American election.

[Immanuel Can]

What about him is worse than Trump? What has he done to deserve this reputation? Note: We're talking about Soros now.

Gary, Gary, Gary...give it up. You're not going to get me to "virtue signal" about Trump for you. Pack it in, man.

Soros...well, you're going to find out that he is exactly the kind of "head of the snake" that takes over any Socialist revolution: the megalomaniac. And he's a rich one, too, and has no allegiances except to himself. He's not afraid to interfere with anybody else's system, with anyone else's freedoms, or with anybody else's information. He's a chronic influencer, controller, meddler and ideologue.

But is he a Socialist? No. He's played the capitalist game for a long time now, and he's gotten very rich doing it, hasn't he? I'm surprised that the Socialists, with their aversion to wealthy people, have so fallen into line at his heels. But then, he's got the money they need to make their revolution happen, doesn't he? And they actually think that when the revolution happens, they'll be the ones in charge...

I think you've got to watch out for guys like that, Gary. There's no limit to what they will do.

[Immanuel Can]

The point that interests me is that you apparently believe that "Environmentalism" is different to your own wish for "environmental management to succeed". I'm curious why you think this, and who the bad actors are.

I've given you at least three kinds now. Did you want me to drum up a "Black List" of names?

Nobody's positioned to say which of the players are ignorant, which are irrational and which are acting in bad faith, because they all tend to converge on the same package of bad policies. But you can see with the policies I've mentioned, that what they end up converging on is only glued together with ideology, not science. That's what makes the difference between "environmental management" (rational, scientific, measured action) and "Environmentalism" (the quasi-religious ideology of the Left).

P.S. -- Oh, wait. We forgot one motive. Profit. Environmentalism has become increasingly profitable for suppliers of allegedly "environmental" products and services, such as the "organic food" industry or the builders of wind turbines. Some of them, at least, must enjoy the money. We mustn't forget them, the profiteers.

[Gary Childress]

What about him is worse than Trump? What has he done to deserve this reputation? Note: We're talking about Soros now.

Gary, Gary, Gary...give it up. You're not going to get me to "virtue signal" about Trump for you. Pack it in, man.

Soros...well, you're going to find out that he is exactly the kind of "head of the snake" that takes over any Socialist revolution: the megalomaniac. And he's a rich one, too, and has no allegiances except to himself. He's not afraid to interfere with anybody else's system, with anyone else's freedoms, or with anybody else's information. He's a chronic influencer, controller, meddler and ideologue.

But is he a Socialist? No. He's played the capitalist game for a long time now, and he's gotten very rich doing it, hasn't he? I'm surprised that the Socialists, with their aversion to wealthy people, have so fallen into line at his heels. But then, he's got the money they need to make their revolution happen, doesn't he? And they actually think that when the revolution happens, they'll be the ones in charge...

I think you've got to watch out for guys like that, Gary. There's no limit to what they will do.

OK. So how do you think Biden is going to negatively affect your country?

[Gary Childress]

P.S. -- Oh, wait. We forgot one motive. Profit. Environmentalism has become increasingly profitable for suppliers of allegedly "environmental" products and services, such as the "organic food" industry or the builders of wind turbines. Some of them, at least, must enjoy the money. We mustn't forget them, the profiteers.

So are you against capitalism now, that people shouldn't make a profit while trying to tend to the health of the planet? Would you prefer they profit from bringing coal back on line?

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So how do you think Biden is going to negatively affect your country?

Honestly, Gary? Again, you won't like this, I know: but I think Biden's just a placeholder. The powers that are taking control are not Joe Biden. An honest look at the man tells you he cannot even keep his brain together anymore. But what's behind the people behind him is Socialism and the global ambitions of the megalomaniacs. And that's bad for all of us. If it plays out this way, it means the end of the world's leading democracy, the collapse of the economy on which my own standard of living depends, and the destruction of the freedom of a people I admire.

I don't want to see that happen. But that's why I say it's like watching a train-wreck in slow motion. It's not fun to see...even for one not in that country.

[Immanuel Can]

So are you against capitalism now, that people shouldn't make a profit while trying to tend to the health of the planet?

I knew you'd ask that, Gary. I saw it coming a mile away.

No, I said no such thing. I simply said that some people are motivated by profit. And were that profit legitimate, I would be quite happy for them to have it.

But is it legitimate? Look again. Consider the so-called "organic food" movement as an example. Look at how producers are using the term "organic" to justify jacking prices up, and are calling all sorts of things "organic" that are not at all. It's a huge scam. And that's "profiteering": not the legitimate earning of profit for real benefits provided to the people, but the extortion of money from the public by means of various scams.

Do I object to that kind of "profiteering"? Sure. So do you, I'm sure.

