And thank you especially for again inviting me to this wonderful conference. My topic today is about the reformation, which was actually a question that Hans sent to me earlier this year, asking what exactly did the reformation reform? Now the short answer to that question is it reformed nothing but it changed everything. That's the very short answer and you'll get a 10 for that if you answer that on the examination paper. But the explanation takes a bit longer. Now first of all, I'd like to say that this topic for me is a bit off course because unlike David, I have no worn memories or even cold memories, indeed any memories of a religious education. I'm a product of the 20th century secularism 100%. So what I, my interest in religious matters, theological matters is an outsider's interest. I know that this qualifies me in the eyes of all insiders on all sides from opening my mouth. But well, apparently the insiders in the circle of outsiders is growing bigger every day. So I have my outsider's view here in the open. Now why speak about reformation as a libertarian, there is an obvious answer which I do not share and there is a less obvious answer which I'd like to explain shortly. As you know, or at least those who attended my previous speech here, which was 2015 or something like that. It was about the notion of conscience and how the reformation changed the notion of the human conscience as if there is any other conscience, but it changed the notion of the human conscience. And that to me is very important because I am with Hans Hoppe in the corner of those who associate libertarianism thinking about freedom and liberty with argumentation ethics or as I used to call it in my more innocent days, the ethics of dialogue. Now what is argumentation if not constantly appealing to the other person's conscience? Intimidation is different from negotiation, it's different from intimidation, it's different from coercion and in what way is it different from all those things in that it appeals to conscience that is to the things you already share. So literally common knowledge, conscience, and you build upon this common basis to try to expand the range of things on which you can agree. So argumentation ethics is not just a technique, it is a way of life so to speak. And in that regard or concerning that I have a project which is probably too big for the remainder of my life, but it's called Conscientious Libertarianism. So putting back libertarianism together with conscience as it were in a pre-reformation mold because the reformation initiated a period in which one speaker could say to another, that's my opinion, you have your own opinion and this is where it ends. So there is no need for arguing. I have my truth and you have your truth. This kind of separation which amounts to anti-intellectualism, which amounts to irrationalism or anti-rationalism very much came to the fore with reformation. It had been present, of course, before that. It's a general attitude, so to speak, that can be found in all times, but it received a sort of official accreditation in the context of the reformation. So conscience is for me and here in this speech the central notion and it has to, let me just explain that there is a huge literature on conscience as there is on everything else. So you have to accord me the favor of accepting my definition if only for the sake of the argument. And conscience for me is basically before you start filling in what's in there, it is to be understood in a sort of platonic way as a common memory, what is there at the bottom of every human being and can be brought to the surface again in human discourse, human argumentation. If that would be impossible, then, of course, there is no basis for argumentation. You have to prepare the ground, so to speak, by bringing up all those things which are really undeniable for any serious speaker. Of course, a jester can always deny everything and we are in a society where gestures set the tone. But the idea of speaking conscientiously implies that you try to make yourself understood by the other. So trying to speak in terms the other can understand that you mean what you say, that you do not invent meanings and you are not empty-dumpty giving words, meanings they never had before, and that you take responsibility for your sayings, both within the context of speech and outside of it. So there is conscientiousness, which refers to conscience, is a very thick concept. It's not just a formal thing, a box that you can check up, are you a conscientious person? Yes. It takes more than that. Now if we turn to the reformation proper, which is the subject here, you will find that the reformation starting with Luther, Martin Luther, virtually made it impossible to give the idea of conscience any meaning apart from the literal meaning of the Bible to the extent that he accepted the Bible. And that is already the indication of the big problem with the Protestant reformation. Because Luther was followed by Calvin and many others, Protestants, they're all Protestants, and then after them, after this what is called the doctrinal phase of Protestantism, all these Protestantism which had a guru, a main teacher, and there were all these movements which had no doctrine but still spread like wildfire throughout the West, especially the English-speaking and the German-speaking world, where the reformation had first taken hold. Now in saying this, I will be speaking about Protestants and Protestantisms. Of course Protestants are people, and many Protestants are better people than many Catholics and vice versa, and you can say that for any group, Jews, Muslims, pagans, you can always say many of them are better than many of the others and vice versa. So this is not a judgment on personal character, but it is a, what I try to do is an assessment of the atmosphere, the climate of thinking that is generated by certain ideas. Now the different Protestantisms can all be summarized in the Western context certainly as anti-Catholicism. So to understand Protestantism you have to understand Catholicism. But also if you are looking for a common point apart from the non-Catholicism, the question is what is Protestantism if it is not just anti-Catholicism? I cannot find anything, but one of the more famous American Protestant theologians, Benjamin Warfield, who I think as an authority on the subject said this, before all else Protestantism is in its very essence an appeal from all other authority to the divine authority of Holy Scripture. That's the direct reference to the Sola Scriptura, only Scripture of Martin Luther. Problem is by the time Warfield wrote, there were already so many different appeals to the authority of the Bible that it was nearly impossible to give any belief to his statement that you could appeal above all, from all other authorities to the one authority of the Bible. He tried to do that, but even what happened since he died, which was in the early 1920s, apparently his counsel was not followed or was not effective because there was no great unification of Protestantism on the authority of the Bible. On the contrary, it sealed all these controversies, it sealed the lack of authority of the Bible, which became certainly in many circles in the Anglo-American world, a term of derision you have the Bible thumpers and you have intelligent people. Now this can easily be extrapolated to the emergence of atheism, not just as an intellectual stance, but as a general attitude for most people in the West. Luther, to come back to him, turned against the church, claiming that he did not need to justify his position on the matters that divided him from the church, but he could just say, okay, you do what you have to do, but I'm out of here, and luckily for him there was a welcome home in Germany, we could easily imagine in other times that there would have been no one to grant him asylum, so he could return home and be safe, and of course the details of his life explain perhaps why Protestantism had a very different attitude to worldly power than the church, because the church was always a rival to the secular powers, even if she was well aware that she could not in battle face them, she had to rely on a different authority, but Luther knew that without the princes there would be no future for him, the German Protestant princes. Now switching from these probably well known historical moments to the philosophical point, Luther did more than just turn against the church, he turned against a long-running tradition in Western philosophy, which was the tradition that there is something above the world of opinions, namely the world of knowledge or truth, and that is a tradition that goes back in philosophy to the early sixth century BC, when you have figures like Heraclitus or Armenides who were writing about the probably the most intriguing fact that launched philosophy, namely how can it be that people disagree about everything and do that with such a glee, whereas on the other hand it should be clear to any intelligent person that there is something a unifying thing behind the phenomena, so we are looked locked in the phenomena, but beyond that there is a reality that is not subject to that kind of yes or no opinions, you have to go in it and find what is true and what is not true and for the Greeks this idea that there is truth behind or beneath or above the phenomena, this came to be called the Logos, the thing that there is a logical aspect to being, not just psychology, not just sociology, not just shouting, but the sort of truth that has to be grasped by the mind and this grasping by the mind was taught increasingly by the Greeks, certainly if you followed the next generations up to Plato, they realized that this truth could be as it were explored in a systematic way, philosophy became a disciplined undertaking precisely because it had developed this idea that the Logos consist of ideas, ideas with a capital I, so not just things in the mind or things in words, but things that are real in themselves and this is what launched philosophy as a separate discipline and gave it at least the hope of leaving the way of opinion, as Parmenides had called it, and to go switch over to the way of truth and the difference between the way of opinion, the logical difference between the two is that the way of opinion has no direction, as Heraclitus so beautifully and succinctly expressed it, the way up is also the way down, so you're always right, is this road going up, is it going down, you're always right because there is no sense of direction in opinions, but in the way of truth there is a fixed direction, so you can go with it or you can go against it, if you go with it, that is by thinking rigorously and conscientiously, you will arrive at ever more stable truth, whereas if you go the other way, you will arrive at something that cannot be true, so that cannot be real, so there is no interest in going in that direction. Now let me add the religious component here, the world of ideas became in classical Greek philosophy something like, but not quite like the later conceptions of God, the word God in its different variations has two basic meanings, the Indo-German tradition going back to the old Sanskrit, the Indo-German