Jay Doran: How Did We Get Here? | The Authors Unite Show #957

All right, everybody, welcome to The Medium. Um, this is Jay Duran. Welcome to the show, brother.

It's a pleasure having me. I've been waiting to use that.

Yeah, no, that's very good. I'm glad you did.

Pleasure's all yours. Yeah, I'm excited to see the comments so we can have healthy conflict when people tune in.

So, wait, what's your typical response again when I ask, like, how are you? What do you say?

Oh, better before COVID It was better than most, which the credit is due to Les Brown. That's a Les Brown quote.

Okay, gotcha.

And then I stopped for a little while until I realized that cases were higher, that, well, deaths weren't even talked about, and then cases were just going up and up and up. And now it's— I feel like I can bring back better than most, and it may not be insensitive to people. But of course, by the way, you know, God rest anyone's soul that was lost in this pandemic. And I mean no insult to anybody, you know, personally.

Yeah, for sure.

So that's what the saying was for many years. Someone asked me how I'm doing— better than most. And I put it, uh, on the shelf at the beginning of the lockdowns in March, and I've just recently taken it off the shelf and used it. I think if I reflect on what I actually said in respect to questions strangers or family or client, whatever, what have you, asked me— how are you doing? I don't know what I said for the last 9 months or so. I might have just made a— I don't know.

I said, get away from me.

I'm scared of you.

No, I didn't say it. That's happened. I know. Okay, we'll get into that. But so I want to start off with a big question because then I think it'll really— we'll go into so many different elements with it. So the question is, From when this country was founded to where we are now, how did we get to where we are now? And like, what do you think is happening? Big question.

Well, this—

Give us the time. Yeah. Give us the timeline.

This phone.

Okay.

Yeah. This phone is, I would argue, a positive symptom of our human culture's insecurity related to its idealistic endeavor, meaning we are uncertain about these big questions that you ask, whether we are aware of our uncertainty or whether we are not. And all of us, no matter what, where we come from or what we look like, we are striving to go somewhere. And regardless of, you know, we could talk on what resolution— political, communal, business— just, well, just to answer your question, like the big— I would start here is that We are developing through technology. We, as in the human race, has always had the existential crisis of who are we, what are we, why are we, dot, dot, dot. And we're at an inflection point in our species, special evolution, where technology has literally given all of us, billions of people, the ability to be a dictator or a benevolent leader. Meaning how each and every one of your listeners, how you and me interact on these mediums, or on our Facebooks or Instagrams or TikToks, with interacting with people in comment sections, that reveals our individual character. And it looks to me like what's different from now and the founding of this nation, even thousands of years ago and so on, is we haven't changed much at all. Social isn't changing us, it's revealing what we are, who we are through our interactivity. And that's, that's, that's a hard thing to grapple with. Yeah, think about how many people delete comments, unfriend people, block people, use divisive language like hater or libtard or fascist without having done the work to read both sides of a thesis and an antithesis, to come to a reasonable understanding of what the context of these words really mean when they're put out through someone's being into the world, how easily all that's acting itself out. What's different from now in the beginning of the country is there's hundreds of millions of people in this ecosystem of shared belief that have the ability every day when they wake up and they check their email and they go on their comment section to act out authoritarianism or act out empathetic inquiry. So the former, for example, acting out authoritarianism— any individual that has a problem what's happening in our country that then lives their daily lives, like all the conflict and whatnot and all of the divisiveness, that lives their daily lives blocking people on their mediums Just ad hominems— anyone could Google that— the lowest form of communication for violence. When you say, 'You suck, you're this, you're that,' and you avoid the topic and just talk about the person's identity or their character. If we're doing this in our daily lives, well, now we could be labeled as authoritative, or rather authoritarian. Yeah, that person's outcome in their life is not going to be positive. Someone that empathetically inquires or openly vulnerably, because one has to be vulnerable to ask questions, vulnerable to tell what they believe is true without attacking someone, they're going to navigate their lives just like they would have done 100 years ago in reality of just like day-to-day without social— you know, I just like threw my phone around— without social, you know, media, which is another lens of reality through this technology. But it's that times exponential. And then now everyone can see what you're thinking. So My short answer of difference in then and now is we all have the ability to be masters of the universe, and we're enslaving ourselves through how we interact with each other. It's a nonpartisan conversation at that resolution. It's an existential, uh, question and, and, and discussion and dialogue that I don't see. I'm, I'm like trying to read everything I can, YouTube everything I can, Google everything I can, and I'm unable to, to find one, at least at this point, which every— any of your listeners could put in the comment section— is a place where people actually have different points of view, are openly arguing and having verbal healthy conflict without offing each other. So this is my simple answer: social media is not the dilemma, it's the opportunity, respective of how we interact with it. Social media is not changing us, it's revealing more about the human condition than any professor, any genius, anyone has ever singly or collectively articulated. We are finding out what we are as we interact with, by, in relation to one another through technology. And that is causing so much conflict we're not used to.

Yeah.

And it seems as though it's going at an infinite regress, like we can just go backwards all the way down. To just, you know, one person versus another person. Hundreds of millions of people, they're all on their own little island. Like, we could all argue. So that's my— I'm sweating already. We just started.

No, this is good. That's what I want.

Thanks for inviting me on the— is this the Authors Unite podcast? That's what— yeah, this—

well, yeah, this is even more than that.

This— what's it called? This—

it's called the Authors Unite Show plus the Tyler J Experience.

Well, I did this because of your character, who you are, and our culture, the friendship that we have developed over the years based on our aligning and misaligning values and conflicts. Thank you for the invitation.

Um, okay, so I wanted to, um, uh, say, so with the censoring though, and I think that's one of the biggest issues, is like, and, and I'm not saying one side is doing it more than the other, although it does seem that way. Like, on social media, I think a lot of people do want to speak out, but after they've seen things like Alex Jones and some other people that just get— is the word doxxed? Is that what doxxed means?

I don't know. What is that?

I've never heard of it. I've heard the word where basically like people are posting stuff and then based on their views, and then like even Twitter right now, best example of this is Donald Trump. Like every tweet that he does, it says below that like the president-elect is Joe Biden. So basically every tweet that Trump does now, Twitter is like, this is a lie, like the foundation of it's a lie. So I think that's kind of what's holding some people back is like they are censoring like some of what you're saying, especially it seems to be more so on the right side of things.

So, well, would you draw a differentiation between the act of projecting who's winning versus censoring? Like, censoring is a different conversation. Also, the word technically, it can't— it isn't censoring until the legal system catches up to the technology, going back to what I said before. Because the public, like, there's an argument right now that people are working towards considering social media platforms and the freedoms by which independent business owners have the ability to choose who comes into their restaurant or not. When I use the word, you know, medium restaurant, I'm talking about Facebook. Like a restaurant say, we don't want you coming here, as long as it's not specifically attacking someone's rights. A business owner has the right to say, we don't want this business.

Yeah.

So there's a fine line between we don't want this on our platform and we can't do anything to stop you from doing things on the platform. Even so, what I'm saying is the law hasn't caught up to the technology. So even the word censor, it's, it's this— ironically, it's the same thing as the projected presidency. When people say, oh, you're censoring me, that's the same line of, of projection as President-elect Biden, who technically hasn't been elected as president yet. He's the, you know, the Electoral College hasn't worked that out yet. It's not over. The current president is still Trump. But the projection is this is the elect, uh, this is going to be the president. Is that correct? That you're seeing that everywhere through the platforms? When we— so I'm saying, I'm drawing an analogy. When we as individuals who don't like what's going on around us say they're censoring us, well, technically they're not censoring us. They have the right to do that. Yeah, so we're actually acting out the same neuroses as those we disagree with. That brings me back to what the actual problem is. We don't know who we are, we don't know what we are, and we don't know how to interact with each other in an open, honest, vulnerable, empathetic, reasonable, inquiring Unificent, benevolent, lovingly.

So, how do we— okay, so first off, before we go even deeper, because I didn't really give like an introduction, and there's a lot that I could say about you, but I want to just point this out because for me, I really wanted to do this because I think it's really important with what everything that's just going on. I think this conversation could really help a lot of people. So, first off, you've done the work on both sides, and And I remember like we had a conversation, it was over this summer, and you had asked me if I read some of these books like White Fragility, Anti-Racist, like some of these other books, let's say. And, you know, I like Alex.

Yeah, yeah.

