I stopped posting to Facebook during the Covid era because of all the censorship, and during the Biden term I didn’t feel like arguing from a defensive/pessimistic posture. But now that Trump 2.0 is in full swing, and I’m feeling ebullient about the future of America, I’ve started to enjoy getting back into the swing of cheerful rhetorical battle with some of my progressives friends.

I got into an argument with one of those “friends” last week. He’s a classic shitlib, works as an sociology professor (ugh) at a supposedly evangelical Christian college, and loves to deliver up self-flagellating concern poasts about his whiteness, privilege, and—of course—his moral superiority over Trump voters. The pearl-clutching is as cringe as it is banal, but I will say this positive thing about him: he engages in the back and forth without descending into retarded flame-throwing. He can be blind and obtuse, but he’s certainly not stupid, and for that I give him great credit.

The other day he commented on one of scumbag Andrew Tate’s typically idiotic attempts at a masculine thought:

“A lot of evangelicals are critiquing this comment from Andrew Tate. These same evangelicals put Trump (and Musk) in office. Trump had 5 kids by 3 women, and Musk had a dozen kids (or so) by 3 women (or so).”

What follows is a lightly-edited version of our back and forth. Enjoy.

Me:

Tate is a loser and his personal life should not be emulated. I also don't want my kids emulating Trump or Musk's escapades. What exactly is your point?

Sociology Prof:

It does apply to every other politician. Have I signaled otherwise?

Me:

Then how can you justify voting for anyone?

Sociology Prof:

There is a difference between policy disagreements and personal conduct. Policy disagreements can be adjudicated through our various procedures. Ironically, elevation of Trump has not only dramatically weakened our expectation of moral conduct, it has dramatically weakened our legal procedures. The ludicrous nonsense we are seeing now (and saw in the "big lie", etc.) can only be justified or supported by people who are in the "in-group." But, my contention is it damages them as well.

Me:

"elevation of Trump has [...] dramatically weakened our expectation of moral conduct"

No, it's merely revealed the hypocrisy of the regime political class (which spans both parties).

"There is a difference between policy disagreements and personal conduct."

Congrats, you have now put your finger on why many people voted for Trump.

Sociology Prof:

Hard disagree. Many nationally prominent pastors pastors from the SBC to the NAR have had to become apologists for racism, xenophobia, etc. They undermine their own moral clarity and are reshaping the moral lives and expectations of their flocks. If you're not willing to acknowledge these patterns, that it's only a problem of the "regime political class" and not millions of rank and file religious conservatives, I just don't know what to say.

I'm not sure the second comment is quite the gotcha on the policy/personal conduct you're looking for. I'm very much aware that there are trade offs, oftentimes in opposite directions when considering political identity (you're okay with personal moral deficiency as long as you get your policy preferences, I'm okay with using the legislative process to fight for policy while elevating personal moral competence among leaders). What strikes me as shocking is you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the very real collective damage Trump's personal moral deficiency is causing, as if it stays just within his personal circle and doesn't ripple out in all kinds of damaging ways in our society and churches. It does. We are worse off, in so many ways. Public discourse. Civil engagement. Elevating the needs of the poor above the rich. Respect. Love of truth. Competence. Diversity. These have all been thrown out the window in a rush towards nihilism and raw power. Is this clip from Dan Bongino what you voted for? It's just one of a hundred clips of people in Trump's orbit. What does this have to do with your spiritual values? [bad URL provided]

Me:

(That Bongino link didn't work for me--can you repost?)

Oh, I affirm many (but definitely not all) of your list of social ills, but I reject your attribution to Trump. You've conflated the symptoms with the cause, the fever with the disease.

A rush to nihilism and raw power? Were you even conscious through the last 8 years? You are utterly blind to the wreckage that the progressive left has deployed against Civilization. We are starting to beat it back, but if they gain power again I am not optimistic about the future of America or the ability to raise my children in peace.