languages, they emphasize the aspect of shining things, the divine things are the shining things, they are the beautiful things, so they are, as it were, praiseworthy for their intrinsic characteristics, there's also a another Semitic tradition which we translate, the words of which we translate with the term God and then it means the mighty one or the overpowering one or the force and that is of course a very different set of ideas coming out of that, you have the religions of the beautiful things and with the Greeks that became the religion of reason and goodness, of wisdom and you have religions of force, so that was in classical Greece obviously the religion of goodness and reason, wisdom, so religion was the philosophical goal, wisdom seeking and that was also the thing that kept everything together because the religious aspect, how things go together, hang together for the Greeks was the wisdom encapsulated in the unity of the ideas, now for Plato this was obvious but it created a problem for him, namely what do these ideas have to do with the world we live in, below the line up on top of the line above the line we have the realm of knowledge, truth and all these things, below you have opinion, so how do the ideas work in the darkness of the world of opinion and more importantly the world of nature, the world of facts and his answer was that there had to be a demi-urge, a sort of God, not himself a divine thing because this God was not an idea but it was something that was so motivated by love for the ideas that it wanted to communicate this love to everything in the in nature that had the capacity for responding in kind to this love, so this demi-urge became the animating spirit of the of the world as we know it because animating it was a something strange to the dead nature that it was an animation by the love of the divine things, now there are all sorts of problems connected with this but I'm not going into that, I just jump to the next great Greek philosopher that has to be Aristotle made really a mess of things in a way because he said no we do not need a demi-urge through the divine ideas they're there but the divine ideas themselves are God there is no need for a lesser God to act so how does it happen that this God is of relevance to people and animals and the answer given by Aristotle was God is relevant because everything loves him so the love is no longer the work of the demi-urge right a sort of thing that is given it is something that is already there in all in all of nature and that was the religious or theological if you wish basis for the general the teleological approach of Aristotle everything has this inherent motion which is directed toward a particular object then suddenly the classical period in Greek thinking was over and there was a period when the Stoics and Epicureans set the tone and both of them were very much against the notion of ideas the Stoics thought of God as a force imminent in nature it was a force diffused through nature but it was just as material as any other force so it was not something from above it was something inside and this became an important I will not discuss Epicureans because he loved the gods he simply thought that they were irrelevant so there's nice irrelevancies the Stoics left a mark in Rome because the Romans liked this idea of an omnipotent God they had there's of course their capital and the traditional gods but they began when they were making up their empire they began to feel the need for gods that were more than just another set of local tribes so to justify the empire they needed to have gods that represented the world rather than just Rome historical traditional Rome so they turned for some reason to Stoicism and to other notions inherited from the from the east mainly but very soon they had to answer the question more or less on a philosophical ground what is God and already in the early first century so the beginning of the empire under Nero Roman aristocrats Seneca came up with a formula that would make history he said God is a quantity a magnitude greater than which cannot be thought and that modified that formula would become the foundation of Christian theology in the middle ages there was a clear problem with Seneca's formula this magnitude though there can be no magnitude such that no greater magnitude can be thought because like force you can think of a force well I can think of a force that is slightly or much greater than the one you are thinking of and anybody can do that these magnitudes what makes them scientifically interesting is that they can be measured that is expressed in numbers but there simply is no greatest number so you can always go in thought beyond that so if you remove this logical problem what remains of the Roman idea of the universal God that is he is the strongest the highest the greatest being but not necessarily greater than can be thought so there can be you can imagine that something else will someday appear which will be greater so it was not really a very strong foundation for a religion that was to bear an empire so you know what happened with Christianity in the early empire but it was in the empire that Christianity grew up right so and a lot of the culture culture atmosphere of the Roman Empire penetrated Christian communities and Christian thinking and Christian intellectuals and as they became more and more established within the empire parts of the Roman elites many of which were to some extent Christianized so Christianity was on the way so to speak of becoming a religion of magnitudes especially force and power because this was acceptable within the world of the the empire force and power was essential to the existence and the functioning of the empire although this made it very difficult to explain or accept the sayings reported in the New Testament of Jesus mainly that he refused all the kingdoms of the world and in the glory of them so he had nothing to do with these kinds of powers now luckily for Christianity and shawm will probably disagree but the western empire collapsed leaving in the west had this mosaic of well not mosaic kaleidoscope of moving tribes or looking for a place to settle down no political authority to keep them in check but miraculously a rather effective amazingly effective spiritual power which was a church although she had very little means except she could talk to people or thunder at people as it was not all gentle talk these early missionaries were no pushovers but anyway the the church got in at the grass roots in the woods covering what later became Europe and from there with the help of a few rather unsavory characters such as Charles Charlemagne as a butcher in his own right but also a man who had sufficient understanding of the role of religion as a binding factor that he promoted the works of the church for example by founding institutions of learning all over Europe so that there was a common language Latin language and a common script the shortened script that he invented specifically for the purpose of facilitating communication and this led to a flourishing of the Christian faith as a common element in Europe when Charlemagne's heritage and the reign of his sons came to an end and you ended up with the feudal periods now in the 11th century which is the century when the medieval civilization as it were began to establish itself after Charlemagne the peace of God movement took hold it merged with the the monastery movements have been from the 6th century monasteries and at the time the monasteries were the as it were the first phase of the church in the west far more important than the pope the bishops or the priests the monks were the holy the holy men whereas the bishops were members of rich powerful families who always had a double faced identity they were members of the elite but they were also holy in holy orders but for them the monks it was different they had a the role of an example they were really devoting their lives to God and in that sense they had an authority far beyond that of the priests now one of the monks probably one of the greatest minds in the middle ages was an Italian born in Aosta and moved then to northern France monastery of Bec and later became art bishop of Canterbury so Anselm of Canterbury Anselm of Aosta Anselm of Bec it's all the same but I'm interested in Anselm of Bec because it was as prior of the monastery in Bec that Anselm turned this idea its its its mind for the very first time really in Christendom to the question how to understand God he wanted a faith based on understanding faith seeking understanding why because he was convinced that without faith no understanding is possible so you see faith and understanding are really two sides of the of the same coin and he set out to discover a God in in his monastery no electricity it gets early dark dark very early in winter so it was a very poor life luckily there was a library but for the rest the accommodations in in Bec were not very great proof he had to write on clay tablets so the monastery was not rich enough to provide parchment or even whatever a good pass as paper it was clay tablets so he wrote he gave his lectures oral lectures and when his novices and the monks asked him to explain in writing he said okay I'll do it it's not easy to do this but he did and when it was finished rather clumsy novice broke all the tablets problem if you drop clay tablets they break so had to rewrite them and as he was doing that he got very uncomfortable with what he had written because he had noticed that he had always been talking about the greatest being the highest being this sort of absolute greatness in fact or in power or in whatever and he felt that he had not made a convincing case at all one reason why he felt that was that the the poor monks in Bec had enormous trouble following his very intricate and convoluted arguments this was not just here is a b and c and now we have conclusion e and this was going all over the place very difficult so instead of showing them the way to God he felt that he had been misleading them or rather confusing them not a very good feeling for a teacher if at the end of the semester you have to say what have I done and he reported being in a existential crisis even to the point know this for a monk in the 11th century even to the point of losing his faith so this was a very deep crisis and he got out of it I think that's my interpretation precisely because he was in such a deep crisis we would say he was on the point of becoming an atheist and what did he do he addressed the atheist so that the next little work he wrote much shorter than the original monologian and the proslogan began with an argument against the atheist now in the 11th centuries you could look far and wide there were no atheists there were all Christians or if you went to Spain you could find a few Jews and or you could find Muslims and if you went to the to the woods in the north you could find some remaining pagans but they were all people who believed in God so luckily for Anselm he could point to a a psalm in the in the bible which is which starts with the words of the fool the fool who says there is no god so he that's how he begins and he said if I can convince the fool that