And I had it, right. And I even said like, I would find it to be somewhat painful, I think, to listen to those. But the truth is, is like, that's the same kind of thing that's happening, right, is that both sides just think the other side is so like off par that they're not willing to interact even, right? And actually, I'm curious because you sent this video to me, um, the— I think it was the Anti-Racist— they just came out with a children's book, beautiful illustrations, um, and, and so, and, you know, Ben Shapiro did a video on it. What are your thoughts on, on that to start on the—

okay, so first we have to break an assumption down that I believe is leading Yeah, has led to history repeating itself and will continue to lead to us through our own inner contradictions creating malevolence in the world, creating unnecessary conflicts in the world, through not understanding empathy because we think we understand it rather than acting it out. So the assumption is that evil people consciously do evil things. Yes, this is where my argument is. Emotional intelligent beings, which is everybody in their own regard, do things with the best interest of themselves and others by, by nature. And if those activities are done Without healthy conflict— and when I say a healthy conflict, I'm talking about argument rather than literally unhealthy conflict, which would be violence. War really reveals culture. Who is the winner? What is true? So on, you have two sides of a view that are completely opposite. One has their thesis and their antagonist their subjective antagonist represents an opposite view, the antithesis to their thesis, and the synthesis which will align the culture and make everybody better without everyone— without any party getting everything they want, because that would be impossible with freedom of opportunity. Through that healthy conflict, not violence but interaction, which you know, go back, makes our constitutional republic so awesome in that regard, how it was set up to have that. Then the truth is unveiled of what would be agreed upon. So, uh, I believe if both sides of a coin don't read and interact with the opposite, they're not acting out the empathy necessary so that when they come to each other, they won't communicate arguing the topics. They're going to communicate arguing each other. So if they argue each other, we must understand that whatever we represent as far as what we believe in is based on our psychological disposition, which is based on our environment related to our genes. See, to understand the individual, you must understand the group, and to understand the group, you must understand the individual. So there's a simultaneity, simultaneity to truth there. And me, I'll use example. Me, I'm reading all sides possible, and I see where natural, into like, um, abstract, uh, honest, like meaning consciously honest, not subconsciously dishonest Ideas would form to say, hey, this is how we want to solve a problem. So just go back to my— the beginning of my diet, what I was— my retort to you. The assumption that people are evil, or for example, the guy or gal that wrote this book saying this is doing it for the worst intentions— that assumption is irresponsible of the assumer. We're already starting out in a self-negation. Stunting the ability to converse. And the etymology of conversation is convert. We're going to learn from each other, we're going to convert from each other. And if we go along that route, that leads to war, like violence, the absolute lowest form of conflict, which is the physical conflict. And everyone's doing, acting that out, uh, that I'm seeing, that irresponsible in that regard. And Anyone listening to this is only going to live through themself in relation to others. For them to create open, honest, healthy verbal conflict in their life where resolutions are actually acted out, they are the ones that will have to burden the responsibility of their emotions relating to people, calling them this, calling them that, and acting a certain way. They will have to bring their openness, work through their emotions, and inquire, which means they have to actually ask questions. They have to actually be open to hearing another person's point of view. And this goes for all sides. If we don't do this as a culture, the culture is done. And at the macro level, and it will, and no matter what, but this is, I am just to clarify, I'm a cultural advisor at organizations. My work is centered around understanding culture on a micro, macro level. I work behind the scenes with the ownership only to help them develop good deeds, good thoughts, and good word, to be honest with themselves. And that helps the entire organization hire, fire, develop humans. That's my daily work. And what I see is people at the helm They, they don't need to consciously be doing something that could, what would be perceived as bad, to do things that end up bad for themselves and others. This is part of our nature. We are, I, I say we are honest liars. We're honest in public, but we lie to ourselves. And the value in that is individually we're not going to work out our own paradoxes, our own inner contradictions, but together we do. Together we do when we have that moment of conflict. So my ask of everyone listening would be, everything you disagree with, go deep in that information, read it. You will, you will metamorphosize when you're in a conversation with someone that you disagree with after you've done the work. There will be a peace about you where you can actually hear them. I have experienced this. I wasn't told to do this. I said it was an intuition. Oh, what if I read as much as I possibly can of every layer? And as an example, when the lockdown first occurred, I was emotional, like, wow, you know, this is really bad. Because of course, uh, business is a vessel to our being. It's like a laboratory in real life. You learn a tremendous amount working with organizations behind the scenes about the human condition because they're cultures. That's what a business is. And I define culture as a metaphorical ecosystem of shared belief created by an influencer, maintained by the alignment of the influence. The influencer is the founder, and the alignment of the influence is the relative agreement of what to do, what not to do, in relation to the employees and the customers and so on. And that's acted out by story, language, symbolism, mediums. And the actual psychological disposition or interaction in relation of the owner. So it's a literal library— or library— laboratory, laboratory. Literal library is just reading. They have books everyone should read. Laboratory. So in this, you recognize that people— here's an example, um, evil dictators, even like, ah, you know, they're born that way. That could be And they're— statistically, there's a percentage of the population that are— something with their brain, it's off, or something occurred in their child, you know, childhood, or at some point in their life environmentally that flipped that switch. Now it's like, I'm just off. But we don't know the limits to that person, what could actually shift them into their own salvation. Well, my argument is that the majority of humans are so likely to act out evil. It's because they're so interested in being good, they sacrifice their intuition, their reason, and their values in that moment of truth, and they commit acts of evil. And this is both sides. It's the person that self-righteously smashes somebody in the nose in that argument at the very end where they just can't see eye to eye on something. Yeah, it's like, well, I'm, you know, That's what I had to do. It's these little micro things. Um, so yeah, so on that book, for example, I do not— after reading this individual's literature, there's no sign to me that this person, uh, even Max Kennedy, is up to any intentional malevolence. Philosophically, he aligns with some— and I'm not fully done understanding the information, um, not to say that one could ever be but some form, like, underneath the argument is a philosophy that's antithetical to our system of governance, because that's the solution to racism, is let's, let's turn all the laws around and change them, which essentially means let's abandon the Constitution and develop a new ecosystem. That is not, oh, he's malevolent, he's evil. That is, this is an individual that prescribes to a philosophy that would be more aligned with China, potentially some form of socialistic, capitalistic agglomeration of values, ideology, and work ethic. I mean, what's in our culture today is people genuinely— well, this is another thing. When we dialogue with the majority of people, their job is not to know the big— or not even to know the big questions. And they're not thinking about the big questions or their answers to them, which by the way, we're never going to have them, all of them. We're all trying to figure this out. How about that for actually being grateful? Yeah, the majority of people— so, so here's an example. When people say, oh, you're a liberal, oh, you're a public, oh, you're a libertarian, oh, you're a Marxist, oh, you're a communist, you're a piece of shit— that's irresponsible linguistically. It's a weaponization of language, and it's an obvious defense to the wielder of that language because That person is actually— well, they're flesh, they're bone, they're— they, they, they have— they have the likelihood that their whole life isn't dedicated to answering those questions. What are they doing? They're absorbing information from someone that did, a leader in relation to them. Even if they're a leader, there's levels of leadership.

Yeah.

So we're not attacking them. We can't attack them. We have to converse about the topics, and we'll convert them potentially, and then us. Mm-hmm. So when it comes to these, uh, well, anything really, you have to look at what are the leaders. And that's what I spend a tremendous amount of time— what are the leaders of the movements thinking and not thinking? What is the philosophy presupposing all of the ideology and movement and activity and explicit rhetoric and, and, and solutions? And from what I've noticed is, uh, what I've gathered, uh, observed and tried to work through is there's a, um Part of the postmodern idea is that the self is in the way of itself. Selfishness has no function in the future of society, and we have to come together as one. And that means giving up a lot of things that we believe in, that we want, their own pride, so in the end it'll all work out. Now, this is not something new, because Stalin really did what the literature shows. He, he's— it's worth the sacrifice if a couple million people die I'm great. That's so— that's what I want to say first, articulate to our audience, is that when you label someone, as Kierkegaard would say, you negate them and enslave and enchain yourself in your own dogma. We can't do that if we're going to move. And this is what I'm saying, technology is revealing us. We do this— this transcends And for example, racism that exists in all cultures, that's a symptom of our inability to burden the responsibility of individuality, which is based on our epistemological understanding and our awareness. And these are developing as our species develops through technology. So essentially we're naked and we don't like the way we look and can't stomach ourselves in relation to the way other people want to live. And so when you talk about the anti-racist rhetoric, which by the way, I do believe there's dangers to it because it's unfortunately solving symptoms, not the problem. And through solving symptoms tends to create more symptoms and just divide. And it tends to— if you read the literature, it's like you're A or B. You're either a segregationist. This is from Stamped, one of the books. You're either a segregator— there's 3 options. You're either a segregationist, which is no good, essentially you're racist. You're an assimilationist, and they say verbatim, you're a coward. Assimilate is when people all get— they buy into the over macro culture. And in America would be Western culture, Judeo-Christian, that's labeled as the white patriarchy. Okay, let's just say it is for argument's sake. And then so the first one is segregationist, you're racist. Second is, oh, you're assimilationist, you're a coward or implicitly a racist. And then third is you're an anti-racist and you're loving. Well, that's a contradiction because nothing that has been said is loving. So it's rather like, I'm acting out in violence because I love you so much in the world, I will kill you so it's better. It's not gonna work, guys. Because this thing, because I spent so much time and money and energy on our company dollar, investing in learning. And yeah, I see a lot of what, uh, where all of this would evolve from. I mean, essentially capitalism the way it is now will not bring us into the next epoch, and I don't want— I don't actually believe that, uh, the Marxist ideology will. But people that are educated and intellectual do. They do think that. It's like, where's our— where's the next Adam Smith? Where's the next John Locke? Where are the next founding fathers, mothers, children, people? Where are they? Well, I think they're online and they're talking and they're doing this. Yeah. So that's my short answer. Yeah. So the social opportunity is One of the natural— capitalism is held together by entitlement, resentment, and it's driven through by admiration. Like, meaning the mentee seeks the mentor to learn the skills necessary to conquer and slay the dragon. Capitalism, free market capitalism, gives everybody an opportunity today. It didn't always, which is another point of contention which has to be talked about. But today, and, and, and that's where a lot of this comes from, right? The, at least the emotional push. It grants people the opportunity to seek what they by nature are not going to fully get from the home. No matter if they have a total perfect household, like, there's no such thing. Free market capitalism actually enables someone, an individual, to follow their hero's journey, seek the mentor, uh, try and fail, learn from their mistakes, slay the dragon, become someone. But then what's next? Well, there, there isn't a next. And that creates, with people that have never learned how to live, which I believe is revealed in how we interact with each other, guilt. The guilt of the entrepreneur, of the aristocracy, will lead to the overwhelming victim narrative to the proletariat, to the poor that seem oppressed because they literally are. But at the same time, in a free market capitalism, like, materially they are, but psychologically they don't have to be. Sociologically they also aren't on a macro level, but they are if they're Black in their microcosm. Yeah, they are. There's valid Literature there that we have to have these conversations and we can't alienate each other. So what my call to action is for everyone, you have to read both sides, all sides, listen to it, read it, talk about it with people. And you can't call people names and negate them because you're actually enslaving yourself to learn about them and yourself through that interaction. And so what is happening in our human culture today is what we've always been, just like explosions. Culture is catching up to time and it's revealing our cracks. So, uh, shoot, you know, maybe, uh, you know what, 15 more minutes and then I'll finish.

