Edge 2012 is their technology innovation around storage, storage infrastructure, storage solutions, cloud, big data, all the real enablement out of the storage business. I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE.com and I'm joined by my co-host. I'm Dave Vellante at Wikibon.org and we're here with Inhi Chosa, who's an IBM Vice President of the Information Management Group. Inhi, welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. I'm excited to be here. Yeah, well, we're glad to have you. We're going to talk about big data, John. Our favorite topic. If you say you're the big data lady at IBM, so we're going to talk big data. So, first of all, we love big data. I am. So, for the folks out there who know us, we love big data. So, honestly, we're going to talk about IBM all week today and tomorrow, but you guys have a ton of systems experience, ton of database, it's going way back into the inventor side, but I just tweeted out that the inventor of the disk drives a friend of mine's father, Randall Johnson, and you guys are no strangers of tech.  But big data really is disruptive and disruptive in a way that we haven't seen before since the PC revolution. Really changed the productivity equation. It changed a lot of the value propositions in the marketplace, and it has to do with a lot of technology change. So, what is your view of big data right now in terms of what is big data? When you talk about big data, it's kind of one of those terms. It's kind of like, depending on what view you look at, it's different. What is it, help us tease that out. So, you know, big data is a hot topic for everybody, and I would say, for the first time, it kind of extends outside of just the IT arena, but I would couch it very simply as, we talk about four Vs, volume, variety, velocity, and actually veracity. You know, one of the things that I think companies are struggling with is, what portion of the data is the truth? And you're spending a ton of money investing in your existing infrastructure. Well, you forgot a V. Gardner forgot a V that Dave Vellante, a wiki bond. So, those are four Vs. So, Gardner has three Vs. You added veracity. That's right. The fourth V is value. Absolutely. To me, when I talk to people, that's the biggest challenge is, how do I get value? How do I monetize this data? So, we got five Vs now. So, veracity, what is? Well, veracity is truth. I also talk about three Cs, okay? So, any big data platform or technology set of capability should collect, connect, and create value. Collect, connect, create. Which is similar to your value, same as yours, your fourth V. Nice. So, big data, honestly, from your perspective around this, there's a lot of debates around existing infrastructure. In the old data warehouse business intelligent marketplace. Very mature industry. A lot of business being done by big players, brute force, OLTP, a lot of critical systems running in these environments. But, big data, the new open source stuff like Hadoop is creeping up with the next age base and other things where, it's not ready for prime time yet on some of those critical things, but you're seeing that batch meets real time, meets some new use cases. Absolutely. What's your view of all this data warehouse, Hadoop, business intelligence, kind of, this new collection of solutions? So, we've done over 200 different engagements around big data in terms of use cases. And one of the things I've noticed is actually that, in majority of the cases, that clients are mixing traditional approaches, right? Data warehousing, master data management with the new techniques, whether it's Hadoop, new applications, mobile devices, cloud. And the reason for it is, is they want to augment what they have inside the enterprise with data that exists outside the enterprise. And that's a key part of being able to really operate, right? Because they want to automate what they're doing inside their enterprises and keeping up with their clients. So, when you talk about veracity, are we further away from the single version of the truth, further away than we've ever been? Does big data complicate that even further? I mean, the promise of the single version of the truth that was there, certainly for reporting, but it hasn't been there for predictive analytics and we sort of, it's been a rear view mirror BI data warehousing world. Now, big data has this promise of finally fulfilling that dream. What are your thoughts on that? Veracity is an, you know, could be actually an all day conversation. Because you're spending so much on your infrastructure to have a master set of information, right? So that it's cleanse, that you know you have the right people, the right scoring in terms of how critical data sets are. And then when you start to marry data in the public that is written in different tones and sentiments, right? That is only partially there. We actually think of it a little bit differently. You would think, oh, well, do you need to cleanse everything before you put it in? No. We actually think about just very simply connecting the dots. So, recognize that the data externally will always have less, let's say, degree of certainty than the data you have internally. But what it helps you to do is give you a better context than maybe you've been able to have. Because it's a new set of data that allows you to derive kind of new insights for new services and new offerings. So it's very hard to actually get those insights, right? You can get the data, you know, the data's there. And we talked to a lot of Hadoop practitioners. Actually, John is a Hadoop practitioner. So you have all this data and then being able to analyze it. You know, a lot of choices. Do I bring it into a SQL database?  And the T's you guys are actually, you know, building connectors and how do you see that all shaking out? It seems like it's very early days. It is very early days. A lot of folks are using, let's say, Apache Hadoop capabilities to pre-process data before they put it into a targeted, let's say, data warehouse where they know maybe something that they want to do, right? Where they understand the schemas. In other cases, what they're actually doing is taking the existing sources they already have of structured data and applying big data capabilities to it because they want to analyze the logs. And the logs could be network logs about IT failures and operations or the logs could be about customer data, what the customers are doing because it's at questions that they hadn't considered thinking about searching against before. So you, go ahead, John. So, I mean, so I want to get your opinion on something that we're seeing a lot in the market and that is the, obviously, big data is all the rage. Everyone has, quote, big data mandates to do something around big data. And the early adopters kind of have specific use cases that they know, but most of the even verticals like pharma and healthcare, like they don't really know yet where these use cases are because they have existing businesses to run. The question I want to ask you is, what do you see around the ease of use of big data because there's two modes. There's the PhD, Masters in Computer Science, Systems Guy who has to architect it all.  And in a term we came up with at our last cube event was a lot of these big data is like tailored suits. These use cases are great. You tailor them up and they fit perfectly, but they're not that flexible. Get the customers want maximum flexibility in their enterprises. So a balancing flexibility, but tailoring those use cases. So there's an emergence of a class of talent that's a little bit high end right now, yet the people who are going to be architecting these solutions could be analysts and business people. So the direction I think is what you're talking about, meaning the applications for the various users to actually consume. Today it's not very easy to just go to Apache and download Hadoop and start a search. You're going to need at least six or seven key skilled set of guys to be able to. Yeah, good luck finding them too right now. They work for Facebook, Google and IBM or somewhere else complicated situation for a lot of people. It is. I would say IBM and several other vendors are really focused on how to make this a lot more consumable. And we're doing this on multiple levels. One is around the applications that we develop like big sheets is a spreadsheet style, way of visualizing mass amounts of unstructured data. And we also have set up a big data university which is free online. And we've had 20,000 students actually enroll. And you can go through and start to learn sort of the basics in programming. One of the things I think you'll start to see more and more is once these applications and tools and use cases actually become more and more available, you're going to have mass democratization of BI capabilities across the entire organization. Is that going to impact the developer community first? Obviously the developers have to build the apps. Or is that going to be more of the ops guys? Oh, I think it's definitely the development audience. Because when I think about big data, you've got to think about the big data platform in terms of what types of applications you want to build before you begin to think about the operations. Some of the operation pieces will be relevant today but until the application use cases are actually built, it's hard to manage just the ops. But when you talk about the democratization of data, you're talking about putting it in the hands of business people, right? Absolutely. Regardless of skill, that you're not trained. Doesn't the industry have to do that in order for big data to truly have the impact of its vision, which is this massive increase in productivity? I agree with you. We actually did a unique case study for the Academy Awards where they had asked us to run for four hours, do a live simulation, and look at all Twitter feeds, Tumblr feeds, and a historical look at Facebook logs, historical data logs, and marry, as the awards are going on, different trailers and response to the trailers based on the cast, music, content, and during the four hours you could actually see kind of where the audience is peaking, where they're not peaking, what's positive, negative, and then based on that you could actually modify how you're going to then release your set of trailers and or advertising around the movie premiere. So that's a very active way that kind of resonates for anyone, I mean, in the consumer audience, because who doesn't love a good movie? So you bring up a good point. First of all, I think I remember seeing that. It's a really awesome cutting edge work. It's phenomenal. It's hard to do too in real time, but it brings up a good point around the use case of user experience, right? So there's a couple things that you're bringing out. The application there is essentially using data to change the user experience, the application being the web. The other one's mobile. Can you talk about those new user experiences? Because as the users get more socially involved with their channels and the way they use the web, it's not just search on Google and search web pages anymore, it's a lot different. So talk about your view of the use cases, specifically mobile too. One of the interesting things I think with big data is it's spurring a lot of requirements not just around the