there is a god then I am in the clear again because then at least what I have written will have an object and how did he start to address the fool well he changed Seneca's formula from a magnitude greater than which cannot be thought to the more neutral something greater than which cannot be thought but the examples he gives and the explanations he make it clear that he means not quality and not quantity but quality so he's talking about things like truth truth wisdom reason intelligence mindfulness conscientiousness mercy justice knowledge all these things about which no conscientious persons can say to have less of these is better than to have more of these so he defined God as that greater than which cannot be thought which translates in platonic language as the good itself so goodness itself became God and this redefinition of God which made no mention of power or forces became as it were the launch launch path for the christian theology which had been on a backburner since the the days of saint augustine so after more than 500 years there was a revival of theological thinking now unfortunately this theory of ensign was very platonic just plotters theory but as it were purified no possibility of putting inside it the third man problem or whichever of the classical objections made against platos theory of ideas because in the unsalamic version it was all about certain qualities and just to give a small example you have the quality of redness things are red some things are rather than other things some things are not red at all but and this is the platonic move there can be nothing rather than the redness itself and this if you think about it logically this already means that redness is not a red thing it is a thing in itself but it's not a thing that is red like a person's red trousers over there it's trousers trousers and they are red but redness itself is nothing but red so that means that if you try to have an idea of non-redness itself you have something that is non-red and nothing else so we end up with nothing so we have here a tapestry of things and their oppositions which is logically very tightly organized and one of the things let me go quickly to that one of the qualities that Anselm introduced although I must admit not in so many words but as it were in the way he presented his theory was the qualities of personhood and community this is important I think to any future libertarian philosophy because one of the problems with current Americanized post-reformation libertarianism is that the person the idea of the person is not really present you have the individual but the individual is unlike the the notion of the person bereft of a higher dimension so to speak a horse is an individual a cat is an individual even a spider is an individual no way you can cut them up and end up with two individuals so the physical integrity individual does not even begin to compare with the personal integrity of the person which involves the commitment to these higher things in themselves like truth and what is a person who does not know or does not want to know truth who has no sense of justice no sense of mercy even an evil person has a sense of justice even if it takes pleasure in being unjust you need to if it does not understand what justice is then he cannot take opposition to it so to speak he becomes like an alligator like beyond good and evil so Anselm's theology naturally I would say almost naturally involved in the ideas of person personhood and community the difference between person and individual individual is that to become a person you need to be in communion with other persons and you cannot become a person on your own that's why if you look at children and you you drop them in the woods and they miraculously survive they will not come back out of the woods as persons they will be if they survive they will be surviving animals but you would then still have to start from nothing in turning them into persons with which you can speak and communicate and have a conscience and of course to imply these things are for Anselm quite natural because they make it possible to add the Trinitarian ideas God is a community of three divine persons but God himself is not a person the the triunity is not a person but the three persons are so his theology solved a number of problems there another idea that is very much present in him is freedom personal freedom and he noted that the idea of freedom is the same whether you apply it to God or to man and that is interesting because God is free in the same sense that man is or rather man is free in the same sense that God is free now in what sense is God free he is free in the sense that he cannot do anything against his own nature and what is his own nature this Anselm had explained and is at the bottom of his proof for the existence of God God is all the things all the divine things rolled into one so to speak he is love he is truth he is wisdom he is reason he is intelligence and so on he is personhood he is community but in in saying this he had also implied that all these things which is also already implied in in Plato that all these things are really logically compatible so you cannot use justice to justify lying so to speak or truth telling to become to justify injustice or mercilessness or foolishness all these things have to be taken in account into account at all times and this means that the theology which Anselm developed was really a more a theology of the moral law taking law in the same general sense of order it is an order of moral things where moral isn't an happy word because it's really the an order of the shining things of the things good and excellent in themselves so if you have that before you you realize immediately that the moral law which became a very famous expression later cannot be a set of rules the moral law is rather the right is a question of having the right attitude through life so a moral education is not instruction in certain rules it is teaching your children to behave with the right attitude in the unpredictable multitude of circumstances that may arrive in life so an education is different from an instruction right and the the legalization of the notion of the moral law which came after Anselm in fact in modern times with the idea that the commandments are the essence of moral teaching this medieval idea has been lost and I think that's not so very good because it it created lots of confusion about the relationship between rules and attitudes now going to the final stage the reformation this is what Luther as it were disavowed the idea that there is anything other than the biblical revelation that connects man and God so the very idea that you can think about reason and goodness and intelligence and so on from the right perspective is anathema to the Protestants if you do if you think like that you are not one of us because man is nothing god is everything and reason in the immortal words of Martin Luther in his last sermon in Wittenberg reason is a pretty whore it's it's it's something to be despised it can only leave you lead you astray so what remains of religion in the reformation this is the word of God and of the word of God as rightly interpreted by the right Protestant authority that's a recipe for disaster right because it can go anywhere and it went everywhere so what happened to freedom many people think that by destroying the idea of a common conscience that unites all men to the principles of rightness to God right the common conscience between God and man was with a Luther as it were disassembled into a common conscience of each individual individual privately with God my conscience tells me he could say to the pope you have no conscience of God because my conscience is with God and your conscience is not you are the Antichrist Christ so this destruction of the common conscience that is of the the common element in common logic in common knowledge led to the modernistic embrace of subjectivism and relativism but if you want to learn more about that read Joseph Ranziner who made a profession out of decrying the rise and the dominance of relativistic and subjectivistic ideas subjectivism is okay when it we're talking about tastes and colors but if you are talking about things like truth and justice and beauty and others things like that you cannot simply say it doesn't matter we all have our own tasting proof injustice that is the recipe for chaos okay with the destruction of conscience many people and I've known some said hey this is really freedom I no longer have to justify myself I can do what I want and then the yeah soon there was a problem and there was not really a problem because you can do what you want but your actions your physical actions should be regulated to the extent that they do not cause harm or violence to another that made for the kind of libertarian thinking that's so high so formal that it doesn't convince anybody because people think rarely from this academic standpoint of we are making creating a new world right people think from within their own situation from where they are and what it does it mean for us and when you start thinking from that you need a richer canvas or rather a richer tool than merely to say you can do what you want as long as you do not do harm to your neighbor because defining our or defining property these are things which happen very much later stage and if before you reach that stage there has not been inculcated a very profound attitude of brightness and respectful rightness for the goodness and for reason and intelligence one then of course all these different solutions that may be offered property is this harm is that and so on no no it's it no it's that they will come to nothing because the argument that will resolve these problems have to be appeals to the others conscience so unless you have first worked on having a common conscience your arguments will not amount to anything and if this is not perhaps the brightest point on which to to end this is where I've had thank you