So wait, wait, to come full circle on that, Like, what would be— I don't know if ideal is the right word, but the ideal scenario between the author of The Antiracist and Ben Shapiro? Like, would it be— because I— the video I watched, uh, Ben Shapiro's full video, and, uh, one of the things he said is he said the author— I think he used the word charlatan, because basically the book, uh, from what, uh, Ben said is, you know, you read the book and he basically says, you know, if you're not out there like fighting people against racism, then you are indeed a racist. Like, you're born as a racist, essentially. So, and then he says the only way essentially for you to not be a racist is to hire me to like speak or come to your company and teach all of your employees. So he says, so, but that right there, whether true or not true, that negates a potential discussion because right off the bat he's saying you're a charlatan. Everything you do is like a cheat and a lie or whatever, you know. So what's the ideal scenario for them both? And not to come to a conclusion, because can we ever actually come to a full conclusion? I think it's just an ongoing dialogue, right? But how does it— like, how would you see it working best? Like, Ben, instead of him doing that video, just being like, hey, I don't agree with these things, and invite him on his show? And then they just openly discuss.

Well, from what I've watched of people on Ben's side of the equation, yeah, uh, they often speak about how they, they, they do that. And they all— and I don't know personally because I haven't asked them, and I also wasn't there. They all— they offered— they say that they offer opportunities.

They do.

Dennis Prager said he offered $20,000 anyone to come on his show, anyone to come dialogue with him. What I— what— okay, so to answer your question, and I also have another question for you, but to answer your question, What— who in their right mind would want to go on a show where if they watched or logged into it, the show is completely about how they're an asshole? True. Whether saying it or not saying it.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm. Question. Yeah. Do you believe when it comes to becoming an author and one marketing themselves, or becoming an author and wanting to make it and utilize authorship to get business and share someone's perspective that your organization would increase their likelihood. Do you believe that?

Yeah, yeah, without a doubt.

Yeah. And so, and Ibram Kendi believes that if someone doesn't know about anti-racism and wants to learn it, then they should pay him because he created the idea. So that's a symptom of free market capitalism. That it doesn't mean he is up to no good. It means that he believes what he's saying. And therefore, in a— now one could argue if they understand where it looks like he's going with his ideology, or rather let's say his philosophy of The system's racist, because that's the end goal of the interaction, is the system's racist. So we— any laws— I'll just define it really quick. In the book, the idea of a racist policy is any policy in place where two or more racial groups have inequity. So the example they used, it was roughly there's 10 houses on a block, and 6 of them are white, 3 of them are Hispanic, one are to our Black, what have you. Is that even the right math? No, you understand my point. There's inequity, there's equality of outcome is all different. So the policy must be racist. I'm not saying I agree with that idea. I actually disagree with that idea. What I'm saying is when he's saying it, I believe he believes what he's saying, and he believes he's developed a cogent case for it, which is revealed in his books. And anyone that disagrees with him, if they want to uncover what is true about the world for themselves through those that disagree with them— because we all disagree, everyone in the world disagrees at least about one thing— and if we live our lives only on that one thing we disagree with, where we can't live with other people, we are done as a species. People live like that in their lives today. It's why they don't talk to their parents, or they don't talk to their children, or they don't talk to their uncle, or they don't talk to that old friend. They're living authoritarian today on the right, on the left, on the this, on the that, all of them. That's my point. Now the other thing was, uh, damn, I forgot the other thing. Damn.

Oh, sorry. Well, I think the best example of that though is, is on that one thing, like you You know, there's a lot of people that if you vote for Trump, then like the others, like people literally lose friends for openly saying that they're a Trump supporter. You know, yes.

And now that is a symptom of an unaware, entitled, resentful culture. The question is, where is that? Where is the source of that, really? Well, it's happening at every level. In the home, at the school, in the company. It's happening at every level.

Oh yeah, yep.

And it's a sign that everybody's wrong because everybody believes that— everybody believes that what they believe is the absolute truth. I recommend everyone read into a, an Austrian philosopher of science and all of these many things. Karl Popper proved in the 20th century falsified falsifiability theory. A theory in science, in the hard sciences like physiology, biology, and so on, is not proved indefinitively, like without doubt. It's proved with the— to a degree and agreed upon by the culture, and then it's disproved. And that the scientist, from his perspective's job responsibly, was to imagine. Like, example, Einstein— imagination. He said it a million times. His genius didn't come solely from his pedigree or genetics or anything. It was his imagination. It was his thought experiment. He acted them out and he sought to show, uh, disprove them, meaning test them until you can't, uh, disprove them. This is why right now people are saying science, it's science. Science is political. It's always been political. And before it was political, it was religious. Like Newtonian physics altered the consciousness of the planet when it outgrew the dogma of religion. And, and, and Einstein— what I think this all really goes back to is Einstein's relativity, uh, disproving— but not— it didn't disprove it. Like, that's— I'm not saying like an all throw out the bathwater, but at another level of uncertainty is what I'm saying. Uh, and we're at an inflection point in our species with religion and us, what we are. Essentially, there's this postmodern idea that there's no truth at all, and we all really want equality but don't understand that word and think equity, or we all need to get the same piece of the pie regardless of how we act as individuals in the world. And I think that's where the right, for example, the Republican Party in America and the conservatives in other places in the world, not just America, England is— there's the same things are happening, uh, and I recommend anyone follow the guy named Douglas Murray over there. He really talks a lot about that. They're trying to hold on to things that our species is obviously outgrowing, and they're gonna lose definitely the way they're acting. And the, the left, the progressive, which from my perspective is regressing in how they interact, which is making their progressiveness look like regressiveness when it's actually progressive, but if they're acting regressively, and the left is pridefully, you know, emotionally instigated by the right, is rather to the left, and they're getting defensive, and they're— the value of the right and the left's friction is actually the new moderate. Just like in a relationship, you have two partners that, you know, they say opposites attract. Like, I'm putting quotes, I'm not really sure why I'm doing that, because it's, it's one of the most profoundly true things. Because thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The thesis of the one spouse, what they believe about the world, when that comes in argument with the antithesis, which is the— their spouse's thesis, they figure out how they want to live and they make each other better, which is one of the values of monogamy, by the way. Even though I'd love to fuck everything You can't do it. You really can't do it. You can't do it, people. You just can't do it. There will be grave ramifications. And you don't need to be religious to just not bag everything. It's very important that you stop. Yeah, it breaks the individual psychologically to not be able to work out their own paradox, because we are a constant evolving thing that we still don't know holy what we are. Nobody knows. We're trying to figure it out together. Now, through that conflict, I'm arguing meeting is— oh, it's so meaningful to create through conflict together. So the conservative party is just as irresponsible as what they would call the regressive left because of how they're interacting with that side. And that side is just as irresponsible how they interact that side. And it only takes one person in an interaction to rise above themselves to pull someone out of purgatory. It has to happen. Now, this is my argument, is that when you call either side a name like a libtard or a fascist, you stunt the opportunity to sell or convert those people on your ideas. And it's through that conversion, the conversation, the converting where people switch to either side, or they all get better in that process. They actually learn. It's like a healthy relationship with a monogamous couple. They have disagreements, and they meet, and they ask each other questions, and no matter how they share their piece, you know, not get— not violently, you know, but through that interaction they end up on the other side, they trust each other more, they love— then love springs from it. Yeah, on a macro level, the value of the— so because politics is the broker of the philosophy of the nation, and the philosophy of the nation is based on the psychology of the opposing viewpoints, and their psychology is based on everything that's ever occurred in their life in relation to what their genetic makeup is. And these are extremely— even talking about all those things That's many disciplines to understand. And I would say you have to be a generalist to be a decent specialist today. And all of us, all of us are geniuses because we can go and Google, which I recommend. Like, while we're here, I'll be Googling things like, oh, I don't know this, what's the definition of this? Google. Like, we're all geniuses with these phones. But what I just said, you know, that's political science and philosophy and history and sociology and psychology and anthropology. And like, these are not just big words to scare people. These are, uh, you know, uh, a cornucopia of other humans that also peed and pooped and banged and loved and hated and resented and cried and died, who invested all their energy, their thought, their word, their action, their interaction based on everything they ate and pooped and drank and developed assumptions about the world that developed more externally of the world or not. And we can learn from all of these dead and living people, especially from our critics. So any— anyone listening to this today, how you can be better in your life for you and others is not to block people on social media, not to delete comments, not to just attack people personally in the comments section. Every comment, every conversation you have— here's a social opportunity. Never before in history were we able to, of course, talk like this— we'll get into that— but comment and learn so much from so many people in so many cultures all at once. What could that do to build somebody up? People are, you know, people upset about college loans. You know what, it makes sense that they would be upset about college loans. Because they were guided into, oh, I'm going to get this degree and then I'm definitely going to get a job. Well, that's a false assumption. That's entitlement. They also may not, because of the college culture, been taking that seriously to read and write and listen and speak, uh, which is leadership, you know, oratory. Learn how to speak in the classroom, overcome their fears, learn how to write, learn how to think, like reason and induct and deduce and all of these things that happen when you're in, you know, if you take those institutions seriously. Seriously, be a mentor. Find a mentor in the professor, in your constituencies, your colleagues. Well, what's our culture? What's academic culture? Well, I'm going, a majority of people, and anyone disagree with this, correct me if I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. I learn from my critics. Comment where the hell they can do that. But you, Tyler, fucking argue with me, damn it. No, there you go. I just tease him because I welcome it. Cut me off at any time, as Winston Churchill said. Don't interrupt me while I'm interrupting.