infrastructure storage capabilities but new applications, especially mobile. And you'll see a huge increase in NoSQL as a emergence. I wouldn't say it's NoSQL. I would say it's not only SQL. And part of it is the high availability and access. Now one of the challenges though with mobile applications and mobile data is you've got to be able to store subsets of that data for a certain amount of time. And some of those new developing tools and programming models don't actually support all the retention requirements for the data. So, you know, this whole area of mobile has huge opportunities. Because that's really, high availability is going to, that's going to put the pressure on the mission critical applications but also the retention issues about latency and data. So like something that's five months old can be really important data. And five minutes, five seconds. So how do you guys view that solution? So a core part of what we have within IBM is called our InfoSphere family. And within InfoSphere we have not only the streams and big data capabilities from Hadoop, but we also have data protection, data life cycle and data governance capabilities with Optum, which is data archiving, test data management, as well as Guardian around data privacy and protection. So we're really looking at the end to end life cycle of the information. You believe that, you believe that the statement you mentioned about the use cases being real for customers right now? Oh yeah, absolutely. I do think the use cases are real. Now what's interesting about how clients are really spending the time spending on big data is they're doing all the things that they were doing before, but in a more creative way, with higher degrees of return than they were doing before. So brand sentiment, managing kind of public data that's available and marrying a subset of that with internal data to understand micro segmentation of their existing purchasing audience and life change moments, because life change moments trigger purchases, whether you're in the insurance sector, i.e. you just got married, have a baby or bought a car, or you're ready to buy consumer goods. Life changing moments have their kind of elements. You saw that news story about the pregnancy test, right? Did you see that big data problem? Oh no. A woman went in to get a big pregnancy test then because of Twitter, the father got notified. It's so real time. Oh my gosh. Did you see that? But the story was even more amazing and the father snapped out and so basically it was notified like my daughter's not pregnant and why would you even send that to me? And then it turned out a week later he found out that his daughter was pregnant. So big data predicted. It was amazing. We call that data exhaust, right? There's all this like loose data that's gesture data and or just, people are producing data with their mobile phones. Oh yeah. Some people call data like the new oil but unlike any other natural, but unlike typical natural resources. It doesn't run out. It doesn't run out, right? From a supply standpoint it's always available and if not it's being created at a faster rate. So I wonder if we could talk about the IBM business model and the economic model around big data. So we've been having a lot of discussions in the Cube about the red hat of a dupe and Pat Gelsinger was on last week. He said there is no red hat of a dupe. There's a lot of open source. We also had Peter Goldmacher on last week. Peter is the Cowan big data analyst and he put forth I think a very interesting premise. He said listen, the big data practitioners, the people applying big data are going to make way more money than the people selling big data solutions. I believe that. Given that, that sort of open source, red hat of a dupe, maybe, maybe not, that practitioners are going to make more money. How does IBM go to market and what's the business model? Is it to really solve those problems, find help those practitioners, create value? Maybe as Tim O'Reilly would say, create more value than you extract. What's the business model there? Well, our CEO, Ginni Rametti actually, one of her key focus areas for all of IBM is to make sure that IBM becomes very essential to every client, which means that we're really focused on clients' outcomes. And as a result of that, we're even changing some of the ways in which we're engaging with clients to say, hey, could we negotiate kind of the value based on what IBM delivers to the value ultimately get on the end as a result? Yeah, as the return versus a traditional pricing of, here's a product priced at a license or a fee. So we have different kind of, we're entering a new time period I think with big data that allows us for the first time to not only harness the new technology, but also potentially do new business models. I mean, if you even think about Rolls Royce, they're trying to figure out ways to price, purchase based on thrust, power thrust, rather than just the engine components and pieces. So in that model, you would share some of the risk and share some of the upside? Absolutely. I'll make a prediction. I'll predict that the vast majority of clients will not go for that deal because they have so much value to create, you'd make a kill on that. No, it's also hard to predict and it's not necessarily consistent depending on the client because as you said from the very beginning, the use cases vary. Yeah, and it's different. So this is a channel opportunity in our mind because maybe the client's server revolution spawn massive consulting dollars around deployments and the use cases. So what we're watching is the balance between the, and it's not a hardware product anymore, it's more integrated, so it's a little bit, it's not apples to apples, but it's close.  My final question for you is a little bit different. It's more customer specific.  What do I need to do with my data? So we have a huge investment in data warehouses and database management, all that stuff, governance. What should I be really working on right now? What's my top priorities around data? How should I think about it and what should be on my roadmap? What do you tell a CIO when those conversations happen? I would say first and foremost, try to read up on what's happening. I think that becomes really important because I would tell you actually for several clients that I've engaged with, the purchaser or the inquiry that came in was not necessarily through the CIO CTO office. It came in through the line exact. So one of our key clients Vestas, which is in the windmill alternative energy space, the SVP, senior vice president of supply chain came in and said, hey, we need a better way to manage our assets and how we deploy and determine the site to place a windmill, right? Cause these things are like the size of a Hoover Dam. You can't move it once you place it. So if you think about, oh, what's the implication then to IT to predict and model the placement of these things if your IT side isn't addressing the big data aspects of calculating weather patterns or understanding public data or understanding geospatial data or meter data or in the medical arena images, then you end up being behind what the business may actually be requiring today and they may be more proactive than you are. Yeah, I think that's consistent with what we're hearing too about the business line managers who have responsibility want to get faster solutions to the market in terms of top line and cost savings. So it's really more of a business driver but yet that's challenging cause also IT has to be the enabler of that. So that's an interesting challenge. In he chose up and coming mover and shaker within the IBM big data community. Are you the youngest vice president in the history of IBM? Is that? No, definitely one of the younger ones. It's actually kind of a serious question actually but not the prototypical IBM vice president. Great to see, thank you very much for coming inside the Cube and sharing some of your knowledge with us. Great conversation, appreciate it, thank you. My pleasure, thank you. Okay, we'll be back with our next guest after this break and talk more about Big Data Cloud, IBM, storage and innovation. We'll be right back with SiliconANGLE.tv.


Hello everyone, we're going to be taking a look at the latest update on AMC. Last week it closed a positive 1.67% and the current price is $40.74. Looking at the daily chart, what we see is a lot of strength here along the 200 EMA. Here we had a breakdown in the price action but then it rose right back up before the market closed yesterday. Now we saw extremely volatile and favorable price action to the upside at the 41 mark. This can be seen as our new resistance. I feel like once we break this, we are off to a massive move. Obviously we all want to see rip up all the way back to 72 but it may not happen right away. We also see a higher risk at above 50. We show strength in the trend. The trend we are seeing is a move to the upside after several trading days of consolidation. I wonder what will be the buying pressure on the settlement period next week. Some 2191 contracts expired in the money this week. So that's good stuff. Let's go ahead and look at where our max paying is. It is at $39. It did not shift today but the put call ratio is extremely bullish at 0.38. There's a lot of bullish sentiment with AMC. For Monday, I expect a continuation of this momentum. So on the headlines it reads AMC is bouncing off support and starting to head higher again. So the stock looks to be bouncing off support to what's technical traders call a pattern. The stock has been condensed between narrowing highs and lows and is nearing the end of the pattern where there's not much more room for the stock to go. The stock will see a breakout within the coming days. Buyers and sellers can still come into the market after the price action. Let me know in the comments section what you guys think about the changes in the way the stocks have been traded. Thanks for watching this video. Please don't forget to give us a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel. Bye for now.


It's really not just preventive measures. There are some organisations that have just been very focused on that, but recovery, the recovery aspect is key because at the end of the day, you're talking about businesses. The business needs to be sustainable, the business needs to grow, and it's about how quickly can you bounce back from a disruption in your business operation.


Video Friday, with our resin. Why don't we use that hashtag together, everyone? Hashtag, are we testing it yet? Hi, and welcome to this Friday. So what we did to help with leaking and everything is, so we have these spigots, which are awesome. On the top, when you get your 10 gallon kit, you're gonna have this little plug. It's gonna be really, really tight. But it has one of the crosshair things. What is it, Phillips? Is it called? And it's a big plus sign. So if you have a big screwdriver, then you can really twist it.  But eventually it comes out. Then your spigot just screws in.  Like really turn it tight. Now, then you tip it over, turn it on. Just best practice. When you're done with it, tip it back up just in case some little comes out and drips. You know, it might happen, it might not. Any questions? Talk to Patty, right Patty? Sure, bye. Many a Friday with a resin. Oh, I think that's over.