the conservative group turning point USA has condemned the group of neo-nazis and said they have nothing to do with the organization but where was the Santas is why I want to let them in you let them in and you knew what they were so you are complicit we'll be right back go get some snacks perhaps a carbonated soda clarification about the neo-nazis at the turning point event they were outside protesters my point was more metaphorical that you embrace them at your thing I felt so I just they were not in the building I know they were not in the building but they were in the mix of people at the thing except and I know this is gonna blow your mind but every single thing they said was a lie I love how even when they're issuing corrections on the fly they still managed to dig their hole even deeper and as you would expect the rest of the media went with the same framing that somehow turning point USA was connected to these people and as you could expect this couldn't be further from the truth according to Jason Rance from KTTH radio who investigated this group standing outside of the event in a public space that anyone can stand in quote some Nazis showed up unclear if they're serious or pretending to try to claim conservatives support them so they can get coverage in left-wing media without an exception all the conservative attendees who came out were calling out their hate and telling them to leave if I had to guess this is stage I just hope left-wing outlets don't fall for it another journalist from red state Brandon Morse also reported that these people did not seem legit hey so apparently Nazis decided to show up with all this like pro DeSantis stuff to boot and they're totally pulling it off right they're convincing everybody that they're actually with these are what you would call plants so their whole entire thing is there coming out here to make it seem like this SAS gathering is actually pro Nazi pro you know white supremacy and all that stuff the DeSantis flags are a big giveaway we've seen this before in Virginia where never Trump or group the Lincoln project sent fake white supremacists to stand around holding Glenn Yonkin signs they got busted and the media let it all just fall down the memory hole we've seen this any time a right leading protest gets going against the Democrats with the media always pouncing on some lone rando with a Nazi or Confederate flag which they then used to smear everyone they've done the same thing in Canada and Russia for that matter just ask yourself logically if you really are a Nazi and you support Ron DeSantis why would you show up to a conservative political event waving Nazi flags the only reason you would do that is to give the impression that conservatives and Ron DeSantis supporters are also Nazis lastly even if these people were want to be real Nazis there were like 12 of them the facts are TP USA had nothing to do with that group and to that group was not supported or embraced by turning point USA as the view claim in fact we know that the people who did come out condemn the group and told them to leave needless to say turning points founder Charlie Kirk let it be known that they were considering legal avenues to deal with these false smears which got the hashtag sue the view trending on Twitter and of course they also issued a statement condemning the supposed Nazis pointing out that they were unable to remove them because they were on public property as I pointed out earlier you cannot be trespassed from public property without breaking the law not even the police can do it this is a staple of the so-called first amendment audit videos I've seen in a million times and finally the view issues and apology because they know they were wrong right right and I have to stop talking because you have that I do have so on Monday we talked about the fact that there were openly neo-nazi demonstrators outside the Florida student action summit of the turning point USA group we want to make clear that these demonstrate demonstrators were gathered outside the event and that they were not invited or endorsed by turning point USA a turning point USA spokesman said the group quote a hundred percent condemns those ideologies and said turning point USA security tried to remove the neo-nazis from the area but could not because they were on public property also turning point USA wanted to clarify wanted us to clarify that this was a turning point USA summit and not a Republican party event so we apologize for anything we said that may have been unclear on these points unclear literally everything you said was a lie they still invited Matt Gates though I would just like to know they did it again just like their last legal note where they continued to dig their hole deeper they just couldn't get through this apology without implying that Matt Gates is a Nazi I guess and coming from all people on this cursed panel the newly signed conservative alright folks that's it for that one thanks for watching please hit that like button share and leave a comment to let us all know what you think thanks a lot


Good morning, folks. Thanks for coming. I think we know it's very early, so we appreciate coming over here. We've been told that we need to be less than six feet apart, so we're going to be hugging all the presentation like that. So we do have an exciting presentation for you today. We hope it's going to be good use of your time. We're going to talk about using the edge architectures with OpenStack. Chris Janiszewski, I'm a senior principal solutions architect working with the customer. I'm Darren Sartino, principal solution architect on the same team as Chris, but I'm also a secretary. So we thought along how to make best use of your time, and we thought we should start with the demo. Also, some of the aspects of the presentation we're going to do here. It's still work in progress, so please bear this in mind. But yeah, I think hopefully the demo gods are with us, and we're going to start with that. Yeah, a couple of the other demos we had that you may have seen that were pre-recorded. We're going to try to do a live one. We have a recording fallback, though. So we're going to show you one of the kind of sample edge architecture we deployed in our labs. This is something we see a lot of our customers use, and we only have three sites in this example. But from the customer perspective, we see hundreds of sites being deployed the same way. But it's pretty much rinse and repeat, so I think it's going to give you a good representation on how this is going to look. So in our case, we start with the central location, where we run a majority of the control plane, control services. We also have the set of hypervisors, so NOVA computes. We have a set storage running in a central location, and we also have a pool of bare metal nodes that are going to be consumed by Aaronic. The second side, so the first edge side, we simulate that it can be up to 100 millisecond latency round trip between them. So we simulate that, and the second side is compute. So we have hypervisors, detached hypervisors. We also have a localized storage, so there's an individual CEP cluster running at the second side. And we also have a pool of bare metal nodes, so Aaronic nodes that can be consumed for any type of OS or workload that needs to have this direct access to the bare metal. And then finally, for the use case where you don't have enough space to deploy another CEP cluster, we created another edge location with a single compute and just the local storage. So we're trying to cover as much ground as possible with this tiny environment, if you will. So I'm gonna switch to the open stack environment, and you can see we're using redhead open stack, in this case, but obviously it should be transparent to other distributions as well. So I'm gonna start with the instances. And again, if it's a little bit slow, please forgive us as we're over Wi-Fi, and the lab is actually in North Carolina. But in this case, we are running three virtual machines here. There's one virtual machine in central, one in the first edge location with the localized CEP cluster, and we have an edge too. And you can kind of distinguish them by looking at the middle in the availability zone. You can see there in a different availability zones. And we also, in our case, we are also deploying these bare metal instances. So we have a pool of bare metal instances at each of these locations, and in this case, we deployed some rail OS straight on the bare metal, one in central and one in edge. So how this would look like from the user perspective, how they would be able to consume it. Obviously we're doing things for the GUI, but the same would apply for API and CLI and whatnot. So I'm gonna spawn another edge VM, if you will, and you will see that the user will have access to the multiple availability zones, right? So they can pick which, and if you have 100 availability zones, they could all be visible here. And in my case, I'm gonna deploy this next VM in a DCN1, which is my bigger edge site. I'm gonna hit no for the, I'm gonna use ephemeral storage in this case, although both Cinder and ephemeral is supported. And then finally, I have a set of flavors that I can take advantage of. And this is only a Serous VM that I'm gonna deploy. So I'm gonna pick a tiny, like a very tiny VM. But you can see I also have flavors, special for like bare metal instances that I might wanna deploy on edge. Moving to the last tab that I really care about is the networking. I can deploy the tenant networking that will be able to spawn across all of my availability zones. In my case, I'm using what we call a routed provided networks. So these are the provided networks that are kind of attached to a single neutron network, and they're smart enough to select the right subnet based on which edge locations I'm deploying to. So this is definitely the layer three, they spawn over the layer three, but in my case, I kind of bundle them under the same neutron network. So pretty simple, it looks just like having a flat architecture, except we now have multiple availability zones and we can take advantage of it. I'm gonna do this quickly for bare metal just to show you that it's exactly the same process. So instead of availability zone, DCN or DCN1, I'm gonna, I have the special availability zone called bare metal. And then in order to select, I'm gonna pick a rail here, but in order for me to select which side I wanna deploy this bare metal to or which side I wanna pick the bare metal out of the pool, I have these special flavors attached to it. So I have one called bare metal edge, I pick it and then rest, I'm gonna leave the same and just hit launch and it should just do and deploy another one. So you can see the simplicity, it's the same as running the open stack in a single site, right? It's totally abstracted from the users. Quickly show you what else is being kind of managed by this edge architecture. If I go to my images and scroll down and pick one of those image that I'm using, you can see that not only I'm able to take advantage of the compute, but also my glance is propagated across these multiple edge sites, right? So every time I deploy this VM where my seph and glance is located at these edge locations, I don't have to pull that image and then go over my, you know, maybe slow network. So this is one of the advantage of this architecture as well. So in the case where in the architecture where edge two had no storage, that image would come from the central location. Yeah, absolutely. Another thing is we talked about it's not just ephemeral storage and this is example I have volumes created in each of the availability zones, one in central and one DCN. Quickly, a couple more things I wanna show is if we go to admin and then system information, we showed you the volume. So this is kind of a confirmation that we have an individual Cinder volume services running in central and DCN. And then if I go under the ironic bare metal provisioning, which is the section where you use the bare metal nodes, you can see that I have a pool of bare metal sitting, some of them in a central location, some of my edge. And this is the one I just spawned, he's provisioning. Another like really good advantage of OpenStack running the edge architecture is OpenStack has very low overhead, right? So if you look at actually how big these compute nodes and even my controllers, they're super tiny, right? So in my lab, I designated 