Okay, no, then I have a question.

We go to school and we didn't pay for it ourselves. Psychologically, no matter what, where you're from or what you're about, what's the likelihood that person's not going to take that super seriously? Who's advised them to do it? Why do they give a shit if these textbooks are boring as hell, these books are boring as hell? Why do they care? Well, if they don't care, they don't do the work, they just have fun, which is its own valuable interaction. Of course, we're social organisms. And then they leave with this degree that's absolutely worth it. Whose responsibility is that? Well, it's their parents, it's them, it's everybody's. But if we just want the government to solve all of it, then we never learn the lesson. That's another argument. But think about that. Forget about the solutions right now. Let's think about the actual problem, problem and initial symptoms of that problem. So number one problem in our culture, human culture, we don't know what we are, why we're here, who we are. That's being revealed. What's revealed through social media is that we haven't changed at all. Literally, we are as dumb as we were 10,000 years ago. That's what's, that's what's being revealed. All this wisdom we have, we're just trying to create AI and governments to take care of us essentially and solve our problems. We're as stupid as we've fucking been for 100,000 years. Whatever the astral epiphany came in, because emotions make brilliant people stupid. So it's revealed— and I'm teasing, I'm being funny, well, trying to be funny. I'm insecure too. We're not dumb. We're more brilliant than we can comprehend. We're acting dumb. Social media is revealing that we're the same being we've been for a long time. And were simultaneously entitled and resentful. That's a concoction for anarchy at every level. And if those that have a greater understanding of what's good about the world, or believe they do— let's just go, they believe they do, because it's the false assumption that one does— not to say that there isn't some things that are absolutely true, and I believe there are, and we'll get into them, we'll get into that. But it's the idea that one believes that they are— they know the best. That's the self-righteousness that leads to that, to all conflict and all disparity and war, essentially, that reveals who really is in charge. But let's look at our institutions. We have these people, you know, with a large swath, millions of young adults who have these degrees they're not going to use, that they didn't know better, they're looking to enjoy their life. Maybe it's on them, or their parents refinanced and did things to get them there, and now they're farther away from their retirement. That now that's weighing on them, and they go in the world and they don't know what to do when we're living in an entrepreneurial society now. The industrial age is done. We're all entrepreneurs, or we can be. And that's a social opportunity. Social— excuse me, I'm like throwing up talking so much.

That's good.

The Social Dilemma is a perception of regression based on how we don't know that we're so much the same we've been for thousands of years. When I say we, those that made that movie and those that accept that philosophy, The Social Dilemma, we don't We don't— we haven't even asked that big question. Who are we? What are we? And how do— how do our actions reveal who are we and what are we? That we think it's social media is ruining us.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Social media is revealing us. We are this, and we actually have to, um, grapple with that. But it makes a lot of sense because essentially we're not consciously evolving quick enough for how technology is forcing us to reveal our nakedness. And we're so ugly, we hate others because we hate ourselves. And that's proven in how we interact with people that are different than us. I was in Atlanta a couple weeks ago with one of our client partners, and he said— it was brilliant— he said, we can have diversity of everything, like the way we look, where we're from, all that, but But if we don't have diversity at all, we're all the same.

Yeah, that's profound. I like that. So let me ask you this.

Wonderful, man.

How do we— and it's not to try to solve it right now, but how do we go about this? Because I think kind of the conflict is like— and I'll just use Alex Jones as an example because I think he's the easiest example to use— is he firmly believes that like this is an attack on the US and our freedoms. And a lot of people that disagree with the mask, like it's a freedom thing that they disagree with. So a lot of people think like it's kind of past the discussing, um, or, you know, having a conversation. Like they tried to have a conversation and that's not working. So I don't think like Alex Jones is not advocating for violence, um, I don't believe. But, you know, his company is literally called InfoWars, right? So like it is something above, or not above, more so than just the conversation. And when I say more so, I mean like energetically or forcefully. So like what, I guess, what is the best way to go about it? Like, and I'll give another example. Like I noticed—

well, if we're not giving our enemy the benefit of the doubt, we're contradicting the beauty of the Constitution, which is guilt, which is innocent before guilty. So to say he's not for violence is a, is an, um, is the subconscious— there's a subtle contradiction. If you're not for open dialogue, you are for violence. The violence just hasn't occurred yet. And just two wrongs don't make a right. Yeah, I'm not being hard on Alex. No, no, Alex is a patriot in his own— anyone that tells— anyone that speaks up and shares what they believe is, is already one. They're in the game. But just to clarify, go ahead.

No, no, yeah, I'm just— because I feel like, um, again, I'm just using Amazon example. Like, I feel like he literally feels like we're under attack. Like, like, truth, like his intent— again, going back to intent, and that's the thing too. It's like where, let's just say the people that he thinks we're under attack from, maybe their intent is good, right? Like they think that socialism or communism is what is best for all of us, but we know the outcome of that is bad. So if we know that and we've tried having a conversation with them and that doesn't work, what is—

where have we tried to have a conversation?

Yeah, yeah, maybe we haven't.

Yeah, conversation starts here. Here's an example. This conversation where we're not openly demeaning other people that aren't here, which by the way is a form of gossip, but not a form, it just is gossip.

Yeah.