The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this very warm Saturday evening, 8 p.m. here in Puerto Rico, 79.7 degrees Fahrenheit inside my studio. Eight conditioning is out. My eight conditioning unit that cools this part of the apartment, the condo, just stopped working today, just stopped working. So it's hot. I'm not usually doing shows when it's 80 in the room. So I don't know, I don't know. My wife suggested I cancel the show today because of the horrific working conditions. But here I am, in spite of everything, going at it, going at it, and trying to contribute to your day. So thanks for joining me. We have a, well, we're going to talk about a couple of things. I want to talk about, I did a debate, kind of debate, interview this afternoon in the heat with Econboy. Econboy, I think is his name on YouTube. So he is an economic YouTuber who does economic stuff. And we talked about the welfare states. I want to give you some impressions about that. And just the general challenge of debating, speaking to a pragmatist, and what do you do? How do you handle that? Econboy, yes, you can find him on YouTube. And then, although we did the debate on Discord and streamed it in YouTube, I didn't quite understand that. And I didn't think there was anybody on Discord. It was, I was confused. And then, yeah, we'll talk about some article I read today about reversing aging. The government all excited to live to be 150. Still working on that. The Benjamin Button Effect. Anyway, we'll talk about the work of, what's his first name? Sinclair, I forget his second name. Anyway, of Sinclair and kind of what he's doing and the prospects for that. So that should be fun. But first, I want to talk quickly about something that is not trending on Twitter. Before we get that, I want to remind everybody that Super Chat is on. You can support the show using the Super Chat, either by straight supporting the show or by asking a question. There we go. Chali starts us off with $20. And you can use the Super Chat to do that, Chali. He says, just so you're an econ boy, it was a good conversation. You crushed him nicely and politely. Yeah, I thought it was pretty good. And I thought I had all the right comebacks, both moral and economic. But we'll get to that in a little bit. $20 gets priority. I've got my Super Chat tracker version 3 that puts all the $20 questions in one column and all of the others in the other column. And that way I can prioritize those questions. But of course, you can also use this just to support the show. You can ask questions. The show is enhanced by your questions. We have a much better show that way. And of course, you are supporting the show so we can keep going and keep doing. What is it? Four shows a week, pretty much most weeks when I'm not traveling. So we will see how that all goes. Tomorrow, by the way, the show will be at 2 PM East Coast time, 2 PM East Coast time. Catherine, Action Jackson, if you guys are listening, interested. 2 PM East Coast time tomorrow, we'll have the show. And we'll see the rest of the week. The rest of the week depends on when I travel to Boston and when I'm home. I'm hoping that tomorrow the air conditioning will not be fixed. But I'm hoping that by Monday it will be fixed. So the Monday or Tuesday shows will have a cooler air, cooler atmosphere, which would be nice. Yeah, good question, Scott. Let's see. Anything else? Administrative? Just remind everybody you can support the show monthly on Patreon, bookshow.com, slash support on Patreon. Patreon's getting better. Patreon's getting better. A lot of you left Patreon a long time ago. But if you want to just make it simple and easy to support the show, you can go on Patreon. You can support it there. Yeah, particularly those of you who are not live and who don't use the super chat, it's a great way to help support what we do here and to provide value for value. And then there's also those of you who don't like Patreon, they're subscribed to our locals. Of course, most people use the runbookshow.com slash support. All right, so what wasn't trending today on Twitter? At least I didn't see it trending on Twitter and I was on Twitter a few times. What is today an anniversary of? An important anniversary and I think an important anniversary that'll go down in history as important for liberty and the fight for freedom. And I don't know if some of you know this because I sort of mentioned in the chat earlier. No, it wasn't Midway, it wasn't the Six Day War. I don't think so, although it's close. Sometime now in June, I think it's a Six Day War. But no, I wasn't thinking Midway, I wasn't thinking Six Day War. Something more, in some ways, more significant, more horrific, more negative, more sad, and something that has definitely shaped the country's future and present. Yeah, Tiananmen Square. 33 years ago, Deng Cha Peng ordered the tanks into Tiananmen Square and not only bringing the tanks in but ordered the troops, the soldiers to fire on the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of students. We remember it as Tiananmen Square, but really it's much more than Tiananmen Square. There were crowds of young students seeking greater freedom, seeking greater democracy, seeking a greater state in the future, standing for liberty. There were hundreds of thousands of such young people all over China. They were in all the major cities and some of the smallest cities in China. We only know Tiananmen Square because that's where there were some journalists. We know Tiananmen Square because of the famous pictures of Tank Man, but what is interesting is we have very little photographs of the slaughter that followed. We have no real first-hand detailed accounts of the massacres that the Chinese soldiers inflicted on their own people, the thousands, maybe the tens of thousands. We don't even know how many people died that day in the days that followed as the Chinese regime decided in the name of one party rule, in the name of the greater good, in the name of the common good, in the name of Chinese nationalism and Chinese greatness to crush, to crush the spirit, the dream and the lives of young Chinese students. Again, thousands, if not tens of thousands, died that day. More than that, I mean, not more than that, but on top of that, I literally think the spirit of a whole generation of Chinese was crushed, the liberty, the freedom movement, in whatever terminology they thought of it, to whatever extent they believed it could grow, disappeared from China or went underground, it continued to be held by intellectuals here and there that were allowed to speak sometimes, but as a movement, as a movement, certainly as a mass movement, Chinaman Square destroyed the movement for freedom and the movement for liberty in China. What is interesting is that China bans all discussions of it. It does not teach it as schools. When you talk to young Chinese today and you mentioned Chinaman Square, you will get a quizzical look from them. They have no idea what you are talking about. They do not know it even happened. Never mind what happened and how many people died. It has been wiped from the history books. If you remember the Hong Kong liberty movement, the Hong Kong demonstrations, many of them were focused around the commemoration of Chinaman Square in years past when people were arrested, when such commemorations were banned by the Chinese government and the students in Hong Kong went out into the streets in spite of that. Well, even that now is finished. There were no commemorations in Hong Kong or at least none with any numbers. At this time this year the Chinese government have a complete grip on Hong Kong. There are no demonstrations. There are no commemorations. Hopefully many of the people who did not get arrested by the Chinese who are not sitting today in jail from the Hong Kong demonstrations, hopefully many of them have escaped Hong Kong, maybe in Taiwan, in Singapore, in Canada, in UK, one of the great moral travesties is that the United States did not open its doors to refugees from Hong Kong. Many of the Chinaman Square young people managed to escape, many of the Chinese living today who are older, this was 1989, so 33 years ago, many of the 50-something year old Chinese people who have been living in the United States since the early 1990s maybe. Many of those young, many of those people, if you ask them, they were part of the Chinaman Square attempt at bringing more freedom and liberty to China and they gave up afterwards and many of them escaped to the west, emigrated to the west, went to school in the west, stayed here, did not want to go back to China because of what had happened on that horrific day. The tank man, remember tank man, the man who stood in front of the tank, daring it to run him over, trying to appeal to the soldiers, after all, you're Chinese, we're Chinese, what are you doing?  Well, the tank man actually survived Chinaman Square and is rumored to be living in Taiwan, kind of underground, changed his name, fearful of the Chinese government finding him and killing him. So incredible bravery by the tank man, but incredibly bravely I'd say by those students who knew there was a very high probability that the Chinese central government would not let them get away with what they got away with, not let them demonstrate. For weeks, days, weeks, they were in the square for a very long time and it's only when Deng Xiaoping realized that there was no way to negotiate, there was no, they demanded compromises he was not willing to provide and that they would not just go home, that all the pressure put on them, the threats did not work, that the only way to stop them, the only way for the Chinese communist government to maintain one-party rule was to actually inflict the kind of violence that was inflicted in Tiananmen. So Deng Xiaoping, in spite of doing many good things for China, starting in 1978 when he became kind of the leader and until his death really, in spite of liberating much of the economy and in spite of allowing certain level of freedom, a lot of freedom economically and some political freedom, his hands and his legacy will always be tainted by the blood he shed that day, 33 years ago. I mean he also has a lot to pay for the sins of being Mao Tung's right-hand man during much of Mao's rule over China so it's not that he, that he was a good guy always, he was a bad guy who turned pragmatic, semi-good guy who then in Tiananmen Square manifested itself as the bad guy and then returns as kind of more pragmatic, good guy afterwards. A lot of blood on Deng Xiaoping's hands, a lot of blood on those Chinese soldiers' hands, a lot of blood on the generals who went along and the other party members who went along with it, unforgivable. I think, I think it'll go down in Chinese history as a dark black day. I think one day, one day and I'm convinced this day will come when China is a free country, one day when China is indeed a country that celebrates freedom, capitalism, individualism, this will be one of the darkest days, this will be remembered as, as, as a, for the courage of the young people who are there and for the cowardice and the evil of the people who unleashed the violence on them. So my thoughts go out to the, to the, the, the people of China who've kept the flame of liberty alive, the people of China who still fight for that liberty. My thoughts go out to the people who lost family members that day and to the survivors, to all the students who demonstrated and who survived that day. Hopefully, hopefully some of you will see a better China. It's not heading in the right direction right now, but maybe that'll be a catalyst, maybe that will be a catalyst to a renewed liberty movement in, in China. All right, so Cheminat Square 33 years. Let's see, before we talk about the debate, Michael has a $50 question. Well, Michael usually has a bunch of five, ten, twenty dollar questions, but he's just jumped in with the $50. So let's see what this is. Oh, he says he totally agrees with Harper, but I don't know what, which, which one, right?  