The reason Trump is appealing to so many is precisely because the left is so evil, and so even a crass and wealthy real estate tycoon is appealing by comparison, especially when he takes up the mantle of millions of voters previously ignored. Your "team" overplayed their hand in the last few years, and now the pendulum is swinging back to sanity (thank God). They pose an existential threat to peace, prosperity, and any sense of social morality grounded in Biblical truth. Not that I expect you to see that; your problem is that you celebrate and support many of the things that millions of us see as evil, calling them good. Ultimately, we are operating with different definitions of some of these big words being thrown around.

Also, I still haven't heard a good argument for why Trump's moral failing are unique vs pretty much every other politician out there. If you're going to argue that character is more than a nice-to-have, and should instead be upgraded to a status of "dealbreaker", then the burden of proof is on you to explain why you can't justify a theoretical vote for Trump on character grounds but you can for Biden or Harris (or most of Congress, for that matter). I've seen you publicly trash your spiritual elders over a difference of opinion about what a politician's moral failings requires of a voter, and I find it shameful.

Sociology Prof:

It's a bummer because I don't think our back and forths are very productive. Sometimes you sound very reasonable and I think understand where you're coming from, sometimes not so much. I'd like to be clear that I do not consider the democratic party "my team." I am highly critical of republicans precisely because many evangelicals consider the republican party "their team" and I find that deeply troubling. Of course many public leaders have failings, but Seth, are you seriously wanting to say Trump's personal character is equivalent to Biden, Harris, or many others in DC? This is so far from comprehensible to me that I find it hard to take you seriously. "Grab them by the pussy." "I can shoot someone on 5th avenue no one will stop me." Rape conviction. 34 felony convictions. Constantly winking and cozying up to white nationalists. "There are very good people on both sides." Seth, just today Trump's influence brought Andrew Tate back. WTH? You're into that? I read almost every tweet Trump put out for YEARS and it was a constant avalanche of greed, narcissism, cronyism, lies, deceit, hate, distaste, and dehumanization. The man has absolutely no filter. And to be clear, the problem is not just that I find his moral character poor. One of my biggest issues is that evangelicals USED to say the very same thing. Character used to be paramount. Then they systematically backed away from that conviction and replaced it with "might makes right" - something it seems like you are comfortable with. But every evangelical pastor was preaching the exact opposite back in the 80's and 90's. Character was everything back then. Now, most of the evangelicals have anointed Trump as God's man for the office. Have you paid any attention to the NAR? Jonathan Cahn? Lance Wallnau? They have literally set up Trump as a quasi messiah, confirmed by all their prophetic utterances. So yeah, I absolutely will call out my spiritual elders who are blind enough to fall into that deceit. Have I ever said the democrats are ideal? Never. In a typical election I would actually waffle a bit depending on who was on the republican ticket. It's this insane toss-out of principles, values, commitments, and frankly, common decency that I find abhorrent. You and I actually probably agree on many biblical principles we'd like to see promoted, and we probably have a lot of the same desires for our children (I'm not sure what you mean when you say I "celebrate many things millions see as evil." You'd have to be more specific). What I WILL say is that I have no interest in the church using raw power to press its desires into the cultural sphere. That might be our biggest difference. In my view, churches must lead from vulnerability and weakness. Not strength. Not power. Not force. Why? Because the "church" that emerges from this type of Trumpian power grab is not the church. It's an apostate church that has given up its inheritance for "comfort," "ease," "legal protection," whatever. It literally turns the church from a counter-cultural otherworldly institution into the very thing Judas Iscariot wanted Jesus to be about, and which Jesus actually was not interested in. I would much rather the church be out of favor with the political class, because every time it has embraced power and rulership, it has lost its identity. You're likely to reply that laws set up norms to protect people and families, etc. etc. and that is correct. I'm not against laws. But I am against these disturbing means of achieving those ends. Ok. I'm out of steam on this for now. I'm happy to read any reply you offer, but I will probably make this my last message on this thread. Peace.

Me:

Let me clarify also that I am not a Republican.