And because we can do that on social media times 10 trillion, the— here we are talking about someone. So that, and then by the way, that's where the conspiracy label comes in. Because part of why our legal system is so great is you actually have to prove something. So if one— no, we could— this really does, I, I think, stem from a lack of understanding of so many things. Shit, where do I start? Number one, first of all, everyone must understand, of course we're in a culture war. Yeah, there's 196 countries to my knowledge. I could be off by a deviation of 5 up or down, I don't know, but there's, there's almost 200 countries. They're— they— everyone, everyone is going to be set up as a culture through their lead, through their story, their narrative, what's spoken and unspoken, the language they use, the symbolisms they use to represent that narrative, and what they believe based on that narrative, spoken and unspoken. The traditions, those are mediums like songs and plays and art and movie, all the things that make up food, culture, the leaders, the heroes, all different, definitely on the surface level, many the same, but in different resolutions. For example, I would argue that North Korea is more medieval than America. If anyone would agree with me, All right, we're the beginning of a culture ecosystem, a shared belief created by the influencer, maintained by the alignment of the influence. I don't agree with that assumption. You're following me. If you follow me dogmatically and never question me, I'm now a dictator. I'm an authoritarian, and I stop learning and growing. I'm not the student. I'm not the teacher. I'm just evil myself. And now we have a cult. Mm-hmm. On a macro level, we're in a culture war. One could say, could look at China and say, oh my gosh, you know, they really have a plan, it seems, to be globalists. They're not doing it with weapons, they're not doing it— I'm going to use this analogy, and I'm not calling China Germany, uh, I'm outwardly not calling them that. I'm just using this analogy because it's the first thing to pop my head. I want to preface that my subconscious is calling them that. I just want to differentiate between my conscious and my subconscious. When Germany drove across, you know, Poland, took it over, went to France, like, they, they, and then went back, and then England came after with Churchill, like, they physically went and took over stuff. China hasn't done that. There were not— there's no war. So it's be conspiratorial without evidence to say we're at war with China. But at the same time, what have they done? They've invested in a lot of countries with their money and debt, and it looks as though they've positioned themselves to be able to leverage that money to do a whole nother level of psychological warfare. From a cultural perspective, this raises a lot of flags. So I argue the next 10, 20, 30 years, wars will never look the same. You can have a complete— the information that I use to help our organization, like our client partners, grow and be better and more munificent and benevolent and meaningful— shit, that information— there's smarter people than me out there in the world with more education. God, if that got in the wrong hands, oh my God, you can completely, you know, the world— there's plenty of opportunity for people to do consciously bad things. What I'm saying is we're always in a culture war when we're a part of a culture. The one of the issues, symptoms, symptoms of us being globally connected is if we have America where our populace is entitled, is resentful because, and has the opportunity to act out their resentment because of their entitlement, then, and doesn't know and is ignorant to the beauty of our Constitution, the, the value of the history of this country, how we have gone out of our way to actually create equality of opportunity for people. Tried. And I argue tried because laws were actually changed. That is true. No matter how they got changed, they were changed. There's value there. Other places there haven't been. That gives you perspective where gratitude could come come in. North Korea has been the same it's been since his dad was running it, and it'll be the same when he dies, most likely, without intervention. So understanding that we are always in a culture war for inner culture, because on a macro-political scale it's constant competitiveness, that if it's not underlined by cooperation, there's little literal war, and militaries form and they kill each other until one person wins and writes that history. So when I'm going back to what you were saying about Alex, if Alex makes these grand notions and informs, like even in the title InfoWars, Info Emancipation, like That reveals— and I'm not gonna attack, like, I'm not saying it's to attack this, this man, but I am attacking him just by attack, like, saying this in a sense, depending— well, my intention is pure. That linguistically— my intention is pure. I'd love to talk, you know, have a conversation with him and help him through this, because even the title linguistically reveals his own psychological resentment, and which is a— would be an externalization of his own fears and potentially unfettered resentments. I'd love to see his relationships with his family and his— if he has children or friends. I'd love to see how he interacts with people that he disagrees with. I'd love to see how actual empathetic and compassionate and loving this individual is, because I would argue that you're— you're— how you relate, how you interact with your enemies reveals how compassionate and loving you are. Now, of course, war is a real thing, violence is a real thing, but if you are in a position where someone is about to literally stab you in the eyeball and you kill that person, you will have to carry that for the rest of your life unless you lie to yourself enough to believe that you did it for the right reasons. And that's my point, is that we're all honest liars, and we are honest with the public but dishonest with ourselves so we don't blow our brains out as a species. So InfoWars could be info emancipation, where we meet with people that disagree with us and, and have dialogue about the topics and convert them. Because this is my point, one of them: if you have a million people that follow an ideology If you attack their person, they're going to stay closer with that ideology and they're going to kill you. It's the first level rule of sales, which we learned, by the way, from capitalism. One of the beauties of capitalism, you have to learn how to sell. You have to learn how to convert. You have to learn how to con— conversate. It's an— that's why I love capitalism. It's one of the ways to act out virtue. If you are a benevolent leader, you actually have to sell people that disagree with you because they're like I don't think your product is relevant, but they don't say that. They're just like, I gotta think about it. You have to convert them. Imagine you say, oh, Infowars China. Like, no, you know, no, it doesn't work. Info and like— so everybody is irresponsible. We were able to function as a society before technology evolved to the point where we're all connected. And now one of the things that's happening in this country, which has an amazing has amazing precedence for equality of opportunity, for individuality, of responsibility, all these things, is that our populace doesn't understand it enough to overcome themselves in relation to it. And everyone's bought into their ideology on all sides that knows the best, is the best, and is revealing their own contradictions by how they interact with each other. Everybody's doing it. Everybody's doing it. And if we don't work through that, oh my, we're going to lose our ability to be responsible. So for example, go to the mask thing. Philosophically, if you're someone that believes in— genuinely believes in collectivism, Dude, read Epicurus. I haven't read a lot of him. Karl Marx wrote his dissertation on Epicurus. Uh, uh, was it communals? Uh, Epicurus led to, uh, convents. That communal— there's, there's, you know, but then that was taken as like, oh, what if, you know, we could create utopia through this? And looking at the symptoms of capitalism that does alienate the I haven't met one person that owns a company that loves their life. I just know the fucking lonely people that are rich. I help them love their life and get richer. So it isn't perfect. Yeah, they just burden the responsibility everybody around them that resents them and expects them to give money, and then they alienate their friends and family, and they convince themselves they're happy with the shit they buy. Those are symptoms of success. Success. So it's not very— so someone that enforces masks in a city, the likelihood is that they think that's the best damn thing to do. And no, I don't think that. I'm actually pro-death. Yes, I'm actually pro-death.

Talk about that.

If someone asks you to put a mask on, I say, I, my political persuasion is pro-death. Yeah, I— if you haven't contemplated, we're gonna clip that, by the way. You haven't started living. Do whatever you'd like.

Okay.

And, and when I— so, you know, I said that a couple of you like, huh, I'm pro-death? Because I live, I live meaningfully. I tell the truth. I listen. I want to learn. There's a certain line that I don't think we can cross as a species yet, that if we cross it too soon, our fear of death will lead to hell on earth where we have no, no ability to choose. I think that psychologically, and of course philosophically, someone that prescribes the collectivism, their intentions are pure, Who wants to die? I haven't met anybody that did. I haven't met one religious person that wanted to die, that was like excited about dying. Like, I can't fucking wait to get out of here, dude. Like, I'm not in a rush. I can't wait. Like, what an exciting— what an exciting idea. Think about this: you're either gonna live forever or you're just not gonna know. Now I'm quoting Cicero Kind of, but I read that book after. This is really how I think now. So someone has said, well, you could go to hell. And I think if I'm going to hell, they said, how I choose not to do all the bad things that I would love to do, then fuck, I better be down there. Like, there's— I have some work to do down there. That's how I'm thinking. Like, I'm doing the best that I can. If I'm going to hell, uh, then I better well dead about be there. Like, the way I'm looking at it is, oh my God, like, I'm focused so much daily. So, okay, go back. Where does this idea come from? This, this is a philosophy. I, I believe it comes from my work, and which is revealed in how I interact with people. If I meet a stranger, I'm there with them. I'm going to get to know Bob or Mary or whatever. Asking questions, listening, which is revealed in continually openly asking questions to want to learn, being a student of life, telling the truth, not being afraid to share what's on my mind to someone I know or don't know, not omitting. Learning, being open to love. These are hard. These are— they were always hard for me. Yeah, I'm working on those things. After a while, a peace came to me. I think, ah, like, yeah, what, what, what would I be so afraid of? What would anyone be so afraid of if our lifespan is so infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things that we're holding on to something that was— because we're calling life life. How arrogant are we to call life life when we don't know what happens next? And it's probably a lot longer than time, which is a dimension of this reality that we still don't fully understand all the dimensions. It just seems fucking ridiculous. Like, imagine our human culture. Now, I'm a whole nother thing, surface level, but I— it actually ties to everything that I've been saying because it underpins everything I'm saying. If we celebrated— we have a funeral and we make it all about us, yeah, it's a symptom of the big question: who are we? What are we and how do we live? Someone dies and we cry, at which, okay, yes, crying, good crying. Your brain is working properly. But I'm saying we make the whole thing about it. It's not an extravaganza and a celebration that, wow, this person even got this far. It's a, oh, like we're gonna mourn for years and never work through it. I'm saying that's a symptom of our species not knowing what we are, who we are or how to live with ourselves related to others. And technology is speeding that uncertainty up, and we can't live with uncertainty. We must be able to live with uncertainty, or else we are going to eradicate ourselves. And that's okay too. Yeah, because, yeah, like, hello, has anybody really thought about this? So imagine we celebrated funerals.

Yeah.

And we can get rid of this birthday shit because every day you wake up is your birthday. It's just very ridiculous. It's like— so I'm saying now, we can deconstruct all this and go absolutely insane. And I think that's also happening right now today when it comes to all these political topics, because we could deconstruct everything. And then if we believe— for example, if I'm, if I'm beholden to what I'm saying right now to the point where I won't listen to anyone that disagrees with me I'm not interested in changing my mind, which I'm very interested in changing my mind. I'm very interested in unlearning. I'm very interested in my critics. I am. But if I'm not, I'm going to live a very lonely, unfulfilled life, no matter how famous I am, uh, rich I am, and so on. Like, people that say, oh, imposter syndrome— yeah, because you are a fucking imposter, bro. You are an imposter. That's the whole point. You have the syndrome because you are an imposter. Yeah, well, have you read anything? Do you know what you're doing? Have you been honest with yourself? Have you been honest with somebody else? You're a fucking imposter. And I love the celebrities. Like, their job is really— is literally about to be like actors. Their job is literally to be somebody else. Yeah. Why would we listen to you? Your job is literally to be anybody but yourself. Go away. Like, you know, stop, stop. Now, this is the beauty. What we're doing, like, and all humans could just talk through this medium. We all— we're all celebrities. Maybe we'll finally understand that we're all celebrities. We have that opportunity. So this is not a social dilemma. You asked about a solution. Is there a solution, or should we even talk about a solution? Yeah, dude, this is the solution. Having conversations online and then not blocking, not unfriending, not deleting, Not cajoling, not castigating, not condemning, not attacking, but inquiring openly. Now, that's really hard to do. You have to practice. It really sucks to be—

Yeah. So, let me ask you about that because one of the things I see you do online with Facebook and even more so LinkedIn is, you know, you read through people's posts and then you'll comment but you'll comment very thoughtfully, you know, like you will, like a lot of comments that you see on people's posts are just like, yes, or like, you know, great work or something like that. Whereas when I see your comments and I actually, before we hopped on this, I was scrolling through, like your comments on people's posts will be like, like longer than the post itself. And it would be like seeking more information in a sense most of the time. So I guess that's where I think social media could be very powerful for us if we did that in a way like kind of like you're doing it where we're not like saying like, this post is stupid, even if we disagree with it, like, but more, more rather commenting on it and being like, hey, I'm just curious, like, how did you come up with that solution? Because like, I came up with the exact opposite, so I'm just curious. And you know, or whatever.

I'll read one. Here's an example. I'm gonna read a thought that came from a thought. Thought 2006, 2000, 2068. Scripts and contrived spectacles of oration are dangerous to a culture. Scripts help people who shouldn't be in power attain, maintain, and abuse power. I repeat, scripts and contrived spectacles of oration are dangerous to a culture. Scripts help people who shouldn't be in power attain, maintain, and abuse power. That thought was from an interaction I had with someone I don't know that could become a friend. If I don't know them, how I interact with that person I don't know, or that person I do know, reveals how much I am a friend through, by, with, and through myself. One of the positive symptoms of actually openly engaging with somebody is I, I ha— I'm developing my writing ability, which any human can do, because from since forever— I don't know the actual date of when we started writing on caves, but it seems to be a good idea.