And then Michael says, I totally agree with Harper. My professor called the Iron Render sociopath in class, when really it's the conventional philosophy is pushing the propel sociopath to the top. Should I have challenged my professor or kept quiet to preserve my grade? So first, I don't, I don't get it, Harper. There's a sense into which why are you going to be upset today about something that's going to happen after you die? I mean, that makes no sense to me. No sense. Right? It makes no sense to be upset today about things that are not going to happen. They're not going to happen. They're just a fact.  That's also pretty much a fact. I mean, the only thing you should be concerned about is given the world, given what you can do in the we, how do you make and live the best life that you can possibly live? To fantasize you, a, a, a, a lasvic capitalist society, you'd be upset because you don't get to live in it. What's the point? It's, it's a waste of energy and effort and upset-ness, whatever that is, whatever that word means you'll be And, and there's a sense in which you should be, see my perspective is the opposite. I am thrilled by the fact that these ideas will win one day. I'm thrilled by the fact that my kids, my grandkids, some of you, some of your kids will live to see liberty and freedom and objectivism and reason and rationality and, and egoism win. I mean, isn't that so cool to imagine such a, now, if syncing Clair at, at, I think he's at Harvard, if syncing Clair reverses aging, then maybe Hopper, Hi-Hop-Hop Campbell, you will see that day. Maybe I will too. Maybe Michael will join us. You guys are young. I don't know Hop-Hop Campbell how old you are, but Michael I think is young. I'm not, but if we can reverse aging, then I, I can be 20 again. God, can you imagine me being 20? Can you imagine having the knowledge I have? The, the, the abilities that I have and having the body, the knowledge, sorry, having the, the body, the energy that a 20-year-old has, God, I mean, that would be pretty amazing. And having, and having the, the, what do you call it, the long-term perspective, which is what I miss, the long-term perspective of a 20-year-old, being able to plan 40 years out, right, for a lifetime, right? It's hard to plan 40 years out when you get to my age. So wow, you know, yeah, having the wisdom of a 60-year-old and a body of a 20-year-old, I could, I could go with that. So, you know, we'll get to the, the, the reversing aging thing, but I'm, I'm totally cool with that. Michael said, should I have challenged my professor, I kept quiet to preserve my grade. I mean, it depends. I, I don't know how evil is this professor, how nasty would he be in terms of reprisals, how important is a grade in this particular topic. All of those are relevant. So there is no dogma, there is no duty to behave in a particular way in class, generally, one should fight for your values. But only when the pain inflicted on you is in proportion to what you might achieve by fighting for those values. And if you're, if the fight is futile, or if the pain inflicted on you because of the fight is too big, then yeah, just keep quiet and, and, and get your grade and, and then, you know, hand your classmates copies of Atlas Shrugged after class. So you have to balance it all out in terms of consequences, cost, and, and part of the cost is not standing up for principle, right, I mean, that is part of the cost.  That would be altruism. That would be living on a duty, living on a, on a duty premise, duty premise. Landon says, we can't reverse aging yet, Chomsky's still alive. You know what? I, I'm willing for Chomsky to live forever if I can live forever too.  That's fine. I can't continue it indefinitely as long as I get to live my amazing life indefinitely. So again, I'm an egoist. I'm not about resentment of other people as much as I'm an egoist. Jeff says, go, oilers go. I don't even know who the oilers are. I guess it's hockey because it's the only other sport going on right now, the basketball. By the way, did you guys see the first game? Did you guys see what happened in the Celtics, Celtics, um, um, Wario's game? I mean, did you see the fourth quarter? Man, that was, uh, that was pretty amazing. And my Celtics pulled it out. They, they did it and they won after being down by 12 points, going into the fourth quarter. They just, that was one of the best quarters, a basketball I've ever seen. I play. And Apollo Zeus was trying to convince me that while the show was going on, they were already losing basically. It's very, very nasty Apollo. I mean, really, um, all right, let's see. Let's, uh, we'll get to Ashton and we'll get to your question a little later. Same with philosophical zombie hunter. Uh, we'll get to that one when we talk about the debate. What we'll get, we're talking about the debate now. Uh, so philosophical zombie hunter says the debate with econ boy was amazing. Debating pragmatists is always very hard. You can watch my debate with econ boy on, I think you can voice channel. I think it's up on his channel already. But if not, if you don't want to go to econ boys channel to watch the debate, uh, I will be putting it up on my channel, uh, maybe this week. So soon. So you'll be able to watch it, uh, watch it there. So I did do this debate with econ boy, um, on, um, uh, on his channel, uh, on, um, it's on YouTube, but we did it on discord. Uh, there was, um, there was, uh, you know, it was, I thought it was good in a sense that he was very respectful. He didn't speak over me. He didn't interrupt. He didn't yell. He's the opposite of Vosh and some of the other, uh, uh, weirdos that I've debated. Uh, he was actually let me speak. He didn't agree with me, but he let me speak. Um, he, uh, is confused, but what he, what really came out of, I think, the debate is how confused people are in the world today and how they're not really moved by any principles, it really except one. The only principle that anybody holds in the world in which we live is that morality demands that we help the poor. That's it. And that in the name of that morality, coercion is fine. There's nothing wrong with coercion. In the name of helping the poor. So Catherine, if you ask a question like that as part of the fan thing, my super chat tracker doesn't catch it and then it throws me off completely. Um, but, you know, uh, so even if it's just for $2, try to put the question into the, uh, into the, uh, super chat. It's okay. Apologies. So, uh, so it's, um, it's very difficult to debate them because everything they say is framed by this idea that we all agree that it's inherently obvious that there is no other possible option, but that helping the poor is a good thing and that we have to help the poor and it's a moral obligation and, and the way to help the poor is, uh, you know, if we have to use coercion to help the poor, that's okay. That's the only principle they hold. And then everything else is, does it help the poor? It doesn't help the poor. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. So they want economic growth, but helping the poor, of course, doesn't reduce economic growth. They won't admit to that because that is too upsetting and that's too much of a trade-offs. They don't want to believe that they are trade-offs. They want to hold, that they, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They can conceive of the idea that it's not my moral obligation to help the poor and it's not my moral obligation to help the poor. I might choose to help some poor. In my case, I would only choose to help ambitious poor, children maybe who are poor, but that's about it.  But they can't even conceive of that. Now, tourism has negated, has completely wiped out the possibility of doing that. Now, they're now quite willing to say, we should sacrifice people to help the poor. So the argument is, oh, come on, Iran. So, you know, they take 50% of your income. You make enough money. It doesn't hurt you to go and pay the poor a little bit, to help the poor a little bit.  So what if they're taxed? It doesn't actually hurt them. So they won't come out and make altruism about self-sacrifice, which it really is about.  People should suffer. People should bleed.  Now, again, they're not ideologues and they're not principled. They want to hold this idea that you can help the poor without sacrificing anybody. You can help the poor without hurting anybody. And they're tomorrow imperative to help the poor. And at the same time, they realize the economic growth helps the poor, maybe even more than welfare. So we shouldn't give up on economic growth. And of course, we can have economic growth in the welfare state. There's no contradiction there at all, at all. So it's sad to see.  He's smart. And his idea was, yeah, economic growth is good, yes, capitalism is good. We'll get to capitalism in a minute. But we got to help the poor. So let's have a welfare state. And look, Denmark seems to be pretty good and Sweden seems to be pretty good. And yeah, maybe they're poor within the United States, but they have a better safety net. So what if they're poorer than the United States? I feel safer because if something happened to me, then I'll be bailed out by the state. And so I worry less. So I'm better off. So it's a really interesting mindset to have. And it's a typical mindset of a pragmatist who doesn't really believe in any fundamental principles. Now one of the things that, again, they want their cake and eat it too, is they want to believe that they're capitalists. They know, deep down or straight up, they know that capitalism is a good thing, that markets, freedom, lack of central planning, the price mechanism, price signals. That markets broadly and free markets are good things that they produce, economic growth, they produce wealth, they produce, they bring people out of poverty. They know all these things. So they're not willing to, quote, give up on capitalism because they think, they are for capitalism because they associate capitalism with, and then, you know, at one point he said, I'm not, I don't believe in central planning. But then later on he says, well, you know, rich people putting money in the saving account is not the most optimal use of that money when it could be used to help poor people rise up from poverty. Isn't that central planning? Isn't that you as a central planner deciding what the best use of this amount of money somebody else's money is? Isn't regulation central planning? Isn't pretty much, isn't government investment central planning which he is for? Isn't everything that the government does when it comes to economics, central planning? Of course it is. See he doesn't want complete central planning. So he wants this mixed economy. He wants to pretend that it's capitalism. And in order to pretend it, he has to basically never define capitalism and not really define capitalism. And again, have his cake and eat it too. I want, I don't believe in central planning, but a little bit of central planning is okay. I believe in capitalism, but not too much capitalism. And it's a mess. And it's hard to think through. It's hard to actually argue against because you're using terms that are not clear. So I encourage you to go watch the debate. I think you'll enjoy it. I think I did a pretty good job handling it given the circumstances. I tried to define my terms. I tried to go back to what is capitalism. I tried to call them on the altruism and talk about the morality of it. And I tried to talk about the damage that the welfare state does, not just economically because it reduces growth, but also the damage it does to the welfare recipient. I'm curious what you guys think. So I'm open to comments. If you go on Econboy's chat and comments and rebut some of the comments that are supporting him, but do it in a respectful way.  