The problem here is that you're conflating a ton of things--both personal and political/philosophical--and smearing a lot of people as a result. I will point out some of your fallacies below, but let me just draw attention to this monster of a lie you just perpetuated: "There are very good people on both sides." The fact that you repeated that absurd, debunked slander in 2025 reflects so poorly on you that I almost want to delete everything else below. Take 5 minutes and google it. Unbelievable.

Anyway, here are your fallacies:

Assuming that political support for Trump is an endorsement of his every action (whether personal or policy). Stop trying to get me to defend what I'm not defending.

Conflating the institutional church and individual Christians bringing their faith to bear on the government. It's perfectly acceptable for clergy to call the state to its scripture-defined role in civil society, and this poses no threat to the much-vaunted (and much misunderstood) "separation of church and state." The real challenge is Biblically defining those roles, because all application flows from there. Ironically, I don't see progressives blanche when liberal churches call the state to support liberal social policies and use Scripture to support it, but they sure do freak out when conservative evangelicals do.

Second, where is the church "using raw political power to press its desires into the political sphere"? Is your claim that the formal institution of the church is trying to acquire and wield coercive power in the civil realm? I see no evidence of that, nor do I see anyone arguing for it. What I do see is individual Christians exercising their rights to support a government that uses its civil authority in a particular way, to further a particular moral vision of society. Funny, isn't that what progressive evangelicals do also? Are you objecting to the principle that people can make their voices heard through government, or just that people you disagree with are doing it?

I don't think "might makes [defines] right," but I do think that "right requires might." You appear to support a variety of progressive social policies that you justify as moral and important for creating the kind of society you want to see, so you believe that "right requires might" whether you realize it or not. You obviously want the state to use its power to fight "racism" (whatever that junk drawer of a word means anymore) or economic inequality; to promote state-run education, or LGBT+ "rights", or set certain public health policy, or "defend democracy around the world," etc. It seems like what you really object to is not using power, but how its used. In that concept we are aligned.

(There is a very deep and complex discussion going on right now about the role of government, the acquisition and wielding of power, of patronage networks and nobless oblige, etc. That is way beyond the scope of this conversation, but it's one I am intensely interested in. Here's a very thoughtful clip (4 min) of a recent podcast episode discussing this very thing.)

On to more fallacies:

You are also lumping into one bucket a TON of Trump-supporting Christians who have very different interpretations of scripture, prophesy, anointing, etc. I am vaguely aware of NAR, Cahn and Wallnau, but don't buy into ANY of that garbage about prophecies or quasi-Messiah lunacy. I do not swim in those streams (theological or political), and they have no bearing whatsoever on my views about Trump. But then again, I don't live in the nauseating progressive academic world that you do, where conservative bogymen patriarchists (oh my!) hide behind every corner.

You're mixing character issues that nobody denies (crass language, shady business dealings, mean tweets, etc) with other claims that millions of people reject (felonies, rape, etc). If you cannot see that the entire deep state and corporate press mobilized for YEARS to gin up bogus conspiracies, faked charges, changed laws to support their lawfare campaigns, converted bookkeeping entries into felonies, and pulled out all the stops in a cynical effort to destroy democracy by trying to prevent people from even having the option to voluntarily vote for or against an enormously popular candidate, then I don't know what to say. You are so blinded by your TDS, living in your progressive bubble, that's its flabbergasting. If you support democracy (TM), then you should be utterly shocked at the behavior of Trump's enemies.

You also forget that Trump was not the preferred candidate in 2015 by evangelicals--heck, even conservatives in general--but he won a plurality by splitting a huge field of candidates. I voted against him in 2015 for reasons both moral (I bought into the elevation of moral-character-as-ultimate-criteria argument before I realized it was a cynical manipulation) and practical (I simply didn't trust that he would keep his word). I have never been so happy to be proven wrong.

At the broadest level, there are only two categories when picking political leaders: you either require total purity (ideological, moral, execution competence, etc) or you inherently settle for less than perfect, and then it's a matter of strategy and discernment. Sometimes it seems you obviously accept the latter as realistic, but then you turn around and hold others to the former.