It hasn't been forever.

Liar. I save them and then I post them out.

Yeah.

So like, example, oh, people that say, oh, I love your content. What do you— wait, oh my God, oh my God. What a terrible symptom of our culture. Someone's gonna say, I love my content. So it's a bastardizing my, my being. You love my content? You mean what? It's like, that's a symptom of our contrived, authoritarian, entitled, resentful, um, you know, subconsciously omnipotent thought leaders Anyone that calls them a thought leader is the opposite, you know, like, whoa, go in the back, go in the back, just stop. So social opportunity is you can share what you think, who you are, you can tell the truth. Now, the truth, that's a big word. It doesn't mean the all-knowing truth. You can tell it like you see it, and we'll uncover the truth by falsifying your assumptions in a conversation. We're all scientists if we're free to think and to talk and to act. So yes, I, you know, I limit how many interactions I'll be in because, well, if I just argue all day long on Facebook, you know, like, however, yeah, once, once a day or every other day I'm gonna get into an engaging conversation naturally. There's so much value. We could spend 2 hours talking about the value of having open, honest conversations with people you don't know, where you actually have to challenge yourself not to jump to assumptions. Not to treat them poorly because you're not— and as Mike Tyson said, you know, paraphrasing, uh, you don't get punched in the face. There's that meme.

Yeah, yeah, I know what you know.

Social media is where people forget that they don't— they, they treat people in a way, you know, without— where there's no chance of getting punched in the face or something like that. Like, you actually have to be super responsible through these mediums because there's, there's going to be no consequences. Now imagine you're already an entitled culture And then you have the ability to go anywhere you want in the world, and the grass is always greener, and you hate yourself, and you hate your parents, and you hate everybody because you don't know yourself. You don't know why you're here, know what you're doing, and nothing matters. Oh, nothing's true, and everything's falling apart. The world is ending. And you watch the news, and all of a sudden the easiest thing to do is make fun of somebody online, and now you feel better because that's an act of omnipotence. Over someone. Oh, I can block this person, I can delete this person, I can destroy this person. That feels really good. That is programming. We are programming ourselves to prepare to literally be okay with hangings in the square. It's like a witch trial. And we're seeing the symptoms of this in our politics, in our overall culture. So what I do is I post my thoughts online. I get these thoughts from things I read, uh, I think, you know, that's another thing I'd actually like to talk about. Yeah. Or open argument with people I don't know. Oh, like some thought will come, like the one I just read you is from a conversation with somebody. And, uh, some of the, some of the things that have challenged me have come from these conversations. Here's another one, uh, well, here's one that's relevant to our time. Thought 2052. And there are this many thoughts because they're just me putting out something I thought about. It's not content. I'm not a commodity to be bought and sold. Now technically in capitalism or in any ism, we actually are a commodity at some degree, and we could talk about that too, but I think we need more time for that. But Thought 2052: There is no greater fuel for the success of the individual than imminent tyranny. There is no greater fuel for the success of the individual than imminent tyranny. Yes, what, what that— what InfoWars, or I'm going to call them InfoEmancipation, is talking about, there's, there, there's def— there's truth to it, and there's truth on the other side of it. Imagine you're in governance, you're a leader of the world, and very smart people are saying, hey, by the way, all of the information of the world our narrative that keeps people just, you know, living their lives psychologically healthy, because humans need certainty to function, generally speaking, until they don't— another conversation— but, you know, certainty, where we're certainty-seeking machines. Yeah, because technology is granting the central— the centrality of information through each individual in the world, it's gonna be really hard to get everyone to agree with what the truth is. So, sir, I think we should start, you know, figuring out ways that we could regulate and align, you know, so that way people just don't start just killing each other and developing small tribes across the world. Like, someone that studies, you know, a lot of topics around these issues, If I'm in— and we're not in government yet, or in that resolution yet— it's a serious human threat to have that much power in each person's fingertips.

Yeah.

How can we not think for a second that people governing wouldn't have a plan in place to attempt to help us, not destroy ourselves? Out of their own perceived benevolence. I'm saying is that what's happening is there's so— there's, there's a, there's a, there's a— and there's a needed break in the philosophy of the world. We've out— we've out— what got us here is not going to take us farther. And the remedy, it is actually taking away our individuality. There's philosophers that I've read and studied. One good one is Judith Butler. Who has a whole book about how, you know, essentially the individual self is awful. Like, you know, it's anti-individuality. It's all about all of us. And I'm giving— I'm not giving her enough grace there. It's extremely complex. And I would recommend anyone reading anyone I'm talking about. I have books I want to share, things that I'm reading now so people can pick up some of these books. I have books I'm reading now that I want to share. I put them all around me.

But yeah, go deeper into that though. So like What do you mean there?

Which part?

The last part. So she's against individuality, is that what it is?

Or in, in, in the, in the— there's a book I'm reading now called The Force of Nonviolence, and it, it's a very— I'm— it's a difficult book, and I read as many difficult books as I possibly can. I'm listening to an audiobook at like 0.9, 0.8 to try to understand What she has said, she's a strong vocabulary, Heideggerian influence, which— and Martin Heidegger is an extremely difficult author as well. It's another thing, by the way, people often, they'll say, you know, I don't know what you're saying. I don't know the words you're using. Yeah, well, Google them. Google the words. Google it. Because I didn't know them yesterday, and then I read them somewhere. I'm not better than you virtuously, but I actually am better than you competently. But you could be better than me if you read those, and then you could challenge me. We have to understand the difference between our potential and our actual empirical value, right? It's a quality of opportunity. We're not— we are not equal. We're not in a physical sense. We are equal in how we can interact with each other. That is a responsible But we're different. I'm not the smartest or tallest or fastest or anything, and neither— what the— anyway, difficult text talking about, and I hope, you know, I have someone essentially that the individual self is irrelevant. That's at the bottom of the work. And this ties into the gender study conversation. And gender versus sex and that conversation, because she created a theory. It's called— I think it's gender normative behavior, essentially, that we act out our gender. And this is tied to a lot of the— so just to— I want to make this go back.

Yeah.

Think about this for a second. There's— and this is at the highest level of intellectuals— they're disagreeing to the point where it's like night and day on these topics. Like, for example, biology is irrelevant in one section of scientific, and it's being accepted. And like, that's a big break. So if we can't come together and figure out, all right, how are we going to live through that break? There's going to be serious breakdown in society and people are going to freak out. An example of that would be people that are, um, thinking that, you know, people are out to get them and that the world is ending. Well, the world isn't ending, the world is evolving, but how it evolves is extremely important because humans have a tendency to forget that we don't know what we are and who we are and why we're here, and we act out policies and behaviors that end up killing people, which is not necessary. This goes back to like, you follow Peterson? Yeah, Jordan Peterson. He talks about the Gulag, you know, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the Gulag Archipelago and what happened in Maoist China and what happened in Soviet Russia and the 100 million people that perished through communism. Um, so yeah, people, uh, have differing, differing views of how to live on such a degree that when they— when those in power force thrust that upon those that don't agree nor understand why, just like in a company, if an ownership changes their vision and their policies and their future— this happens with mergers and acquisitions all the time. A company gets acquired, doesn't reinvigorate where the vision's going, doesn't communicate transparently, doesn't align the previous legacy constituents or employees with the new vision, the new belief, the new purpose, the new goal, the new systems and processes, and listen to them and get their feedback of what wasn't working and use that, and they don't create that alignment. The company has major productivity issues and essentially loses money for no reason because they don't have that help in that merger and acquisition. That's happening now in our culture because it's, it's, it's rifting off. And this is tied to other things like our educational system, which has been teaching our— yeah, it's arguably anti-American ideology for, for a long time.

Um, so Does she paint the picture of like what the— like what that world would look like without individuality?

I can't speak to that because I'm not— I'm not comfortable with my understanding of this specific philosopher's literature enough. Next time we talk, I will be. That's one of the main— what I've been studying the last 9 months. So I can— so I'll just go back.

Yeah.

When all of— when the lockdowns happen, from a cultural— so the main disciplines that I've studied for our business, for those businesses that we advise, like in, in a plethora of industries— virtual training, consulting, mortgage banking, real estate, home improvement, construction, and so on— philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, economics, and, and so on and so forth. Really interested in leadership and sales and business and organizational culture and and yada yada, right? When the lockdowns occurred and now the macro conflicts are pressing themselves up in our businesses, obviously everyone's affected. I wanted to speak up from a cultural standpoint and my significant other and my coach Jenna said, hey Jay, how about you get educated with what's going on, shut the fuck up and then speak up. That was the most brilliant advice ever, because what I realized, what I actually went back and I've read about 100 books on, uh, gender studies and feminism and race in America and revisionist history and postmodernism and so on. I, by actually reading as much as possible of both sides, all of the sides Like I said earlier in our conversation, I don't think empathy is— it can't only be an idea. It has to be an activity. By actually reading White Fragility, How to Be an Antiracist, White Rage, Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race is one of the other titles, and many more. Like before this 2020 is over, I have 33 more books in those genres that I'm reading And we— I would like to talk about reading in general because reading is a thing and not just memorize. Not that both aren't important. Why we think the latter memorization happens naturally as you read the thing because you're actually open and curious, which I am. That's, that's, that's, that's a great— that's important to me.