Don't be jerks. Be nice, respectful, scientific, rational, use reason. I get it, Michael. It was the wrong hopper question. I will get to the right hopper question in a minute. So go to Econboy and do it there. It's Econboy, boy spelled B-O-I. One word, Econ, E-C-O-N-O, B-O-I. He's on YouTube, on his channel, and the debate I think should be there. And then, if not, as I said, I'll put it up on my channel soon. And yeah, I think it was really good. I think he was, yeah, he was as reasonable as you could be, but he's confused and mixed up and basically a status quo, mixed economy, left-leaning, Denmark-loving, Econboy, I guess. The video is unlisted. I assume he's going to list it soon. I'm not sure exactly why it's unlisted so far. But if not, I'll definitely be posting it on my channel soon. But again, I thought I did a good job, and if you're curious how to debate such a pragmatist, I think I modeled how to do it fairly well. All right, let's see. Let's do another super chat. We'll go back to Michael's, but let's do Hopper Collins in relation to that. Hopper Campbell. Sorry, Hopper Campbell. So Plato is brilliant. His blueprint is a way for sociopaths to wind up on top. He creates inversions of proper hierarchies in very sneaky ways. Yes, and I don't think that was Plato's intent. I don't think Plato was Ellsworth Tuhi who did this on purpose. I think Plato was, to the extent that you can be, in a sense, this is still the birth of philosophy. They're still thinking these ideas through. They're just trying to figure them out. Where does knowledge come from? Where does truth come from? What is truth? Hard questions, not obvious. Nobody gets it right, really, until Inrand, so that's 2,500 years after Plato. So obviously, not easy. So I don't associate Plato with the evil consequences of this as much as I do somebody like Emmanuel Kantu, who definitely should have known better given when he was writing. Plato was brilliant. Plato was brilliant, and he gave brilliant, if wrong, answers to the fundamental questions the philosophy asks, and he tried to answer all those fundamental questions. So Plato was indeed brilliant, and I don't know, I don't know what the technical definition of sociopath is, because I don't know if, you know, is it a sociopath, psychopath.  In that sense, Plato, you know, as he calls him, he's the advocate of the philosopher king, of somebody who has knowledge of the truth, has knowledge of the world of forms, has the revelation of what is right and what is good and what is just, and as a consequence can dictate your life for you, and he believes that those philosopher kings, at least by some interpretations, should be the ones running your life. And I think that has really, and that truth is not discovered by a process of reasoning from reality, but truth is discovered through a process of revelation from another dimension, and that opens up a whole can of words, including Christianity and the stranglehold it has on our society. Michael just says that he agrees with that, and tells us a story about his professor who thinks Ayn Rand is a sociopath when really it is Plato who makes that possible. Yeah, he makes possible the existence of people who think that they know better than you, think they know how to run your life, and I have to say in the 21st century that it is much more evil than it was in 500 BC or whenever Plato lived 400 BC. It's much more evil today, given our knowledge, given our experience, given everything that's happened in the world, and what we know about the human race, and given the enlightenment, and everything else. It's much more evil to hold that view now than it was back then. Temperature in the room has gone up to 82. By the way, my air conditioning is broken, so I have no AC right now in my office. Humidity is staying low, I'm not sure why, but humidity is staying low, but it's hot in here. All right, let's see, okay, we'll do one more super chat question because Ashton put 50 bucks behind it. By the way, I think I posted it, we're under $200, so we're $425 from our target, so Catherine, you got to get going in riling these people up and getting them excited and getting them to support the show. Okay, Ashton asks, I unfortunately believe that the war in Ukraine is going to last years. Where the wars start, people always seem to think it's going to be quick. Famous quote, war will be over by Christmas. History has shown that wars tend to last long and stay bloody. It depends, I mean Israel's experience is primarily with short wars, I guess that's my experience because I grew up in Israel with war. I don't think that wars necessarily, particularly in the modern era, have to be fast, but it's already 100 days, and I agree with you, it's not going to be, it's not a six day war, it's not a one month war, it already isn't and it's going to be suddenly the rest of this year and probably well into 2023, if not longer. It's already, I believe it will be bloody, it will continue to be, but it is bleeding the Russians and I do think that at some point it will turn into a war of attrition rather than an ongoing war of advancing forces. As a war of attrition, I think it will be a lot less bloody and a lot fewer civilians and it will be a lot less expensive. I just don't think that Russia can afford for this war to go on for very long. I think Ukraine, the only reason Ukraine can afford it is because the West is not only supplying them with weapons, but supplying them with money. Nobody is really supplying Russia with money, although it still is managing to sell its oil and gas all over the world and that brings in money, but the rest of the Russian economy is desperate and is struggling. Russia is struggling to find new accrues to come and fight in this war. As is Ukraine, there is a certain point at which there's just not enough young people to send to die, particularly in a country like Russia which has an elderly population and a shrinking population and I do think that once Ukraine gets the superior weapons from the West, it will manage to push Russia back quite a bit, whether it pushes them out completely is hard to tell. There's also a question of how long Putin's going to live, the rumors that he has cancer, there's rumors that he's already foiled one assassination attempt. Who knows if there are others in the cards. So it's probably going to be a long war in spite of the fact that I think Ukraine is winning.  Everybody's a loser from it. Well the ruben hasn't fallen because of oil and gas, because as long as the West keeps buying oil and gas, the Russian Central Bank can continue to prop up the rubble using the dollars that it gets and one of the reasons that Putin was so insistent on trying to get West to buy oil and gas with rubles is because that would be a direct way in which he could prop up the rubble. Right now it's more difficult for the Central Bank to prop up the rubble but they are doing it because of the oil and gas revenues that they have but all they have to do is buy rubles. Central Bank, all it has to do is use dollars to buy rubles and as long as they continue to do that, the value of the rubble will stay relatively high relative to other currencies but it's completely artificial and they are capital controls. You can tell it's artificial because Russia has imposed capital controls in Russia. I bet you the rubble is not quite as strong if you go into the Russian black market. In the official market it's strong. In the black market, I bet you anything, it's quite weak. So no, the Russian economy is struggling as any economy would be when it's become as isolated as the Russian economy is. And we know that a lot of Russian consumption and a lot of Russian supply chain starts in the West and the West is not supplying those goods anymore to Russia. And you know the standard of living in Russia and the quality of life in Russia is collapsing. So while the rubble is holding up against foreign currencies again because of the manipulation of the Russian central bank, the rubble buys less and less within Russia. Within Russia it's buying less and less. So there is high inflation in Russia that is lowering the standard of living of Russians. All right, let's see. All right, so a little bit of good news, at least from my perspective. I've seen stories about this and I've seen this guy's books being advertised. I think I bought it, I haven't read it yet, but I've bought the book. And that is this idea that we now have the technology to at least make mice be younger. That is at least certain organs within the mouse. So the scientist by the name of Sinclair at Harvard says we now we know that when we reverse the age of an organ like the brain in a mouse, the disease of aging then go away. That is disease of aging related to the brain. Memory comes back, there is no more dementia. If you do that in muscles, muscle capabilities. So the way he frames it, aging is the fundamental disease, the underlying disease that really facilitates or makes possible all other diseases. A cancer is a disease of aging. Dementia is a disease of aging. Many, you know, heart disease is a disease of aging. These are not diseases suffered by the young. These are diseases that as our cells, as our bodies age, they become susceptible to. If we can reverse the process of aging, if we can revitalize the cells in the various parts of the body, we can get rid of disease. And we could get rid of the things that kill us. So in his lab, we had two mice. One mouse is the same age, you know, in terms of the clock, I guess. But one mouse is the picture of youth and one mouse is gray and feeble. The brother and sister, they're born in the same litter, so they're twins, in a sense. And the only difference is that ones, genes, were altered to age faster. So they age faster. Now, the argument he makes is if you can alter the genes to make them go faster, to age faster, why can't you alter them to age slower? But more than that.  