You seem fixated on Trump's tweets, on some of his coarse language, his pettiness, etc. I simply don't believe that you really are offended by it. You find it incomprehensible that I could view Trump's character as "equivalent to Biden, Harris, or many others in DC." Actually, I don't find them equivalent. I find all the others to be far worse--especially once you measure the impact of the ped0s and power-hungry grifters infesting our elite leadership class. They have wreaked exponentially more economic, social and spiritual havoc on society than Trump's divorces or his locker-room talk. (Do not take that as a *defense of any of it.) In fact, the very reason millions of people overlooked Trump's crassness and obvious excesses is precisely they saw what you apparently cannot, and they made a strategic choice. You can disagree with it, but you need to stop smearing people who took a look at the state of our society and decided it was worth the risk to throw a Hail Mary pass.

Here's a fundamental disconnect between us. You are insufficiently cynical about the current Regime. Once one realizes that the entire system needs to be destroyed, Trump's appeal suddenly becomes understandable. I remain unconvinced that the chemotherapy is worse than the cancer.

Sociology Prof:

"Deep state." "Pedos." "Entire system needs to be destroyed." You may want to consider that these do not sound like the signal words and phrases of a brave man possessing greater moral clarity or intellectual rigor than his peers. They sound like the words of someone who believes he's accessed the secret knowledge, the gnostic wisdom, that the rest of us are too feeble to discover. Here's what seems obvious to me, but for which I have no doubt you'll find a clever reply to deflect: Trump is interested in building a white America with a preference for European Christian heritage. It's why white nationalist Stephen Miller has a powerful seat at the table, white "cultural Christian" Musk has a seat at the table, why Musk and Bannon and others can get away with "Roman salutes" and why Trump's cabinets are always overwhelmingly white. Perhaps if the "chemotherapy" purged this racism, xenophobia, and white nationalism I could be more supportive. But it feeds off of it. And please don't @ me with the increased minority vote; Trump didn't win among Blacks, Asians, or Latinos. He did gain, yes, but since you're an expert in power you know how ideology manipulating power works. And you know about the price of eggs. If Trump was serious about "loving all the people" and "condemning white nationalism" (yes, I'm aware he "clarified" his Charlottesville remarks, unconvincingly) then it wouldn't take a strike force of mostly white operatives to pull it off. Those are your bedfellows.

On another note, I will do my best to evaluate your "list of fallacies" and try to learn from your observations. I think you make a fundamental error, though, in that you seem to believe most people think critically about issues and arrive at conclusions based on a thoroughly reasoned process. That's simply not true. Most knowledge, beliefs, etc. is absorbed unconsciously through socialization and similar processes. This is why I think the church is in trouble. You are rare. People who just go along with what they're told and causes the least friction in their particular social circles and institutional affiliations are common. Ironically, you see my position as compromised because I'm in some kind of liberal nightmare in the academy. Have you ever stopped to consider that these circles I'm in represent a mission field that I have to navigate carefully, so I'm able to address Christian concerns while maintaining credibility? Your deep state nonsense would be laughed out of the rooms I inhabit. I make that observation not to insult you, but to point to a reality. Whatever happened to "becoming like a Greek to the Greeks"? I love diversity and I love interacting with all kinds of people. My impression is that you prefer the opposite. Perhaps you have a different mission field?

========================

I didn’t feel the need to respond further. I’d processed, formulated and communicated what I wanted to, and I intentionally used some terms in the last round that I suspected he would trip over (academics and progressives are VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE and do not engage with concepts like the so-called “deep state” or even acknowledge the existence of elite pedophile rings, despite reams of evidence for both).

So what it even worth it? I don’t know. Here are a few reasons I write these soliloquies:

• For the intellectual fun of it

• I like mapping out my thoughts in writing; it forces me to try and think clearly and methodically

• For the unseen audience whom I am aware is silently reading but not engaging. I don’t expect to convince Sociology Prof of much of anything; he’s too far deep into his self-hating progressivism. But plenty of others who don’t post themselves, but agree (or need permission to agree) with everything I observe, certainly benefit from hearing it expressed. I’ve been told so many times.