That's why podcasting is like my favorite way to learn. I think that's why I think I love it so much because I'm just like curious and I can— it's like live feedback. You know, whereas like I do love reading as well, but there's not like a punch back, if you will, and not like a punch, but you know what I mean? Whereas like if I have a question to what you're saying, I can just come right to you and ask it.

Whereas the future of education will be through podcasting and virtual training. Well, I, I think that people like, people like a Butler, uh, a Peterson, A Weinstein, um, these, these teachers, no matter what, they're all professors. And this is where the entrepreneur comes in. I think the future of business is an integration of business and the teachers of the world, that business is actually the laboratory for being where humans can experiment on socialism, communism, dictatorship without death. We can— because when I go to businesses in this country, a lot of them operate like socialist regimes. They don't even know it, which is, by the way, is a sign that our whole country is moving towards socialism, because business reveals the unspoken culture of a nation. It starts happening in business first, which, by the way, is— would be one of the reasons why businesses are getting drilled so hard to enforce things, because that's how you actually shift the culture. Because once— it's the selfishness of the— it's the irony is that capitalism will cripple under its own selfishness and lack of awareness, is that, you know, if you get the businesses to do X, Y will occur. It's a— there will always be— and this goes I'll come back, but there will always be maskers and anti-maskers. There will be people that will want to have a face. A face is a very important thing. That's why, you know, we can solve this whole thing by being pro-death. It's okay, you'll be all right, because the cost— no, all jokes aside, the costs are great. The costs are great. Uh, but, but, but like I said, that, that can be argued either way and must be. And that's the real issue that we're headed to authoritarian is because we don't argue. That's likely to be authoritarianism no matter what side we're arguing from anyway. Like, I don't have all the answers. That would be omnipotent.

So, uh, when you say—

like, what was I saying actually? Now I got my head all screwed on sideways. I was saying something.

No, well, so I wanted to ask, when you say that businesses are operating—

oh, businesses, there you go—

socialist regime, like, in more detail, what does that actually uh, look like?

Oh, it's every entrepreneur that does that. At first, let's look at the entrepreneur. Oh my gosh, this is so exciting. We have another hour, right? I'm like, yeah, I know we have a lot. 28. We got 28 minutes.

Yeah, that's fine.

No, but we have another 620 seconds, so. All right, I think I might be wrong with that. All right, uh, business owners, you have to understand the psyche of the entrepreneur. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of Donald Trump. He's not a fascist. There's no, there's no evidence at the deep analysis of this psychological disposition that he's a fascist. I would actually argue that those that are calling him one are, and they don't— they fit the psychological makeup of the fascist that they're not even aware of. What Donald Trump is, is he's an entrepreneur. This is a specific neurosis that hasn't been put under the microscope ever in our culture because Part of the paradox of success is the more freedom sought via success, the less gained via enslavement of the success. The natural development of the entrepreneur is to develop an idea in the mind, externally represented through the vision that becomes the goals, are executed upon after not quitting, not giving up, and gaining market share. That leads to inevitably what Marx would call surplus value or profit for the individual to live the life they, they can see that they want to live based on who they think they are, which is always a lie based on who they are they're not aware of, which is revealed in their actions based on what they don't know about themselves. What that means is the natural paradox of the entrepreneur leads them to act socialist in their organization while arguing conservatism externally, giving, attempting to buy the love of their constituents with money, bonuses, things, rewards, this carrot, that stick, rather than do what they were never able to do because it was never done to them, because they were never listened to. They were not taught how to live. They were not taught how to be. And those that were supposed to teach them never never knew what they were, why they were here, how to interact with other people. 1 out of 100 people is going to be the entrepreneur that's just as fucked up as everybody working for them, but they're going to go out and strive and create. So they end up creating this ecosystem of shared belief created by them, the influencer, maintained by the alignment of the influence, the culture, based on the story they tell their clients The language they use to their clients, the symbolism of how they brand the belief others haven't done to solve a problem, which is the brand, the mediums by which they sell, which is the phone or in person or the events or the social media platforms and so on and so forth. And those clients, whether they're the first cultural employees, become their people until they are overwhelmed with how many people they got. As in, I swear, they better hire somebody. And now they hire people that don't like them but want them to give them shit, who want to be them. And essentially, David and Goliath. But David gets hired by Goliath, and Goliath doesn't give it to David, and David just slings it with a rock, and it becomes his competition every fucking time. So what I'm saying is entrepreneurship actually acts out the hero's journey, or what would be the Judeo-Christian philosophy of the world in a free market capitalism, but it's not enough. It's not enough. So what's the solution? Well, I believe the solution is actually the convergence. And I'm going to go into another thing that ties this— the convergence. By the way, Marx recognized the irony of the entrepreneur, the contradiction of the entrepreneur The, the fact that everyone essentially commoditizes themselves, or rather the entrepreneur— everyone is alienated by the work. He focused on the people. He didn't really understand the entrepreneur from my study. Now, I haven't read all of his shit yet. He's got a lot of literature, but I've taken lectures, uh, and, and, and he focused, and he was right about a lot of things. That's why a lot of people in academia think he's like, oh my God, he's God. But no, he's not. He's not. And Atticus is right about all things, but he didn't have it all either. Just, I'll go back. Think of like the familial conflict that people have. One of the symptoms of our entitled, resentful, decadent culture is the break, you know, essentially at all levels, the breakdown of the family. We see this in the divorce rate, which is a symptom of that. That is part of the fuel the entrepreneur uses. All humans are entrepreneurs in their own right. However, at some level, they will fall into line with those that they admire. And if admiration, initial admiration, doesn't turn into respect, which takes the benevolent interaction of the leader in that relation, then a natural friction will occur and a break in the relation will occur, and Satan will be thrust into hell and God will stay omnipotent and omnipresent, and there'll be a break. And so what I believe must happen in our free market capitalistic culture to solve symptoms of the— would it be the problem? I haven't really thought— well, The problem could never be solved until we evolved into something that wasn't human, which is inevitably going to happen if we're here, like we as in the human race. But to work that system out, academia has to converge with business, and it has never. It's been siloed in its own thing. What I believe has happened is the intellectuals with zero wisdom that are just antithetical to the actual system of governance which is built on individuality, responsibility, and free market capitalism, which has a lot of— yes, inequity. Life is inequitable, but it's equality of opportunity. But it's inequitable because we're all going to be in different places. There's going to be winners and losers externally, but under God we're all equal. But not in like the real fucking world, bro. And because people don't believe in God, like, God is dead, as Hegel and Nietzsche said. We're at an inflection point in our human culture where all of the intellectuals, by and large, have bought into capitalism is not the way of the future. And the capitalists who are still unaware, imperfect, socialist in private, conservative in public, aren't fighting back because they're not looting and rioting. It's not their disposition. They're arguing for their limitations on defense, and they're inevitably losing the fight. Because what I think a solution would be, would be academia has to converge with business so there's advisors for every fucked up entrepreneur, so they can burden the responsibility of being the leader of leaders, which always leads to authoritarianism. The natural pro— the natural development of the entrepreneur is to start their company out of internal conflict. They'll externally create— they'll develop utility or competence, whatever field they're in, through that endeavor relating with their clients. Grow enough to have employees. Everyone is judging them, everyone is hating it, and mostly, definitely in their mind, because they're the visionaries. Nietzsche said the visionary lies to himself, the liar lies to everybody else. They're building the company people aren't buying into that, they eventually get to the point where they, they have what can separate them from their peers in the past, where they're living in a different place, they're driving a different car, they have a different position, they have a different social, social value. And that further alienates themselves from themselves, which they never understood themselves, which is why they put all their time and energy into developing themselves which alienates themselves simultaneously, which— but by the way, creates the external world that all those they resent, which is the simpletons or the proletariats and the losers, the poor, get to, you know, build off of. So where people say, oh well, capitalism makes everybody richer— well, it does externally. It doesn't help the resentful proletariat or the masses or the poor who then just sparked the neurotic pride of the entrepreneurs, because it eventually becomes the Conservative Party. But, ah, you don't understand us, we help you so much. Yeah. So the end game— and this falls— my theory is about something called the culture puzzle. The liar lid is in the middle. The culture puzzle about the story and the symbols and language and mediums that create the influence necessary for culture to be aligned, but it really hinges on the hero. Which is the individual and their honest lies. So a natural liar lid forms where the person's finally become what we perceive as externally successful, whether it's— and this is family, the father of family, the mother, like the leader of a family, you know, the they of a family, whatever, the leader of a family or the leader of a company or the leader of these people that, you know, hey, you got to do what we say, we're shutting everything down. They've attained that And the neurotic pride congeals what I call the liar lid. And essentially, if we don't unlearn constantly and break through that, which is our virtue is revealed in how we interact with each other, then we will not overcome ourselves to avoid the natural cultism that every single culture is a part of. So example, every time a military goes to other countries and fights for our patriot or nationalism, that like the military functions as a cult as an aggressive arm for the nation. And it's like, damn, man, I'm grateful for that because like I don't have to give my life up. You got to be grateful for that. But that essentially is how it navigates. It strips people of their individuality and puts them in a collective group and sends them somewhere. And we all get the benefit off that. It's a serious subject. That's why post-traumatic stress disorder is really fucked up because they literally sold their souls to the country and then they get treated like blah. But that's all symptoms to this conversation. That's really not understanding the entrepreneur. And I mentioned Donald Trump earlier. I'm going to go back to him. This is someone that is just an entrepreneur, that it's a very honest mistake to think he's a fascist. Uh, even if some— I'm not buying. I'm not, I'm not. Look, it's possible people could create narratives for their own gains. It's very likely. But I'm saying that psychologically, at the surface, anyone that is not seriously— even that, that's subjective, right? That's, that's at, um, it's very easy to to think that he's the incarnate of evil of America. But what he is is actually an entrepreneur. And the functionality of an entrepreneur is inevitably they get to the point where you— and there's pros and cons to this— where people will— a natural yes-man effect occurs where they're surrounded by people that will do whatever it is they say. This is in any company, at any resolution. I see it every single day, in a small company to a company with hundreds of employees and beyond. And that reveals that the individual that actually is running it does not feel heard and does not know how to listen and is not honest with himself or with others. And those are big questions that take serious effort to actually get the answers to. And I'm saying our entire culture doesn't even understand or isn't even having that conversation at scale. And it would make a lot of sense how people would think that Donald was, you know, an authoritarian, all these things. But where that's misplaced is he's actually just an entrepreneur, um, and we don't understand entrepreneurs. And our systems of governance that those want— the people want to overthrow because they think that tearing the whole system down is actually the solution to our racial inequities, so-called inequities, period. Um, the irony is that would actually lead to the likelihoods where anyone, no matter if they look like Donald, talk like Donald, or look like Biden or talk like Biden, could become an authoritarian. And this really goes back to what I said earlier. Academia, our brilliant people that understand that, that Let's say we're all brilliant in different ways. People that are interested in investing all their life, all their being into learning about the world, when they don't team up with the generals— because that's what an entrepreneur represents, the, the owner is the Alexander the Great— when Alexander the Great doesn't have an Averstock, doesn't have that, or that team of advisors, coaches, therapists, developers, when academia stays in the university and doesn't get into the lab, which is actual businesses working practically, the whole structure falls apart. And that's what's happening in this great country that the founders would never even foresaw. That's what talking like this and online universities and professors that are leaving academia and that monstrous, you know, overdeveloped governmental Big Brother type medium that's outseen itself— they're the future leaders of the world that when they synergize with the capitalists Uh, we actually have a hope of creating more, uh, I guess I think that's where we're going. I don't have an absolute answer. I'm working on this. I've been working, you know, that's why I work. But that's really— think about this. Professors, all the teachers of the world, think about how their relationship is with their students. It's Big Brother talking at you. Your tests are graded. You show up at a certain time, you leave at a certain time. You got to get the next thing. You— and now it's, you can't disagree with us, it's going to show up on your test. No matter how brilliant a teacher is, I would argue the more brilliant they are and the more they learn and know, and the less psychologically they're developed, which is a high likelihood— the smarter you are genetically and the more you invest in your knowledge— the universities as mediums are programming, have been programming for many years, the teachers who influence all the leaders of the world in their own ways. Because they do. It all starts at the top of the philosophies, essentially, and the sciences are— have been, be— have been, uh, phenomenally influenced to believe in authoritarianism and socialism and dictatorship because there's nothing free market about the universities. Even they— even like, it's— do you understand where I'm going with this?