12 gigs of RAM per compute to run this, right? So that's one of the advantage we see customer or users that we work with picking OpenStack over something like maybe something like more heavyweight Kubernetes, right? The overhead of OpenStack is way lower. And then finally, one more thing I wanna show you before I turn it over to Darren, observability. It's just another very important aspect. So in here, we take advantage of Prometheus for gathering the data from all of the locations and then shipping it to the single pane of glass, if you will, right? So I can switch between these different sites and I can drill down into my resource utilizations for the site. So that kind of concludes the demo. I hope you like it. I'm gonna switch it back to the presentation and we're kind of gonna tell you a little bit more how the sausage is made and how we make this all happen. Okay, so what is the edge? So in edge can mean many different things for a lot of different customers. Edge kind of can be used, a lot of people hear edge and they instantly think telcos because telcos, I've talked about your V-drands and your remote access networks and stuff. The goal with edge is to basically push your workloads out closer to your customers, closer to where it matters most. But it spans many different industries anything from manufacturing, transportation, we've seen cruise ships where basically they wind up putting little clusters out on their cruise ships to do work there and stuff. Finance, it goes all the way out to handheld devices and stuff. On the right side, most of the time when people think edge, they think geographic edge, pushing things out across geography because the biggest gap there is the latency to get users on demand. I don't know if anyone has kids, but my kids, their patience is like zero. So it seems like every generation that comes along, any additional millisecond seems to bother them. So yeah, so edge is about pushing things out and making things faster for the end customer delivery. So when you start talking about edge, there's a bunch of different considerations because now you have distributed sites which comes with distributed challenges and problems. From the hardware perspective, now you have multiple points of presence around the globe, around the country. Your workloads basically, you need to figure out what your risk assessments are at the edge now because if you're doing any kind of resiliency at the edge, you need to account for a number of servers for failover situations and stuff. And also from the hardware perspective, you have to maintain those servers. So you have to get boots on the ground where those servers are. From the networking side, you get the latency obviously issued there. It's kind of a balance between getting the stuff to run fast for your customer, getting it to come back to your central location where you may want to process that data, do data analytics and stuff like that. There's a ton of other routing. No one owns all of their cables from the edge all the way back to their central. In most cases, telcos and maybe one of the exceptions to that, but you're always trusting in someone else. So troubleshooting problems in those regards and outages, you need to account for types of things that are outside of your control, which definitely can take an impact on SLAs and trying to make those types of calculations. Storage. So storage, we touch a little bit about that on the demo. You can have centralized storage or storage at the edge. If you don't have storage at the edge and you're running a workload, your node goes down, you don't have any kind of resiliency, that could be problematic, but the type of workload may be, your risk versus cost may be worth it to do that. The footprints at the edge is also what can be taken into it that needs to be taken into account because if you are doing resilient storage, you're gonna need at least something that provides three nodes or if you're doing stuff or something that's resilient, so if you can afford that loss. And then the last section here is where is your edge?  You're gonna break it down to regions due to latency and redundancy, but your edge may not even be geographically related. It could actually be in your own data center, which we'll mention a bit later. And then the other advantage of doing edge versus multiple deployments in other areas is the observability aspect. You can pull up a single pane of glass and be able to view DCN1, DCN2 and get a good visibility into what your utilization is. So now we're gonna pass back to Chris to talk about various OpenStack deployment topologies. Yeah, thanks, Terian. So we're gonna go over kind of four architectures that we see customers consider for the edge deployment. And it doesn't mean like version one is better than version two. There are different use cases and we just wanted to walk through the four of them and kind of tell you the differences, right? So starting with just a very traditional flat deployment. So this is one of the things that majority of our customers are running. They're not running any type of edge architectures, but maybe they're just running individual clusters and then instead of running one, they have a multiple smaller side either in the same data center or across multiple geographical locations. So this is kind of our starting point and there's pros and cons of going this way, right? Like it's a proven architectures. We've seen hundreds of customers deploying it. So you get that peace of mind. You're not trying to get into something that has not been maybe fully tested or adapted by the larger community of the OpenStack users. The disadvantage is, these are totally disconnected environments, right? So you need to take care of yourself of putting something that will connect them and give you the observability across. And this could be accomplished with something like Prometheus and Grafana, but from the API perspective, you kind of have to take care of this yourself with, I don't know, maybe something like Terraform or Ansible to be able to interact with all of these clouds individually. And then the version one, if you will, it's what we sort of presented in this demo a little bit earlier, where you have a centralized control plane in one of the locations. Whether this control plane has additional compute, it's entirely up to you. We see customers dedicating one side just for the control and they're making it as resilient as possible. With that said, this one control plane is your single point of failure. So if you lose that side, your users will no longer have access to the APIs.  They're gonna work fine, especially because in this architecture, we're also running individual CEP cluster at each of the locations. But that control plane is still pretty critical, right? Some of the requirements here, we mentioned in a lab, from the Red Hat perspective as a company, we support the 100 milliseconds between these sides, latency, round trip. But at the same time, we have tried to push this even beyond 100 milliseconds with some really positive results. So if your use case needs bigger disruption from the OpenStack perspective, that might be as well possible. And then going to the version three, or version two, I guess, if we start with zero. So this is almost the same as the one before, but imagine deploying the edge architecture in a single data center where your latencies between the sides are like single digit or low double digit. If you can consider that, so you take the edge architecture and deploying that to gain other benefits in running your workload. And if you're doing it, now this opens up to other possibilities. You can now stretch your control plane across multiple edge locations, if you will, right? And again, those edge locations, they are limited from the latency perspective, but they do buy you much better resiliency.  So we see this architecture getting implemented by customers who do look for, improve their SLAs, et cetera. And then finally, in the previous, this is kind of improvement on the previous version. Now, instead of stretching the controllers over the same, let's say layer two network, now let's introduce BGP to the mix, right? Now let's break the virtual appease that are managed by your controllers in like a BGP agent running at each of the locations that can manage the failover of the Vips if one of those locations goes down. So OpenStack is a number of different services. So when you're considering an edge deployment, you need to kind of consider the different services that exist within OpenStack. So in a typical DCN deployment that we would typically do, your services are distributed, as seen here on the screen. In actually this, if we compare this to the demo we did, edge one and two are swapped. So in edge two, in the demo, we had the storage and everything within the one DCN. So, and you need to also consider the traffic that goes between those. So you have your edge workload traffic, but then you have to also consider your traffic between, on the internal API, between the different services. And most of those timeouts can be adjusted. So as Chris mentioned, we support the 100 millisecond latency out of the box. And there can be some tweaks done as far as configuration for the other services to ensure that you meet whatever SLAs you have and you don't have any kind of failures. So one more note here. So there's certain amount of flexibility here as well. Like we're giving you the example of what we see a majority of the customers are doing. So like three different type of edges where we push different services to different sites. But we can like in a demo, for instance, we've been running Ironic and those Ironic services have been running in both central location as well as the Edge One in our case. And you can think there's some creative ways of like pushing your working services closer to your end users based on your requirements. Yeah. Thanks, Chris. So OpenSack versus Kubernetes for the Edge. We get this question a lot. And it's really, and there's no answer for, there's no single answer that solves everything. It's really dependent upon the types of workloads you're running at the Edge. This just gives a rough example of stuff that we would typically lean towards maybe OpenSack for localized services like print servers or any kind of resource-intense workloads or multi-tenancy specific requirements for traffic segmentation and stuff. When you're talking about workloads like running web servers or database servers or specific types of application servers at the Edge, perhaps Kubernetes on bare metal at the Edge is a better option for you. We talk to customers a lot about which one works for them. And then there's also the possibility that doing a DCN deployment with Kubernetes on top of the DCN deployment may be the best option. One thing that a lot of customers don't necessarily look at until later is outside considerations. They're vendor support. If you're working with telcos and you're working with vendors that have VNFs, you're running VNFs at the Edge, they may not have CNFs to run in your container as deployment at the Edge. And then perhaps your application architecture has certain demands in regards to the way it's deployed where OpenSack may be a better option than Kubernetes at the Edge. So one of the ones I mentioned was Kubernetes and utilizing both OpenSack and Kubernetes.  