Here is an excerpt:

Dr. Peterson’s God is the apex of the moral hierarchy. He’s what we encounter when new possibilities emerge. He’s the intuition that warns when a storm is gathering. He’s the voice of conscience. He’s the internal spirit that calls us to adventure. He’s the Logos or rationality that undergirds the world. He’s King of Kings and Lord of Lords. What he is not, as far as I can see, is the one who says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” He’s not the one who tells the thief on the cross that he’ll be in paradise that very day.

Greg’s links:

• Wresting with Jordan Peterson’s God on Amazon

• Crow Hill Publishing

• His author page on Amazon (he’s got some great short fiction)

• Beer and Conversations with Pigweed and Crowhill podcast

• Previous appearance on the show

My guest today is Jason Fry, author of the new book National Divorce. He joins me to explain why he believes National Divorce in the United States is not only preferable, but possible without violence. We'll talk through philosophical objections, practical concerns, and some predictions about what the future holds.

Over 40 years, George Gilder has published deep and insightful writing on many topics: technological futurism, supply side economics, the nation and culture of Israel, the philosophy of money. What’s more, these works have staying power: one of his earliest books, “Men and Marriage,” which explores the cultural impact of the sexual dynamics between the sexes, is experiencing a fresh round of interest and discussion in the wake of a re-issue by Canon Press, who has also made a documentary about the author's life. 

Gilder's latest book is a follow-up to “Life After Google,” about which I interviewed him in 2019. He told me via email that my review was “fabulous […] It was the most comprehensive—and comprehending!--job anyone did on the book.” You can read the review here and listen to the interview here. Naturally, I was excited to read the next phase of his thought. 

The Foundation of Wealth is Information 

So what is life after capitalism? Has Gilder finally surrendered to his critics’ narrative of a rapacious, socially destructive economic system? Surely not. After all, Gilder was the most recognized and vociferous advocate for supply side economics in the 80s, becoming known as Ronald Reagan’s “most quoted living economist.” 

No. What Gilder attempts to do in this book is revise and expand the traditional range of views on capitalism and economics—from the Marxists and Keynesians to the Chicagoans and Austrians. He does this by applying a new method of calculating abundance called “time prices,” integrating mathematician Claude Shannon’s information theory and resetting economics “upon its foundational truths: Wealth is knowledge, growth is learning. Money is time. Information is surprise.” 

Gilder argues that wealth is not ultimately defined by capital goods, commodities, raw materials and physical resources, or accumulated currency. Rather, wealth is information. Knowledge. Surprise. 

“The dollar value of the car evaporated in the seconds it took you to crash it against that wall, but its weight did not. The car's value evaporated, not because the crash destroyed the atoms that made up the Bugatti, but because the crash changed the way in which these were arranged. That arrangement is information.” 

Similarly, someone once pointed out that the caveman had all the physical resources needed to build a computer but was missing the most important component: the information for how to build it. 

Gilder explains surprise and knowledge through the lens of a philosophical and mathematical framework known as Information Theory, the intellectual legacy of mathematician Claude Shannon and other academics in the mid 20^th century. Gilder’s deepest and most thorough exploration of these concepts is found in his 2013 book Knowledge and Power, which I highly recommend despite its density. But the central point is simple to grasp without a technical explanation: knowledge is what truly drives innovation, development, and material abundance in society. That is the first leg of the stool Guilder is building. 

The White Pill of Global Abundance 

The second leg of Gilder’s stool relies heavily on the work of two economists, Gale Pooley and Marian Tupy, and it emphasizes using time prices as a better measurement of money’s changing purchasing power. For the uninitiated, it’s a simple yet significant paradigm shift. It's also a massive white pill, about which more in a moment. 

Since our economy is wholly manipulated by insidious government interventions, quantifying the true cost of goods and services in currency terms is no easy task. Debasement of the money supply exerts significant upward pressure on prices (“inflation” to the average citizen), yet at the same the innovations and advancements of the capitalists and entrepreneurs exert downward pressure (look at the “deflating” price of a new TV over the years). With this perpetual tug-of-war going on around us, is it a fool’s errand to even attempt to measure changes in prices over time? 