In other words, they were capable of developing into any cell in the body. In other words, in a sense, he made them young again. He made them so that they started over. He won the Nobel Prize for their discovery. Now, the problem was when you switch back, when you did this to cells, they lost their identity, some muscle cells became blank cells that could become anything. And the real challenge is to turn a muscle cell into an embryonic cell that's going to turn into a muscle cell. So, and that is what they've now succeeded in doing. In a study published in 2016, and I'm reading from a story in CNN of all places. In a study published in 2016 by researchers at Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, they showed that you could reduce the sign of aging, could be expunged, in genetically aged mice that were exposed for a short time to the fact as Yamanaka discovered can do, can cause the cell to reverse, to become a stem cell, basically. And they could do this without erasing the cell's identity. Now, the problem with what they did in 2016 is it turned out that they could do this for a short time, but then the cells became cancerous. And created cancer tumors, so of course, that was bad. But what's happened now is that in Sinclair's lab, geneticists by the name of Yuncheng Lu, obviously Chinese, that's a very Chinese name, has managed now to do the same thing without the cancer cell developing, without the harmful effects. So he takes these factors and he puts it into a virus, a harmless virus, and he uses the virus to deliver these factors to the cells. In this case, he did it to a mouse's, an old mouse's eyes, and it's pretty amazing. They switch on, I'm not going to get into the technicalities, I don't really understand them, but they switch on the genes, and it's really cool. The eyes become younger. So you can actually turn certain cells in mice backwards, and backwards in age, and you can make yourself, you can make those cells younger. Now the question is, can you do the same thing with human beings? And more than that, can you do the same thing with the whole body? And that's the next step in the research, is not just to take one set of cells, not to tell muscle cells, or eye cells, or brain cells, but all cells. And can you do that with the body in general? And that's, I guess, the next step to work on with mice. And then the challenge is to do it with human beings, to do the research in human beings. I found this interesting that Sinclair says that it's going to be years before human trials are finished, I think it's going to be years before they even start. Because they need to get permission to do the human trials. They need to be done, and it could take years to do them. They need to be finished, they need to be analyzed. If they're safe and successful, they need to be scaled. And all of that needs to go in front of the FDA to get a stamp of approval, on only then will we get this. So here's what Hopper Campbell, you should be mad about. You should be mad about the fact that the technology might exist in your lifetime. Or let me put it differently, the technology is very likely to exist in your lifetime. Maybe it would even exist today, if not for the FDA, if not for the bureaucracy, and the risk aversion, and the slowness, and everything else that's associated with the FDA. The FDA. Whoa, Troy. Troy has been on a supportive rampage recently. Thank you, Troy. Really, really, really appreciate that. That takes us basically to within $36 of a goal. So Troy just gave $500 Australian dollars. So that's really fantastic. So it's exciting. It's amazing. It's depressing that we've created bureaucratic entities to make this science, this technology that will allow us to live for a long, long time so difficult to attain. Now, Sinclair has some advice about how you can extend your life anyway. I don't know if this is good advice, bad advice. I mean, he's a scientist, but I read so many conflicting things about the science. But here's his top tips in this article. Focus on plans for food. I don't do that enough. I certainly don't. Eat less often. So he's one of the believers in fasting and doing a lot of fasting. I don't fast. I'm not good at fasting. I don't fast. Just get sufficient sleep. I'm bad at that. So the first three, I'm not good at. Lose your breath for 10 minutes, three times a week by exercising to maintain your muscle mass. I do do that. I probably do more than 10 minutes, three times a week. Don't sweat the small stuff. I'm probably fairly good at that. And I have a good social group. Yeah, you're my social group. How better of a social group can you get than you guys? So that's some of his advice. He has more specific advice about certain supplements that he recommends taking that he think can really extend human life today. Again, very hard to tell. You know, he takes vitamin D and K2. I have a little vitamin D, K2 pill that I take every day. He also takes a baby aspen daily. I don't do that. He takes a gram of resveratol. I've heard good things about resveratol. You know, maybe it's worth doing. I don't know. Not a doctor. I have no idea. He takes one gram of metformin. Mix things about metformin. Again, he's a supporter, but some people are not very enthusiastic about it. And then he takes a gram of NMN, nitrotinimidmononucleotide. Again, I don't know if to recommend it or not, but those are the things he takes as supplements. But he's big. Sinclair is very, very big on fasting. I am not. I do not do well on fasting. My brain needs food. My brain needs calories. I need to feel satisfied in my stomach to be able to NAD IV drip going. What's an NAD IV drip? I don't know what NAD IV drip going. All right. Just thought I'd give you some good news about the prospects for living a very long time. All right. Let's see. John says, given survival rate of 25-year-old man is 99.8 to 8 percent if everyone maintained health at that age, indefinitely, then 50 percent would live to age 390 years. I mean, that's amazing. I have no idea how to evaluate that. I, you know, whether that's true or not. I just don't know. I don't know how to evaluate it. Sorry. But I do believe that if one of the most important things we can do is start whatever, whatever regime lands up being good for your health, starting at young, starting at young, makes a huge difference. The longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes. So, oh, I'd love to live to be 350. If you live, if you live a healthy life, if you're healthy, that would be amazing.   You want me to just walk away? You know, I'm not going to see the end. I'm not going to see what happens to all these paths, all these things that are going on. I want to see what happens. I want 100 years of glorious. I want 350 years of glorious. All right. Ashton asks, let's say you have the body of Hitler and the mind you have right now. It's 1933 and your Nazi party has taken power.  What are you doing differently to get Germany out of economic ruin? Wow, that's a bizarre question. I mean, I wouldn't be, none of that could have happened, right? All of that isn't a possibility because if I had my mind, it doesn't matter what body I have, I wouldn't be taking power. I wouldn't have taken power. I wouldn't be taking power. I wouldn't give those speeches. I wouldn't be popular. I, you know, nothing would have happened. Ashton Jackson says, I would resign, right? But I think your question is, can you get the economy going without becoming a fascist? And the answer is absolutely yes. I mean, you do exactly what I would do in any country. And I don't know in detail the structure of the German economy in 1933. But basically I would put the German currency on a gold standard.  Germany is the first welfare state. Germany, you know, had a lot of controls over its business, controls over its industry. I would get rid of all controls. I would start phasing out all welfare. And I would encourage entrepreneurship. Not encourage them, but encourage them in my speeches. In my, you know, I would encourage people to become entrepreneurs, to create jobs, to build businesses, to hire people. So I would do the exact opposite of Hitler, which was to increase controls, increase regulations, and build up a war machine. I would take apart whatever war machine I had. Producing weapons is counterproductive. You know, once I made Germany rich, I would build weapons to protect myself from the Soviets. But 1933, I don't think the Soviets were a threat. So don't build weapons. Just allow markets to work. I would basically free up the German economy. Just like I would have freed up the US economy when the, you know, in 1933 to get out of the Great Depression. The exact opposite of what FDR did. James Taylor says, one of the reasons the Germans got as far as they did was because they were motivated by national pride after losing World War I. So badly, they wanted to make a comeback, whereas the Russian army is invading their little brother. Yeah, but Germany didn't get very far. I mean, very fine, what? In conquest that then got beaten back, in taking over a few countries for a few years. But in the vast scope of history, you know, Germany was beaten into pulp in, you know, five years. Five, a little bit more than that, five and a half years. It was beaten into a pulp. It lost massively. There's no question that, so Germany wasn't a success in any respect. There's not dementia in which you could say Nazi Germany was a success. Now they succeeded militarily for a while, for lots of reasons. They had, at the time, at the beginning of the war, they had the best equipment, military equipment in the world. The Russians at the beginning of the war have some of the worst military equipment in the world. The Germans at the time, there was a certain nationalistic, you know, motivation and winning feeds and winnings. So if Germany had not succeeded with the Blitzkrieg, if they had actually failed in their initial attempts, they would have collapsed immediately. They would not have been, they would have been like Russia today. They would have not. They couldn't sustain a war long-term. Morale wouldn't sustain. What sustained morale was that they looked like they were winning for a long time. The Germans had good generals, some good generals anyway, like the guy from North Africa who later was in France. But I don't know, you know, how much the soldier in the tank and it was, you know, there was a certain nationalist pride that was drilled into them that drove them to success. Rommel, thank you, that drove them to be motivated. But, you know, the motivation was shallow in the end because they didn't really believe in what Hitler believed in. At least a lot of them didn't. And to the extent that they did, that belief was irrational. It didn't sustain them. Let's see, let me just see if there are any related questions. Wouldn't it be better if we learn how to transplant a human brain into a cyborg instead of trying to find a way to extend lifespan of an imperfect, more fragile and aging human body? I doubt that that's going to work. I doubt that you could separate the human brain from the body and have it sustain itself. I, you know, we know today, for example, that there's massive ongoing communication between all kinds of parts of the body who feed information to the brain in ways that I'm not sure we understand enough or know enough or could predict yet to do it in a cyborg. You could do the opposite. You could take the parts of the body that are the hardest to replace, maybe, the hardest to rejuvenate and replace them with a robot, a cyborg. So you could build the, was it called the one billion dollar man, a million dollar man or whatever it was called? Certain parts of the body could become cyborg. And I really do believe that at the end of the day, what wins out is some computer-cyborg-human interaction. But chips in the brain or whatever. Six million dollar man, that's what it was called. But, you know, we'll see. We'll see what works. We'll see how it develops. We'll see, you know, what is the most efficient mechanisms. Right now, I kind of like my body. The other thing that you'd have a hard time with cyborg is getting the pleasure pain mechanisms right. Life is not worth living without pleasure. It's certainly not, I'm not sure life is worth living without sex. And I'm not sure cyborg could experience sex in the kind of integrated way in which sex is built into the human body. So I don't know if you could recreate a human orgasm. It's not just the chemicals in the brain. It is more than that. It's a physical sensation, not just a brain-induced sensation. So it's, I don't know. It doesn't seem possible to me that you