This is no different really than deploying the Kubernetes on VMs out in the public cloud where that you get that scalability and resiliency. And then within the deployment itself, for instance, on this Edge here, I'm showing delineated by the dotted lines two different OpenShift cluster deployments. So you can deploy multi-tenancy at the OpenSack layer and then deploy multiple OpenShift clusters within the tenants of OpenSack to give you that multi-tenancy segmentation that you may need in OpenShift but you can't get necessarily from the networking topology. Yeah, and just to add to that, and so the OpenSack kind of advantage of merging these two worlds together, those two open source architectures together, they both have the strengths and weaknesses, right? So OpenSack not only provides you that multi-tenancy but allows you to mix, for example, a bare metal workers with the virtualized masters, right? So which Kubernetes by itself cannot do it. It has, it cannot virtualize on itself at least right now, but getting these two together has more benefits than running them separate. Absolutely. So just to go back to where we started, what is Edge? By show of hands, who thinks Edge is geographic topology? Good, because it is definitely an architecture. And this is one of the things that was listed in Tech Preview. The BGP that we're working on replaces the VRRP requirements on the Layer 2. So what we have was a customer that deployed, wanted OpenSack, and within their single data center they had three separate network fabrics. They wanted to be able to deploy their controllers in the same data center and have resiliency in case of a single fabric failure. So we're putting a lot of engineering into replacing VRRP with a BGP agent that removes that Layer 2 requirement from the control plane layer. We still have, so with 17.1, it's Tech Preview or GA? I think it's GA, it's 71. It's not released yet, but it's supposed to be GA. But, so, but we do still have, there are still some caveats with it. There is still a 10 millisecond latency requirement between the controllers, but that's easily achievable within a single data center. And I think a lot of the requirements around that deployment topology is around what we have tested or have not tested before we actually release. So those requirements may change between now and then. Anything you wanna add to that, Chris? No, I think that's it, yeah. So I think that the bottom line is that the edge architecture can be distributed geographically. There's no single architecture to solve them all. If you need to push them out and have some connection, like if you wanna accept the connection issues between these different sides, there are architectures for that, but you can use this, you can kind of twist this architecture a little bit and deploy it in a single data center and get additional benefits of having your control plane and compute distributed across. All right, thank you, I think, do we have some questions? We have like two more minutes for the questions if there's any, but otherwise, thanks so much for being here. After this, if someone wants to come up to the microphone and ask questions in front of everybody else, we are gonna be at the booth after this session if you guys wanted to come and talk to us. Can you walk to the microphone if you don't mind? Thanks so much. Actually, I joined late, but if I interpret correctly, what you're suggesting that if you have to deploy Edge use cases, so it's probably recommended or is it beneficial to deploy on OpenStack or bare metal Kubernetes? Are you... Kubernetes on OpenStack or bare metal Kubernetes? Yeah, so that was what, there's no one or the other, there's no answer for that without knowing what the workloads are, what your goal is, what your business processes are and stuff. It's not an easy solution to say, just do bare metal Kubernetes versus doing OpenStack with Kubernetes on top of it. I think that was that the question or no? So I think you're asking for the differences between deploying Kubernetes straight on the bare metal versus bare metal with OpenStack, right? So there's, as Darren mentioned, there's pros and cons. I actually had a meeting with customer yesterday and they selected the route of deploying Kubernetes with the OpenStack Ironic and the reason they selected that is they wanted to have their cloud infrastructure kind of independent of the Kubernetes distribution so they not only want to deploy the Kubernetes at the edge, right? But they have other workloads that would be handled by OpenStack Ironic but maybe the metal cube that is being bundled with the Kubernetes, it's really focused just on the Kubernetes and that's it, right? So again, for them, they want to have agnostic bare metal platform that can deploy anything at the edge, being Kubernetes or maybe being a vendor agnostic for that Kubernetes. They maybe want to have Kubernetes from Red Hat and maybe from Google and someone else, right? If you use Ironic for this use case, then you have that ability. If you stick to the vendor, that vendor will typically give you a solution to only deploy Kubernetes of their flavor, if that makes sense. So that's one of the reasons but there might be other use cases for that as well. Thank you. Thanks for the question. Do you want to, do you mind coming to the microphone? Sorry. I think so, yeah. So for the demo you showed you have a central location and two edge. So between the central and edge, are they routed or there are two network requirements? For example, OpenStack, you have a private network, right? Is this network being later too stressed between central and edge or they're routed? So in the demo here, no, because our entire control stack is in central. So it's just the layer three connectivity between the edge and the central for that we did in the demo. Okay, basically the data centers, they do not have a layer two DCR requirement, right? They're just purely layer three routings, okay. Correct, yeah, because the central's all deployed in this. If we wanted to deploy the control plane across the different data centers without in the current deployment because of the VRP requirements, we would require a layer two connectivity between them. But since we're centralizing all of the control functions in a single data center, there's no layer two requirements between the two data centers. Okay, yeah, between the two edges, the different nodes that they can have been different subnets, right? There are no kind of requirements for them to be in the same layer two? No, they don't have to be the same. In our demo, they were actually not in the same subnet. I wanted to keep them relatively close just to take advantage of what we call the routed provider network. So it's this concept of the provider network that's smart enough to pick the right edge with the right network. But if you just want to have totally independent layer two networks in each of these sites, that's perfectly fine as well. This is in a demo when he showed the networking and it showed the different subs within the same network. Each one is a separate subnet, so a separate layer three network. All right, I think we're one minute over. Thank you so much. We're gonna be at the booth. Please see us if you have any more questions. But otherwise, thanks so much for coming. Thank you.


Today we are going to eat the rainbow and we're not talking about eating skittles We're talking about finding the rainbow of foods in the garden in nature and at the market And then incorporating every color of the rainbow into a meal, but wait the best part we get to eat it We're in my garden in Graham, North Carolina And the reason that we are looking for every color of the rainbow is because a variety of colors equals a variety of Nutrients which can contribute to overall health and wellness. All right, so the first thing we're looking for is red Let's go find that red. All right. I found red beautiful summer ripe tomatoes Delicious and easy to grow. All right. I found orange Beautiful orange sweet pepper, which is incredible to grow during the summer months And I found a couple of spicy nasturtium flowers, which will make a great orange garnish to the salad And now for the color yellow. We've got here a luffa flower, which is also very edible next to the luffa fruit Green is one of the easiest colors of the rainbow to find. I mean, I am surrounded by it It is highly nutritious. Today, I am harvesting sorrel, which is actually a weed that a lot of people pull out Which means you can actually forage for this right in your own garden or all throughout the cities and in nature All right. So now we've got blue indigo and violet I've got some blueberries here from a local farmer and then we harvested some eggplants and some purple green beans Right here from the garden. Now it's time to get to the kitchen, right? Let's go. All right All right, so we have the rainbow in our bowls Here we've got Roy G Biv right here in our bowl and that stands for red orange yellow Green blue indigo and violet and that's how you can remember to bring all the colors of the rainbow into your diet And Rob just like diversity is the key to a healthy humanity Diversity in our foods is the key to a healthy diet and that's why we challenge you to bring diversity of nutritious foods into your diet and We challenge you to have a lot of fun doing it out with your family and friends in the garden Foraging and at the market eat the rainbow. All right. There you go