[Gary Childress]

So are you against capitalism now, that people shouldn't make a profit while trying to tend to the health of the planet?

I knew you'd ask that, Gary. I saw it coming a mile away.

No, I said no such thing. I simply said that some people are motivated by profit. And were that profit legitimate, I would be quite happy for them to have it.

But is it legitimate? Look again. Consider the so-called "organic food" movement as an example. Look at how producers are using the term "organic" to justify jacking prices up, and are calling all sorts of things "organic" that are not at all. It's a huge scam. And that's "profiteering": not the legitimate earning of profit for real benefits provided to the people, but the extortion of money from the public by means of various scams.

Do I object to that kind of "profiteering"? Sure. So do you, I'm sure.

But you think unfettered capitalism is a good thing and that socialism is more or less the root of all evil, right? You believe that there is no such thing as democratic socialism and that true freedom and democracy can only be had under capitalism, is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

But you think unfettered capitalism is a good thing

I don't even recall having said that. But to have some sort of capitalism is essential to the survival of any economic system. That's true. Socialism is economically suicidal. That's also true.

... and that socialism is more or less the root of all evil, right?

Again, I don't recall having saying that. But what it does is certainly evil...assuming oppression, misery and dead bodies are an evil, which I think we agree they are.

You believe that there is no such thing as democratic socialism

Yep. The "democratic" part is opposite to the "Socialism" part. They're really opposite impulses. That's what history has proved to us.

...and that true freedom and democracy can only be had under capitalism,

I wouldn't know that for sure. I know what Socialism does, and that isn't it. I know what capitalism does, and under some forms of capitalism freedom and democracy work better than under the alternatives; but some forms of capitalism may be too far, and may become merely exploitative. I don't doubt that that can happen, though I haven't seen anything that extreme happen yet.

The right solution is very likely to be a balancing act between capitalistic generation of profit and the siphoning off of some of that to the common good. I doubt very much that there are non-equipoised solutions to be had here.

is that correct?

As you can see, it's not.

[Gary Childress]

But you think unfettered capitalism is a good thing

I don't even recall having said that. But to have some sort of capitalism is essential to the survival of any economic system. That's true. Socialism is economically suicidal. That's also true.

... and that socialism is more or less the root of all evil, right?

Again, I don't recall having saying that. But what it does is certainly evil...assuming oppression, misery and dead bodies are an evil, which I think we agree they are.

You believe that there is no such thing as democratic socialism

Yep. The "democratic" part is opposite to the "Socialism" part. They're really opposite impulses. That's what history has proved to us.

...and that true freedom and democracy can only be had under capitalism,

I wouldn't know that for sure. I know what Socialism does, and that isn't it. I know what capitalism does, and under some forms of capitalism freedom and democracy work better than under the alternatives; but some forms of capitalism may be too far, and may become merely exploitative. I don't doubt that that can happen, though I haven't seen anything that extreme happen yet.

The right solution is very likely to be a balancing act between capitalistic generation of profit and the siphoning off of some of that to the common good. I doubt very much that there are non-equipoised solutions to be had here.

is that correct?

As you can see, it's not.

I suppose we agree then.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose we agree then.

I don't think we're enemies, Gary. And I don't think we're all that different in what we want. I think the only difference is that you believe Socialism is a route to something possibly better, and I am convinced it's a very bad road. But we both want everybody to get a fair shake, and the economy not to collapse, and not to lose our freedoms. And neither of us wants a police state or gulags.

On all that, I think we do agree.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose we agree then.

I don't think we're enemies, Gary. And I don't think we're all that different in what we want. I think the only difference is that you believe Socialism is a route to something possibly better, and I am convinced it's a very bad road. But we both want everybody to get a fair shake, and the economy not to collapse, and not to lose our freedoms. And neither of us wants a police state or gulags.

On all that, I think we do agree.

Thank you. I apologize for giving you a difficult time. I get swept up by what is going on in the news sometimes.

[Sculptor]

Jesus Christ, of course.

So, not "god" as you claimed.

The incarnate God.

You're not familiar with Christian theology at all, I take it?

I am familiar with a range of theologies including those that treat Christ as a moral.

[Immanuel Can]

I get swept up by what is going on in the news sometimes.

I get it. These are crazy times for all of us.

No worries, Gary. You're okay with me.

[Immanuel Can]

I am familiar with a range of theologies including those that treat Christ as a moral.

Well, everybody treats Christ "as moral." The question is whether or not He's more than a mere example, one people can follow simply by trying harder.

[Sculptor]

I am familiar with a range of theologies including those that treat Christ as a moral.

Well, everybody treats Christ "as moral." The question is whether or not He's more than a mere example, one people can follow simply by trying harder.

READ mortal , not moral.

Evey one is moral, even Hitler. Its just that not eveyone shares YOUR morality.