could completely integrate it that way. It will be possible to download your brain's content into a brain computer interface, into a robot. Check out Newell link, Elon Musk company. No, I don't think it's ever going to be possible to download your brain's content into a brain computer. I think it's a misunderstanding of the brain content. I don't think your brain's content. I don't think who you are. I don't think that I, that you are, is zeros and ones and can be translated into zeros and ones. I think, you know, whoa. All right, Chaz Bhatt. Thank you. All right, we're blowing through the numbers right. This one I have to copy over so I don't forget. Wow, so Chaz Bhatt is giving $500 to review Star Trek, the motion picture. I think it's the original from 1979. I will do that. It'll be, it will be fun. All right, let's do it. There, copy, paste. Thank you. All right, so we're at, let me, let me post our dollar sum. We double, we've doubled our usual goal, right? This is great. So, so I don't think, I think there's something unique about biology that cannot be replicated in a computer. Now, one day we might be able to recreate biology. That is, we might be able to build a biological computer, in a sense. We might be able to create life, but life will not be a computer running on zeros and ones. Life will have chemistry and biology involved in it. And, and that is not a computer and that's on Newellink. Newellink is the ability of a chip to stimulate the brain and maybe one day to communicate directly with the brain. But that's that direction, not the other direction. You're not going to be able to download you into a computer. You might download specific things, memories, specific concretes, but not you. So, I'm skeptical and that's not what Newellink is. Michael says, have you been trying? He said Plato was not innocently getting things wrong as he was attempting to figure out the world, but he was a bad guy using people's lack of knowledge to subvert them. Harry is the philosopher. I am not. I will take, I will take Harry's word on that.  Okay, let's see. Scott asks, thoughts on the Mises Caucus taking over the Libertarian Party. So, as you know, well, you probably don't know, the Libertarian Party exists. It runs in presidential elections. It runs in some local elections. It's out there. It's active. The Libertarian Party is a conglomeration of all kinds of Libertarians. Libertarians from all different factions. Because Libertarianism is really not a, it's not a philosophy. It's kind of a broad, loosely defined political philosophy, but it's not even that because there are big, incredible disagreements among them. All kinds of people are within the Libertarian Party. They are anarchists. They are what are called left anarchists. Anarchists who are like Chomsky believe that ultimately everything will be kind of socialized under anarchy. They are right anarchists. This is the Mises Caucus. They believe in anarchy, but in the meantime, believes in nationalism. It leans racist. It's anti-immigration. It's supportive of the South and the Civil War. Again, it's very nationalistic while being anarchistic at the same time. Given what they call an alcohol capitalism as a contradiction in terms, why not go all the way, anarchy? Then there are the Libertarians who are anarchists, but lean left. They believe America is on social issues. They're much more aligned with the Democrats. Murray Rothbard went through a period where he thought the true alliance of the Libertarian Party was with the radical left. They're pro-legalizing drugs.   They think America is morally equal to Russia and Cuba and all these other awful countries. So they despise America. You can try to contradict what I'm saying about this if you want. Calling it slander doesn't make it wrong unless you want to provide evidence to the country. So there are these left-leaning who want an alignment with the left. The left-leaning Libertarians tend to be woke. They tend to think that there's something right about critical race theory.  And I tend to agree more with the left Libertarians than with the right Libertarians on the social issues. One thing the left Libertarians and the right Libertarians all agree on is they dislike America. They dislike America's past. They hate America's foreign policy. They refuse to defend America. And then you've got what you call moderate Libertarians. So kind of the people who've run in the past a few years for Libertarian presidency. The presidency and the Libertarian better. Oh well, we want to shrink government a little but we want to deregulate. We want to shrink the welfare state. We don't want to be too radical. We like to summon things in the left like some things in the right. And this is more the Republican Libertarians. The Libertarians within the Republican Party who are not anarchists but who are not too radical on limiting government. The Libertarian Party is a disaster. It's a mishmash. It's a conglomeration of all these different sects. I think the worst of all of them really is the Mises' Caucus. Now I have personal animosity towards the Mises' Caucus partially because they hate my guts and that's okay. But I despise them because they combine the worst elements of libertarianism, anarchy and the worst elements of the right. Nationalism, anti-immigration, xenophobia and at least for some of them elements of racism. And combine that nationalism in a funny kind of weird kind of way with anti-Americanism, hatred of America. And you can see this in the person they love is Hans Hoppe, HOPP, who believes that the ideal system of government is monarchy and who longs for the Middle Ages where we were all ruled by local monarchs evading completely the bloodshed and the horrible life conditions that people lived under. And monarchy, which is a disgusting form of government, a particularly disgusting form of government, a particularly horrific form of government that is just completely rife with violence. So I think the Mises' Caucus is the worst of all worlds. I can't think of anything really positive about it. Now what they're claiming is they're the principled libertarians. And if that's the case, and I'm not going to argue, if they're the principled libertarians then fine. I've never claimed to be a libertarian. I don't want the label. I don't want to be identified as a libertarian exactly because of that. Because if that's principled libertarianism, I don't want to have anything to do with it. I can somehow stomach the middle of the road libertarians. But once you get into anarchy, you know my position on anarchy. I think it's statism on steroids. I think it's a bloodshed and disaster and a dramatic decline in the quality instead of living. I think it's a hateful system of government. Well system, it's not a system of government. System, social system. I think it's a system that we lived under in a sense for most of human history. And it's about bloodshed and primitivism. So I can't think of anything much worse than anarchy to begin with. And then on top of that you have all the most horrific features of the new right. Kind of the nationalism. It just has to be small units. The anti-immigration, the borderline racism. So yeah, I have no sympathy for those people. I'm going to lose a lot of subscribers. Generally this month I've lost a lot of subscribers. I think abortion set the tone. And then since then I've just been losing people left and right. And I think right now I've probably lost a bunch of anarcho-capitalists who listen to the show and who are disgusted by what I have to say. And look, you know, I think one of the most damaging destructive figures in the liberty freedom movement, broadly speaking, it was Marui Wathboud. I think Marui Wathboud did an unbelievable amount of damage that we will suffer from for decades and decades to come. And the Mises Caucus, should we really call it, let me just say this. Yeah, Mises was anti-anarchy. Mises was anti-everything the Mises Caucus stands for. It should be called the Wathboud Caucus. The Mises Institute in Auburn should be called the Wathboud Institute or the Lou Rockwell Institute. It should certainly not be called the Mises Institute. It has nothing to do with Mises. Mises wasn't by any stretch in anarchists. He was anti-anarchy. He wrote about being an anti-anarchist.  So it's a disgrace. And that's the real, you know, violation of everything is the very fact that they use Mises' name and to justify these ideas. It's just hollow, just hollow. So it should be, if they called themselves the Wathboud Institute, at least I'd give them, you know, at least I'd give them, I'd say, okay, well, they're not at least frauds. But this is a fraud. This is a fraud. So the Libertarian political party was always a joke.  I never voted for a Libertarian candidate. I never would. I think they're a joke. The Mises caucus has just made them worse. Yeah, I mean, Dave Smith and Michael Miles are relieving. Michael Miles is not, you know, I don't know how much you take this stuff seriously. Dave Smith is a comic, you know, in person, a nice guy. But, you know, this is the anarchist, this is the anarchist anti-immigration, you know, conspiracy theory wing of the Libertarian group. And not a fan, not a fan, obviously. All right, Catherine says, if your bookcase behind you started to catch on fire, which two books would you save knowing it's hard to replace or that have the most value to you? Oh, God, I don't know. I mean, I was going to say it was shrugged and found head, but they can be easily replaced. Maybe, I mean, Opa, the one that I've got signed by Leonard. I mean, everything here can be replaced. There are probably some signed books back there, but I haven't thought about it. I don't know. And again, I think every single book out there back there. I mean, some of the old Iron Man books, just because they were my copies, it's the first time I read them, you know, they're mine in that sense. I'd probably grab a couple of the old Iron Man non-fiction books and whatever I have signed. So Ed says, did you see where the court in California proclaimed that bumblebees are fish? Really, the case was almond alliance of California versus fish and game commission. I saw headlines and I thought they were a joke. So this is real? I'll have to look into that. I thought it was a joke. So I just skipped over the articles. I'll have to look at what exactly is meant by that.   I know. That's what I said. I said I wouldn't support adult, you know, white beating drunks. So I guess you could, yes, I said something like I'd support kids. I won't support it. So I would be willing to support people who, you know, because of bad luck lost everything or people I know or people in my community that have had a string of bad things happened to them and have lost everything. Things like that is things I would support. You know, I'm not going to, and I'd support charities that did the research and made sure they didn't support the white beating drunks, I guess would be my answer. Oh, I didn't notice. We have, wow, today is an amazing day. We have Jeff with $79. So he says, reading ominous parallels now. Peacuff says, pragmatism accepts fully the volunteerist irrationality of the 19th century romanticists. The typical romanticist, however, openly dismissed reason in favor of feelings. I'm confused on the difference between romantic, with the romantic art we love. Oh, God, that's a big question. So you have to separate between the romantic, the philosophical romantic movement and the aesthetic romantic movement, the romantic, romantic art, although they're related, and I'll mention how they're related in a minute. The philosophical romantic movement was a movement that wanted man to go, it was really based, I think, on, I mean, Gator, Good, and Schiller, but it was really based on kind of Rousseau's vision of man going back to nature. Connecting with this emotion, reason, stifling emotion, and therefore stifling your connection to yourself, reason as repression, reason as detachment. And the romantic movement pushed in philosophy, pushed for connecting with emotion, connecting with your emotions, rejecting reason and living through your emotions. Now, what is the connection with romantic art? Romantic art as a negative, I'll first say what it is, as a negative in this deposit. Romantic art as a negative in the sense of what it rejected. Romantic art is rejecting classical art. It's rejecting, which is associated, unfortunately, in people's minds with reason. It's rejecting rigid structure.  