Enter Pooley and Tupy, who developed a deceptively simple calculation to solve this problem: 

“We buy things with money, but we pay for them with time. This means there are two prices, money prices and time prices. Money prices are expressed in dollars and cents, while time prices are expressed in hours and minutes.” 

[…] 

“Time is the only resource that cannot be recycled, stored, duplicated, or recovered. Time prices calculate the hours and minutes needed to earn the money to buy goods and services. Unlike money prices, time prices are unequivocal and universal. All other prices are circular. Measuring value by measured values, commodities by commodities.” 

If you divide the nominal price of an item into the average blue-collar wage of the time, it answers the question, “how many minutes or hours would I have to work to afford X?” It sidesteps entirely the confusion created by inflated currency and its reduced purchasing power, etc. Here are two examples: 

In 1902, Sears Robuck sold hammers for 53 cents. This sounds like a good deal until you realize that blue collar compensation was 15 cents an hour. A hammer cost 3.53 hours of work. Today, Home Depot sells a basic hammer for around $6.50, and a blue-collar worker earns around $33.39 in hourly compensation, wages, and benefits. This would indicate a hammer time price of around 12 minutes. You get 18.1 hammers today for the time price of 1 in 1902. 

[…] 

If the time price of a basic bicycle had stayed the same since 1910, one would cost around $2,216 today, 66.4 hours times $33.39. The time price has fallen by 95.6% from 66.39 hours to 2.94 hours. For the time required to earn the money to buy one bicycle in 1910, you will get 22.62 today. This represents a 2,162% increase in bicycle abundance on a personal level. 

I encourage the reader to gorge himself on the statistics jam-packed into chapter 9, “An Efflorescence of Abundances,” and marinate in the inevitable shock and delight they bring. The realizations will shock you with two prongs, one positive and one negative: First, what an incredible recognition that our wealth has grown exponentially as our “time prices” have dramatically declined. And on the negative side, how much more wealth and abundance would we have if our government hadn’t bled away so much of our purchasing power with their debasing shenanigans? It’s a white and black pill served together, and we’re fortunate that the medicine is strong enough to overcome the poison. 

The astonishing conclusion of Pooley’s and Tupy’s research is that the global abundance of the most widely used physical resources have dramatically increased over the last few decades, despite the consumption of those same resources increasing along with population growth: 

“[F]or every increment of population growth, global resources have grown by a factor of eight....[T]he only relevant scarcity is human lives. People are not a burden on resources. They are the ultimate resource.” 

Side note: Get this excellent coffee table book, Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know.

Left unaddressed was the dissonance between this white pill of global abundance and the sense across western society that it can’t possibly all be true. I believe that calculations offered by Pooley and Tupy are accurate, yet why does it feel like the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed in an economic vice? That Gilder leaves this tension unexplored is a significant miss in an otherwise encouraging section of the book.

Money: A Perplexing Miss on Bitcoin 

Money is the third leg of the stool. Gilder’s central thesis on money—that it needs to be rooted in an objective (and not a self-referential) metric so it can properly measure the subjective value of goods and services—is sound, and his argument is developed in greatest detail in 2016’s The Scandal of Money. The basic point is that money is supposed to be a measuring stick, and thus it should be rooted in objectivity. 

The one element of Gilder’s thinking that I admit perplexes me is his insistence that Bitcoin’s hard cap of 21 million coins is a flaw. As anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes with a Bitcoin maxi knows, the hard cap is considered one of its most important attributes, a parameter as sacred and inviolable as the laws of physics. The reasons for this are numerable, not least of which is that an uninflatable money supply is an essential contrast to the fiat currencies which are constantly manipulated by governments, always to their benefit and to our detriment. And while Gilder does vociferously oppose those fiat shenanigans that addict and entice abusive states, he thinks Bitcoin should and will be replaced by a digital currency that has a steady and consistent increase in its supply. 