Suspense! Presented by Roma Wines, made in California for enjoyment throughout the world. Sado, your health, senor. Roma Toast the World. The wine for your table is Roma, made in California for enjoyment throughout the world. This is the man in black here for the Roma Wine Company of Fresno, California to introduce this weekly half hour of suspense. Tonight in Hollywood, Roma brings you the MGM star, Mr. Charles Lawton. The suspense play which stars Charles Lawton, which is produced and directed by William Spear, is called Wet Saturday. This remarkable and sardonic story is rather difficult to describe. Well, it most certainly isn't a who-done-it. Is it, Mr. Lawton? No, no, it definitely isn't. The question involved is not at all a matter of who-done-it. It's a matter of whether or not the who-who-done-it is going to get it in the neck. And if not, then who is, regardless of who actually done it. It's very complicated. Very well put, sir. And before the curtain rises on suspense, will you eavesdrop with me a moment? Dinner is over. A delightful dinner in one of the great homes of a land far to the south. And one of the guests is complimenting his host. Harrahul, your reputation as a host grows with each of your magnificent dinners. That superb wine tonight, where did you find such perfection? I will tell you a great secret. When I visited our good neighbor, Nellie, the United States, I tasted the wines of their California and knew instantly it was a great wine country. And I learned that some of their very choices, mignettes, produced the wine we enjoyed tonight. Roma wine. Our good neighbor to the south is Wright. Our own sunny California provides perfect conditions of climate and soil to produce some of the world's finest wines. And note this. What your wine connoisseur of another land prized as an expensive import, with import duties and high shipping costs included in his purchase price, comes to you from the great Roma wineries in California as an inexpensive American product. Roma's wide varieties of types and Roma's modest costs means that you can enjoy these fine wines often when entertaining guests as a pre-meal appetizer to serve with meals or for after-dinner enjoyment. You will be amazed at how little your dealer will ask for an assortment of several types of these fine Roma wines. Visit your dealer tomorrow and ask him for Roma, R-O-M-A, America's largest selling wine. Made in California for enjoyment throughout the world. And now with wet Saturday and with the performance of Charles Lawton, we again hope to keep you in suspense. On this rainy afternoon, we should like you to meet the Princey family and their visitor. They are, of course, at home. Mrs. Princey, daughter Millicent, George, the son and heir, sprawled on a couch, and finally Mr. Princey, biting on a dry pipe. Their living room is dull and overstuffed, rain beats at the windows. They are any middle-class family at home on a wet day, except for one small item. As you sit with them in the living room, you can see through the door to the sun porch a pair of men's feet encased in high black shoes. They look like the feet of a curate. There is a tenseness in the room. The air is charged with excitement. But the feet are very still. Don't keep staring at them. Listen to me, all of you. Don't you see? They'd hang out. That's what they do. They'd hang out.  Awful? It's catastrophic. A supposedly sweet, gentle, intelligent girl, respected and loved by the whole village doing a thing like this. Think of the publicity and the disgrace. Do you think I'm going to resign from the bench, the vestry, and sell out and live in some foggy hotel abroad? Oh, no. No.  I will, I will.  Any more than you have been, the Governor, me. Will you be quiet? Wouldn't it be a benefit for you, George? Everybody in the village knows you're not responsible.  You might be of a little use here if you could think. What would I say, Governor? This isn't my funeral.  As long as I can remember, George, you've been a trial and tribulation to me. Oh, I can't stand it. I can't stand it. You've got to stand it, my dear, and keep that hysterical note out of your voice, dear. Yes. Yes. We are, we're talking about the weather. Now, George. Yeah? George, if he fell down the old well, say, striking his head several times, what about that? I really don't know, Governor. What about it?  I'm asking you to think. He'd have had to hit the side several times in 30 or 40 feet. Is it all the correct angles? No. No, I'm afraid not. I'm afraid that won't do it. Oh, we'll have to go over it all again, Millicent. Oh, no, Father. No, I couldn't. I couldn't. Millicent, we must go over it all again. Dad, you're torturing her. Oh, face facts, mate. We're them lying there. No use pretending it's a picnic. They might hang you, Millicent. Oh, do stop that shaking. Stop it, Millicent. Stop it. You must stop it. You must keep your voice quiet, Millicent. We are talking about the weather. Now we will proceed. I can't. I can't not with those feet there. You should have thought of that, Millie. I'm not moving her.   Now, Millicent, look at me and answer me truthfully. Do you hear? Answer me. You were in the croaky court? Yes. Who knew you were in love with this wretched currant? The whole village knows. They've been snigering about it in the pub for the three years past.  Millicent, we continue. You were on the croaky court? Yes. You were putting the croaky set into its box? Yes. It was starting to rain. I was carrying the balls and mallets into the sun porch. The box was there. You heard someone enter the garden gate and come across the yard? Yes. Could you see who it was? Not at first. I was going into the sun porch. I threw down all the mallets but the red one and turned round. And it was withers? Yes. So you called him? Yes. Loudly? Did you call him loudly? Could anyone have heard? No, Father. I'm sure not. I didn't really call him. I just spoke his name. He saw me as I went to the dawn. He just waved his hand and came over. Now, can I find out from you whether there was anyone about, whether he could have been seen? I'm sure not, Father. I'm quite sure. So you both went into the sun porch? Yes. It was raining hard there. What did he say? He said, hello, Millie. An excuse is coming in the back way. But he set out to walk over to Liston. Yes. And he said, passing the park you'd seen the house and suddenly thought of me. He thought he'd just look in for a minute. He had something to tell me. Yes, go on. He said he was so happy he wanted me to share it. He'd heard from the bishop he was to have vicarage. And it wasn't only that. It meant he could marry. And he began to stutter and get all confused. And because I thought it meant me. Don't tell me what you thought. Tell me exactly what he said, nothing else. Yes. Well, well... Crying. It's a luxury you can no longer afford. Tell me what happened. He said no. He said it wasn't me. It's Ella Braggden Davis. And he was sorry and all that. Then he went to go. And then? I got mad. He turned his back. I had the red mallet of the croak he said in my hand. I'd forgot to drop it in the box when I came and I was just... Did you shout or scream? I mean, as you hit him. No, I'm sure I didn't. Did he?  You've got a tongue in your head. No, father. And then? I threw it down. I came straight in here. I went to look for mother and that's all. My poor baby. And you're sure no one else was about? No, no one. He's a child alone, Fred. You're not such a child, mate. Oh, really? I had no idea. George, will you keep quiet? I'm thinking. You see, George, he probably told people who was going to listen. And certainly no one knows he came here for he didn't decide until he crossed the park. He might have been attacked in the woods. We must consider every detail. A curate with his head battered in. Oh, don't, father, don't.    Well, who would want to kill with us? Who would want to kill with us? Well, I would, with pleasure. How do you do, Mrs. Princes? Well, well, well, well. Well, sit down. Sit down. Pray you mustn't get up for me, Mrs. Princes.  I'm just being neighborly on a bad day. I wanted to ask you about those darlier bulbs, Princes. I took a shortcut on account of the rain and walked right in. I knew you wouldn't mind. He heard you, father. Oh, my dear. We can all have our little jokes, can't we? Don't you pretend to be shocked. This way, Smollett. This chair facing the fireplace, old man. Sit down, mother. Just straighten the curtain to the fun porch here. It looks so gloomy out there. Might as well shut the rain out. Well... We were, uh, just talking about a little theoretical cure at killing Smollett. Young people these days like killers. Parsonicide? Justifiable parsonicide. You heard about Ella Bragdon Davis? I should be a proper laughing stock. Why should you be a proper laughing stock, Smollett? Oh, I had a shot in that direction myself. She half said yes, too. Didn't you heard? She told most people. Now I'll look as if I were jilted. Too bad. Oh, fortunate of war. Yes, fortunate of war. Yes, odd how that happens, isn't it? Yeah. Uh, sit down, Smollett, old man. Uh, mother, Millicent, uh, would you console Captain Smollett with your best light conversation? Uh, George and I have something to look at outside. The rain, you know. Very bad, very bad. Come along, George. Right, oh, Governor. Perhaps we'll need rain coats. Can't think so, George. Uh, just make yourself at home, Smollett. Make yourself at home, old boy. Uh, thank you, thank you. Nasty day to be going out. Oh, it's something about the old well, uh, just off the Sun porch door, you know. This terrible, sudden weather seems to have loosened some of the stones. Too bad, too dash bad. Spoils the tennis and the croquet. I mean, a day like this, uh, doesn't it, Millie? Yes, it does. She was practicing out on the croquet court earlier. She had to dople your chair nearer the fire, Captain. It was so damp, we thought it would be cozy to light it. Uh, thank you. I'm quite comfortable. I-I hope you don't feel too bad about Ella Bragdon, David. Oh, can't always win, you know. Can't understand the what you women see in these bloodless clerics. Oh, I always thought Mr. Withers was, uh, is a very charming man. I quite agree, but why should anyone want to marry him? You wouldn't want to marry him, would you, Millie? No. That is, I... I used to. Oh, no, of course not. Well, yes, Prince. Good Lord, man. You will come on a fella suddenly. Yes, of course I did. You don't mind this old double barrel shotgun, do you, Smollett? I've been working on it, sir. May I have your attention for a minute? There's something on the sand porch I'd like to show you. Well, yes, yes, of course. Smollett, George and I went out to see if we could shoot some rat which had been driven out of the old well by the high water. We were afraid they might get into the house. But you must listen to me very carefully, very carefully, or you'll be shot by accident. Prince, what's the matter with you?  You also heard Millicent make a comment. An unguarded comment. Well, what of it? Very little, unless you were to hear that Withers had met with a violent end this afternoon. Well, dear Smollett, it is what you are going to hear. What? Withers did? Yes. Who killed him? Millicent. Good Lord.  Yes, it's a mess. And of course, you would have remembered and guessed. Maybe, yes, I suppose I should. Therefore, you constitute a problem. We kill him.  Pityable too, I think. She deluded herself that he was in love with her. Good heavens. Millie, yes, of course I see. He told her about the Davis girl, Ella Bregdon Davis. I understand. I have no wish, as you will comprehend, that she should be proved either a lunatic or a murderous. I could hardly go on living here after that, could I? Besides, I'm rather fond of Millie. Quite. On the other hand, you know about it. Yes, I see that makes me a problem. You were wondering if I could keep my mouth shut, if I promise. I'm wondering if I could believe you. But if I promised. If things went smoothly, yes. But not if there was any sort of suspicion or any questioning. You would be afraid of being an accessory. I don't know. I do. What are we going to do? I can't see anything else.  You can't get rid of two corpses. Well, I regard it as a better risk than the other. It could be an accident. Or you and Withers could both disappear. There are possibilities in that. Listen, you can't... I can. But there may be a way out. There is, Smollett. You gave it to me yourself. I did? What? Well, you said you would kill Withers. You have a motive. Smollett, I can't trust you. You must trust me.  