The muscles had to be certain, everything. So what you get is very stifled, almost robotic sculptures that are cold. Although the great neoclassical sculptors are pretty amazing, but you do get a sense of they're frozen.  So the romantic rebell against it, they want to be liberated. They want the sculptures to convey strong passions and emotions. They want them to be in movement. They want them to get away from the classical pose with its rigid rules. So the classicists in the late 18th century were rulebound. Lenopikov talks about this with regard to, in his eight great plays, with regard to, I think, Racine, the French playwright, and I mean, you wrote these magnificent plays, but they were structured in very rigid ways, certain things you were allowed to do, certain things you weren't allowed to do. And Racine was starting to push the envelope on that, but not quite. The romantic said, you know why? Why do I have to have, you know, three acts? Why can't there be five acts? Why do the characters have to be like this? Why can't they be like that? Why can't they, and you know, in everything, in poetry, in painting, in sculpture, in literature, and when you go to a great museum that has kind of a sense of the history of art, and you can see the classes, the neo-classicists of the 18th century, and then you see the romantics, you can tell the difference immediately. But so I think that movement to liberate from the stifling rules was a good one. And fortunately, they associated those rules with reason. So they viewed it as a rejection of reason, which is tragic and destructive. What actually is going on is, in order to convey great emotions in art, there has to be a cause for the emotion. The emotions have to be targeted at something. Well, what do we have strong emotions about? We have strong emotions about values. So romantic art is value laden. And what Rand identifies is because it's value laden, it implicitly, metaphysically, recognizes free will as essential because values are essential, chosen values are essential. That's why you're passionate about it. That's what you have strong emotions about. And therefore what they did through their art is convey the possibility of choice in human action. And therefore choice with regard to values and therefore valuing passionately. And romantic art is the art of free will. It is the art of values. It is the art of the passion and pursuit of values. And that's what Hugo does. And that's what Dostoevsky does, even though you might not agree with his values. And that's what Inran does. And that's what good and not that many sculpture and painting do. But of course, it's harder to see the pursuit of values and sculpture and painting because they're less conceptual. But it's they. You just have to learn the language. And that's what, in a sense, music does. But again, we don't have the language to quite express it. But in expressing our passions, in evoking such powerful emotions in us, which romantic music does, it suggests to us the pursuit of values, the achievements of values. And I think that's how we talk connected. I mean, that deserves a much longer, more full description, but that explanation. But that's the essence of it. And that's why romantic philosophy by bringing to the forward emotions was not a bad thing. What the bad thing was the rejection of reason and not understanding the relationship between reason and emotion. But because the art is so metaphysical, because it gets the metaphysical value judgment, by elevating emotions, what it's actually elevating is human values and human choices. Iron Man described herself, yes, Ed as a romantic realist. So she was a romantic. And I think a lot of the art of the, I think Hugo was a romantic realist. I think a lot of the art of the 19th century, not all of it, but a lot of it was romantic realism. All right. I don't know how interested you guys are on me doing shows on arts, art history and art and particular artists. If you are, let me know maybe some of your sponsor show on 19th century art or Renaissance art or the history of art, we can do a series of shows on the history of art if somebody wants to sponsor that. So let me know if you're interested in the sponsorship of shows on art. Ashton asks, wow, it's getting late. All right. Ashton asks, Marxist revolutionaries simply traded one life on another during the Bolshevik Revolution. Instead of one man, the czar owning the work of all the people and the communist government would have them believe all the people owned the work of all the people. Yes. I mean, there's no question that communism really fed off of the mythology of the time. Communism is very Christian in many regards. You know, it elevates the proletariat to where God is or it elevates the state or international Bolshevism to where God is or in its nationalistic version, it elevates the state to where God is. The people, the proletariat. And yes, the authoritarianism, the philosophy of king nature of it, you're just switching the czar for Stalin. You're just switching one philosopher king for another philosopher king to guide you. One happens to be bloodier than the other, but for the peasants of Russia, they were still expected to sacrifice. They were still nothing and nobodies. And basically communism basically leveraged Russian Orthodox religion and feudalism. Not so much feudalism, by then it wasn't completely feudal, but authoritarianism, the authoritarian nature of the culture and the religious nature of the culture to take over with their own form of mysticism and authoritarianism. So absolutely, Ashton, I agree. Liam asks, are government-run economies discredited even on the left? Is that some intellectual progress? Yeah, to some extent it's intellectual progress, but they still give government programs, government initiatives, government controls way too much credit, way, way, way too much credit. Frank says, the green mile narrator is 100 plus year old but healthy, yet he is wary and unhappy with long life. Can it be good to outlive your friends and family? Absolutely, you make new friends and, you know, you make new friends. Ask me when I'm 100 and I'll let you know. All right. Yeah, I mean, if somebody's willing to sponsor a art history kind of course at my level, which I think is your level, you know, so it's not, I'm not a world expert on these things, but, you know, bringing in kind of an objective perspective to it, that would be fun to do. So you can think about that and let me know if that's something you would like me to do. But it would have to be sponsored. All right guys, you're on book 100th birthday show. Absolutely, 150th birthday show. Why just 100? Absolutely. Onwards and upwards. Wow, we raised $1,351.12. Thank you, Catherine. You need to show up every show and thank you, Troy, for the amazing support you're providing regularly. It's fantastic. And thank you, Charles Watt, for pitching in $500 for a review of Star Trek. I will watch it. The first movie I have to watch, I guess probably tomorrow I'll watch it, is, you know, the airplane movie that's on right now. I have to watch part one so I can go to theater and watch Top Gun. I have to watch Top Gun tomorrow so I can go and watch it in a theater with my friend who is coming over next week. But I will watch Star Trek as a high priority next. All right, everybody. Hope you enjoyed the show. If you did, don't forget to like it before you leave. Only 70 thumbs up, even though we had a lot more people watching. So don't forget to like the show. It helps with the algorithm. And also share the show, if you can, on Twitter, Facebook, and other places like that. So let the world know that we exist. And if you like the show, let the world know that you like the show. We need to start growing subscriptions again. We need that. I thought we'd make $40,000 this month. I completely was wrong on that. I think somebody asked me when I thought I'd hit $40,000. And I said, by the end of June, completely wrong. But let's get back on a, you know, I keep losing the right wing, the people who think they're objectivist and who have right wing views. I keep losing those. All right, guys. I will see you tomorrow, 2 o'clock, 2 p.m. tomorrow. Have a great weekend.


during high school I wasn't going to go on admission. I wasn't sure if I was going to go or not. And then after I graduated, I got the, I just knew I needed, I needed to find out for myself if I should go or not. And so the biggest thing for me that helped me go out was just reading the Book of Mormon. I wanted to find out actually if I should go and gain a testimony for myself. So I read the Book of Mormon and I read about, for me personally, I was reading like two hours a day, three hours a day because I just fell in love with reading the Book of Mormon and then I was like, I need to go. And so I have a twin brother and he wasn't sure if he was going to go either but I got like, I put my papers in and found out I was like, I definitely need to go and I had to wait six weeks for some reason to get my call which was unusual to wait. My twin brother decides he wants to go after I put my papers in and then we both get our calls the same day which was really cool. So he only had to wait like 10 days. I had to wait six weeks but it was inspired so and then but the funny thing is right before I got my call my mom's like, just please not China. And I opened my call and I'm like Hong Kong China my mom was like, but she realized that it's actually an awesome place.  Have a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon that really helped me a lot. That's what got I would have gone a mission if it wasn't for the Book of Mormon. I was pumped.  I was so excited and I couldn't wait to share the Book of Mormon with everyone. Obviously just learning how to pray to read scriptures and just doing the basic things. That's what really helped me get out and being around good people. I would go to Institute all the time and go to like activities, found home evening and just like all the activities and being around good people, learning from them what they like to do and being around good people really because before in high school, I didn't hang out like the best crowd like my friends, none of them went on missions. But then after before I was preparing really fueled me even more to do well on my mission and to get out there because I could I could tell that they loved it and I wanted that same experience. So like it was it was cool. I had to wait. I don't know why I had to wait a long time to get out to the field. I got my call and had to wait five months, which was weird, but I did. So that was an interesting period of time. But yeah, that's like what, yes, pre-mission is what helped me.