Yeah, yeah.

And that is really the start. That is really the, the, um So that's where my work— that's the interest I have in my work, is bridging the two with business. And I've seen great success with it. But like, as Popper would say, you don't prove a theory, you just— you— it has to be falsifiable. So that's what I'm working on. I'm still wrapping my head around that. But falsifiable, like, you have to be able to disprove it. You have to be able to test it with evidence. Um, so test it with that.

Yeah, yeah. Well, I think— I mean, I think you can actually with that, right?

Because I mean, I'll have to save that for next time. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, I was sweating.

No, let's save that for next time. But I mean, I think school— I think you can.

Um, yeah, there's some books I'm reading. Can I share them really quick?

Yeah, please do share.

Um, Tyler recommended me this one. I've heard of Ayn Rand. Yeah, so that's one. Atlas Shrugged. Hannah Arendt, brilliant, brilliant philosopher, the 19th century— 18th or 20th century, sorry. She wrote a book This is called The Human Condition. She wrote a book, another one, Eichmann in Jerusalem, is really amazing. Erich Vogelin, he wrote a lot about the Nazis. I recommend reading Hitler and the Germans and anything Erich Vogelin. These are books that you take your time with, man. Postmodernist, One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse. This is— and when I'm showing you these, like, these people disagree with each other. Like, Hannah Arendt definitely was disagreeing with Herbert Marcuse. Um, George Berkeley, uh, The Principles of Knowledge. Um, and I, I never read one book at a time, just not who I am. I recommend anybody do whatever, do what you intuit. One thing, when your mind wanders, let it wander. You're listening to an audiobook, let it wander. You're thinking, or at least you're doing something that— because I don't know what thinking is. Totally. But you're doing something creative. Let it wander. I listen to a lot of audio, and I dedicate time to read physically, but I do a lot of audio, a couple hours a day. I've been doing that for almost a decade, about a little— about a decade.

Where are you at on Audible? How much time?

Listen, this account, um, yeah, and people think, how does that translate? I've been asked my whole career, my whole life. I intuited that would— that it would work out. How learning translates to businesses: if you actually develop a product and ask and meet with people and ask for business, you're going to solve a problem. Essentially, that's what business is. It's a vision, solution for a problem for somebody, and you're going to do very, very, very well. The more that you are able to solve and the— and, and you leverage your networks to get in front of people that have more, you'll do more and get more with less. And this is a social opportunity for everyone. So learning completely quantifies into 100% money because you work with more educated people, more abundant people, more wealthier people, and so on and so forth. So reading is— and writing and speaking, all of these things matter. And if you read, if you speak a lot and you don't read a lot or write a lot, you're essentially a sophist demagogue. You'll be miserable and you'll be destroyed by David very quickly because you're essentially Goliath. And all the days of the speaker are over. The podcast replaces the stage as a branding, marketing, and sales tool all wrapped up in one. And all of those that have been speaking for a long time and haven't shifted to these platforms are dead, and they don't even realize it. The answer to your question is, uh, and I recommend go to the Culture Matters podcast and listen to interviews. Tyler Wagner's on there and a lot of awesome other people. Here's the, um, profile. This, this membership, audible membership. Now if you have the membership, I don't know what it is, $10 a month, $20 a month, now you get complimentary titles, over 9,000. I downloaded, I, I have purchased 1,125 books on this audible account since 2015. I've downloaded 800 because I have 1,925. I downloaded 800. They're not free. Whatever the math is, whatever your membership times 12 divided by how many you download, that's the number. So it's $240 a year and I have 800. I— that's— I'm not going to do that. Yeah. So, okay, here's the, uh, listening time total: 11 months, 8 days, 19 hours, and 12 minutes. We're almost at a year. Yeah, almost there.

I thought you were actually already past the years.

No, well, and I have, uh, I didn't do a lot of physical books until about 2 years ago or so. Okay, it was always Audible, and, um, or it was a physical in the beginning, then I moved totally Audible because it's—

so quick, quick question for you. I'm just curious.

I was going to show some more. Oh yeah, Karl Popper, I really recommend. Now these books, you're not gonna— you may not know what they're talking about. Good. Look up words. That's what I do. What does— what is a word? A word is energy, because context— you string together a sentence and a paragraph, you're going to see something others may not see. Now, if you see something others may not see that you can actually quantify, and free market capitalism gives the individual the ability to quantify things other people can't see. So reading and writing and speaking and listening, they lower the margin of investment in whatever one's doing in business, whether employer or employee, and they increase the margin of what one could ascertain from a set— from a perceived client, um, unquantifiably. It comes down to what you're willing to ask for. And always in business, in the history of business, one had to get to a certain level before they can get into a certain room. All that's over because the world is flat. The world is flat. So if one knows basically to be at the bottom of the pole where you don't have hundreds of employees and millions a year in overhead, and you— but you can make enough where you can kind pay your bills, and save, which takes time on its own, right? I would argue anyone that focuses the majority of their time learning on their own will be able to be in a position where they can actually mentor the highest level person in their whole industry if they do it, if they focus for 6 months, a year, year and a half. And that's where they could do the biggest deal of their life. I'm living proof of that. I have done that and continue to do that. And anyone can listen to that on the Culture Matters podcast where I interview my potential clients. That's the social opportunity. Throw the race war to the side. Throw all this to the side. Focus on yourself while learning about those things. Bring those things back. Don't just be, you know, head to the ground. If you— we need you, everyone listening, we need you to speak up. We need you to share your thoughts. We need you to disagree. So that's my two cents, or 18 cents, on, uh, on reading. I have more books to show, but we'll do that next time. Yeah, what were you gonna say?

No, no, I'll hold that question for next time. That'll be good.

Oh, I'm excited.

Gotta listen to the next one to get the question. Um, so Culture Matters Podcast and anywhere else people—

Culture Matters Podcast, just go there and subscribe. And this is how you're going to do it. Every episode you listen to, I am acting out humility. I have my own thoughts and opinions and things. It's an interview. That's the frame. That's people invested in. So I prepared for a few hours and I'm asking questions because I want to learn and I don't know where I'm going. So when you listen to it, listen to what they're not saying. Listen to what the guests are not saying and enjoy the show. I just go subscribe there. That's it. One place.

Perfect.

Like me, you find me. I don't actually, um, I have zero investment in that. But do that with me, learn with me. That's what I would say.

Until next time, brother.

Thank you, Tyler Wagner.