I mean that. You can choose between living and dying. Go on. There's the old well just outside the sun porch door. That's what I'm going to put with us. No one outside knows he's come up here this afternoon. No one will ever look there for him unless you tell them now. You must give me evidence that you have murdered Withers. I murdered him? Why do you want that? So that I shall be dead sure that you'll never open your lips on the subject. I see. What evidence? George, hit him in the face. Sure. You keep out of this. Captain, you should be more careful. Look what your teeth did to my knuckle. Do it again, George. Barnett, how can you? You keep quiet, Millie. Stop snivelling. I'm sorry, Smollett. But there must be traces of a struggle between you and Withers. Then it will be not altogether safe for you to go to the police. Now, George, would you get the croaky mallet? And George, take your handkerchief to it. You'll find it there on the sun porch floor. Yes, sir. There, Captain. There's the weapon. I told you, Smollett, there it was.  I shall shoot you if you don't. Good Lord, you can't. All right. That's it, oh boy. That's right. Now, deposit it by the side of the house. Out of the rain, of course. Now, wait, George. First, you'd better pull a few hairs out of his head and put them under the nail of Withers' right hand. I'm sorry to mess your hair up, Captain. Don't be a baby, Smollett. That's all we need. Enough of Withers, and we'll fix it right up. I'll be right with you, Governor. Smollett, you may turn round now. Withers is just there in the sun porch. Draw back the curtain, old man. Good Lord. Yes. Messy. Now, you, Smollett. Now, you've just got to drag him through the door and dump him in the old well. Just beyond the door, Captain. I won't touch him. I won't. All right, all right. Stand aside, George. Out of range, George, just over there. There's only one place I want this charge of shot to go to. Now, Millie, you keep quiet and stop sniveling. My aim is... Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Smollett, much better. I go along now. In here. You've got to take him outside, old boy. Why, the shoulders ought to do it, Captain. You keep quiet, George. Now, go on, Smollett. Go on. Under the arms. You've seen dead men before. Now, don't go green. Drag him out. Drag him out, boy.  I'll just hold the gun here to make sure. Everything goes all right. Steady now. Mind the step there. Come away from the window, dear. Don't look. But, Captain, Smollett... Your father is a very resourceful man, Millicent. I'm sure what he's doing is a... But, the Captain, I can't stand this. You mustn't question your dear father. No, you're too still, I did. There's enough trouble around here without blabbering. Don't you call me blabbering, George, Princey. Well, you see, Smollett, everything is perfectly safe. You remember, you see, that no one knows that with us came here. Everyone thinks he walked off to Liston. And he's at five miles of country to search. They'll never look in our well. Don't you see how safe it is? I guess so. Good heavens, oh boy, you're dripping wet. Why don't you slip your raincoat on? Is the tea ready, dear? In just a minute, dear. I'll ring for Bridget. It's exactly what you need, Smollett. A nice, hot cup of tea. It's the best thing in the world to ward off a cold. Sit down, won't you, old man? Don't you mind getting the chair wet. That's all right. Would you have a cigarette? I hope so, for a while. I stick to my pipe. Funny how you get attached to pipe. My wife always says to me... There's a tray in front of me here on the table.  Oh, well, I just knocked it. Why, how dreadful. Here, Bridget, give the Captain this cup. No, no, no, thank you. I... I... I'd rather think I'll be running along if you don't mind. Why, Captain Smollett, without any tea... If you don't mind, Mrs. Princey, if I could just have my raincoat. Oh, I'll get it for you, Captain. This is a very distressing Smollett. Very on. I'll be all right presently, I'm sure. Oh, here we are. Let me help you, sir. Thank you, young man. There.  The walk is dry. Oh, let me hold the door for you, Captain. And don't worry, old fella. Don't worry at all. No, no, no, I... I... Good afternoon. It's nothing serious, I imagine. Dear little rest, of course. You'll be as right as rain. Oh, by the way, Millicent, you're not... You're not looking any too well, dear. Not well at all. I'm sure it was that croaky coat. Being outdoors in weather like this is simply foolhardy. Huh? Mate is right, Mary. You saw what happened to Captain Smollett. Come along, dear. I shall give you a hot foot bath and put you to bed. A couple of days in bed and you'll be fine again. Now, you get plenty of rest, Millicent. And don't you worry about a thing. I've got the best cure for you, dear. I guess I'll have a little nap, too, Governor. Fine, I've known for a nap. Yes, it is. Nice. Indeed it is, Sam. Well, enjoy yourself, boy. I'll see you later. I'll see you all later. Oh, uh... Would you get me to police station? Police station? Right away, sir. Police headquarters. Sergeant Yancey speaking. Oh, hello, Sergeant. This is Princey of Abbott's Road. I believe you know me. Oh, indeed I do, Mr. Princey. Sergeant, a rather horrible thing has just occurred. Quite extraordinary. It's murder, in fact. Murder? I'm afraid it looks rather bad. Well, it's for a close friend of ours, unfortunately. We saw him do it. I think you'd better send someone over right away. Oh, man should be there right about now, Mr. Princey. I beg your pardon. I say, our man should be there now. Constable Martin has his post right below your house. Come in. Seems Captain Smollett was with him. Captain Smollett? We reported some rather queer goings on at your place, but I certainly didn't understand it was murder. But just don't touch anything, Mr. Princey. And don't worry. Don't worry at all. No, no, no, no, no, Sergeant. Oh, don't worry, thank you. I'm right here and stop shouting. We have some visitors, Governor. I can see that. Well, Constable, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Hello, Smollett. See what a remarkable fellow you are coming back like this, here to re-enact the crime. Only the one against me, Princey. The one against the curate, I'll leave to you people. Extraordinary sense of humor you have. Mr. Princey, I just had a look at what's in your well. Not up to you. I'm sorry. Mr. Princey, I just had a look at what's in your well. Not a pretty sight, that. Not pretty at all. Yes. Captain Smollett was thorough, if nothing else. You saw him when he did it, sir? Out in the back? Oh, yes, yes, oh, quite. We were just returning from a walk, and Smollett has evidently been laying for the curate, hiding out in those bushes by the road, I imagine. Oh, he was never inside this house. Never? And you say, Captain? I say that while I was inside this house, a guest of the family, I was coerced into dragging the curate's body outside and dumping it in the were. Well, there we are. Well, not entirely, Constable. I'll just remove my raincoat here and demonstrate how damp I got my clothes when I went outside without it. Hmm. Now, that's interesting, isn't it? Yes, yes. He undoubtedly removed his coat at some point between here and your post. I might as well tell you that his weapon, a red, croaky mallet, is out by the side of this house. I shouldn't be a tall surprise that you'd find his fingerprints all over it. All over the end of the mallet, Constable, the end that mashed wither's head. Not the end I'd have to grasp in order to do the mashing. That's a decent try, Smollett, but it won't work. There must be other evidence, Constable. You undoubtedly find it when you examine the body. He means a hair under wither's nails. Well, sir, I happen to notice something when your young George there opened the door for me. If you'll carefully look, I believe you'll find a few of my precious hairs under his nails, too. What are you trying to say? George, will you? Constable, this is a complete waste of time. So far there's a violent struggle between Smollett and wither's concern. Smollett's face speaks for itself quite eloquently. But no more eloquently than your son's knuckles. As you see, Constable, a fresh abrasion. He did that on my teeth. Oh, uh... Or, uh, did he? What? I said, uh... Or did he? He might have done that on wither's teeth. Oh... Oh, I see. I see what you mean. Oh, but I didn't get me. You keep still, you nitwit. Let me think. Let me think. As a matter of fact, George, the more I think of it, the more convinced it was your voice I heard. Quite a vigorous quarrel. Something about the, uh, curate. Guilting your sister. Don't be ridiculous, Smollett. Very well, Pincey. If he didn't do it, who did? Yes, that's what I like to know. How about it, Mr. Princey? Yes, that is a sticker all right. George, my boy, it looks to me as if you're elected. Elected? What do you mean? I didn't do it. Well, I won't, sir. I'm not going to take the blame for her. Milly did it. She did it with the mallet I saw. Me? Milly? You could prove that? Prove it? Well, yes, yes. Her fingerprints on the mallet. Why, George? Don't you remember when you made me touch the mallet when you picked it up with your handkerchief? George, I'm sure you wiped that handle clean. Oh, well, I can hardly expect you to remember that if you can't even remember killing the curate. Well, I think... I told you to keep still, George. I am thinking. You're not going to let him say that. As long as I can remember, George, you have been a trial and tribulation to me. What? You shouldn't have done it, George. Oh. You shouldn't have done it. Now it's all over nice hot cappuccino. Warms the cockles of the arms. Very good for you. And so closes wet Saturday starring Mr. Charles Lawton, tonight's tale of suspense. In just a moment, we shall hear again from Mr. Lawton. But first, let me ask you a question. Isn't it true that things we most enjoy are so often the little extra things, and more often than not, something that pleases the taste? That suggests a bottle of really good wine, Roma wine. It's so easy for you to make certain of high quality in your wine, because all you have to do is to go to your dealer and ask for Roma, America's largest selling wines. They are made in California, one of the world's greatest wine producing sections. You'll have your choice of Roma's great variety of types, from a delicious tangy sherry, a brilliant claret, or a hearty burgundy to a sweeter, prettier port. And you will be so impressed by the modest cost of Roma wines, you will want to enjoy them regularly at home, as well as when you entertain. For this traditional form of hospitality is smart, yet inexpensive. A full measure of enjoyment, yet moderation in its best sense. For wines with greatness of character, always ask for Roma wines. R-O-M-A. Made in California for enjoyment throughout the world. But remember, before you buy wine, buy war bonds and stamps. Hello, this is Charles Lawton. I hope you enjoyed our play this evening. And next week I'm told that suspense will bring you another of John Collier's stories. It's one of my very particular favorites. It's called Back for Christmas, and your star will be Peter Laurie. Charles Lawton appeared by courtesy of Metro-Golden Mayor, the Technicolor Musical Thousands cheer. Don't forget then, next Thursday, same time for Peter Laurie in Suspense. Presented by Roma Wine. R-O-M-A. Made in California for enjoyment throughout the world. This is the Columbia Broadcasting System.