gets killed before you can do anything. Kitty.  That takes you bad joy. Well, now that's your funny thing, Marshall. Something just didn't come in.  Yeah? Yeah, here you are. Oh, thanks. It's something I've been expecting. How long did they? No, I wish it was that simple. That wire was about old Charlie? Yeah, I'd ask a couple of questions. Stick with me, Doc. You may be needed. Yeah, sure. What's that? Never mind. You look at Charlie over there, Doc. Sure, I'm pretty sure we're asked today. Well, I'm not surprised. Let's go see him. He's not good at all. Marshall, you're gonna make it. Don't worry about it. Oh, I don't. I don't care about that. It's past time for me to settle. But, Marshall, I want you to know I wasn't making it. I don't care about that. I don't care about that. I don't care about that. I wasn't making up them stories. I know you weren't. I wasn't making no brags or no bluffs. I... I did stand with Rio Joe. I could shoot too. I... I could shoot as good as he could. I could draw as fast as Rio Joe. Yeah, Charlie, you could. You... You'll believe me, Marshall. Yeah, I believe you. Figure maybe you kind of know the whole thing. Yeah, I do. I guessed it, Rio. Sure. Sure. Tell... Tell the others for me. Tell them I... Tell them I weren't no... no fake... I... Just a minute ago, was that you called him? Old Charlie was Rio? Hmm? Dying like that? Nobody knowing who you are? I don't know, Chester. I have a hunch Rio would like it just this way. I'd have had to arrest him otherwise. Rio's been a wanted man for 30 years. This is George Walsh inviting you to join us again next week when CBS Radio presents another story of the Western Frontier. When Matt Dillon, Chester Pogfoot, Doc and Kitty, together with all the other hard-living citizens of Dodge, will be with you once more. It's America growing west in the 1870s. It's gun smoke. Latest news follows then Mitch Miller with tonight's Gun Stars on the CBS Radio Network.