I fail to follow his reasoning here. As Saifedean Ammous argues, the actual quantity of currency units in a society is irrelevant as long as it’s “hard”; prices are subjective, and they will always adjust relative to each other and the total volume of currency in an economy. Individual goods and their prices are the numerator, while the money supply is the denominator. Fiat expansion of the money supply is unethical because it dishonestly spreads out the claims on resources; it’s a surreptitious and hidden redistribution of wealth. Yet Gilder explicitly argues that as abundance increases, the money supply needs to necessarily expand with it. 

But this makes no sense to me. If money is a measuring stick, as Gilder is fond of saying, then why would we want the measuring stick to change? Prices should adjust relative to the unchanging measuring stick. 

I asked Gilder about this when I interviewed him in 2019. His answer, which I still find unconvincing, is available here. This is one major disagreement with him, and laymen like me would be well-served to hear a deep discussion between Gilder and a pro-hard-cap Bitcoin intellectual who matches him in knowledge and intelligence. There is so much we all agree on, and I’d like to see this wrinkle ironed out. 

Life After Capitalism 

Everything Gilder covers in this latest work can be summarized as follows: 

All the schools of economic thought, from the Marxists to the Monetarists, fail to recognize that people—with all their creative capacity—are the true source of wealth, innovation, and abundance rather than any other physical resource. 

Free people up and they will discover information (knowledge) that unleashes unfathomable growth in productivity for society. 

Refuse to meddle in the mechanics of money, and wealth will be measured and distributed correctly and justly. 

Everything else flows from these ideas. 

Gilder has proven many times over his ability to see around the corner of our technological society. He’s worth giving your attention. 

The post Ep 20 – “The Deep Places” by Ross Douthat appeared first on Close Minded Podcast.

I've been waiting for months to announce this!

I have had the immense privilege of working with well-known podcaster Robert Breedlove (who's "What Is Money?” show gets ~1 million downloads per month) to take his multi-hour, 17-episode marathon conversation with tech entrepreneur and Bitcoin investor Michael Saylor and release it in book form.

This riveting discussion is a deep dive down the rabbit hole of Bitcoin. It begins with a broad history of money going back to the stone and iron ages, journeys through the Roman era, and explains our modern system of central banking and global markets built upon fiat currencies. It culminates at the bleeding edge of technology by exploring the ways that a digital, immutable store of value can radically change human society. As Saylor articulates and teases out the implications of Bitcoin, he effortlessly weaves in history, science, anthropology, politics, sociology, energy, economics, finance, philosophy, and even religion.

The book is an excellent primer for the layman wondering "why does Bitcoin matter?" This is not an investment book, nor is it selling a product. Instead, it casts a moral, philosophical, and economic vision for a freer society based upon a monetary store of value that cannot be manipulated by governments, politicians, or corporations.

I don't pretend to understand all the mechanics of Bitcoin, let alone all its implications for society. But the reason I wanted to publish this book is because, as I listened to the original podcast discussion, I kept encountering "truth bombs" that I wanted to write down, reflect upon, digest and internalize. Saylor's insights blew my mind enough times that they finally compelled me to reach out to Robert, and you're now seeing the fruit of those efforts.

There are no finer voices out there today contributing to the intersection of philosophy and money than Saylor and Breedlove.

The book is available on Amazon right now for Kindle, paperback and hardcover.

Buy it on Amazon here!

Here are some of things you'll learn in this book:

• How Bitcoin encourages peaceful dispute resolution at all levels of society: the personal, economic, and even between nation-states.

• How Bitcoin is anti-violence and promotes civility.

• How Bitcoin erodes the ability of governments to manipulate our money, fund illegal wars, and bestow financial benefits on the politically favored.

• How Bitcoin is infiltrating and enlisting support from many sectors of society--local government, energy companies (fossil fuels AND green tech), banking, etc

• How Bitcoin adoption creates a rising tide for the poor and middle classes of the world.

• Why Bitcoin would be a better, more stable, and more just global reserve currency than the dollar.

• How integrating Bitcoin into social media platforms would effectively eliminate spam, bots, and all the detritus of modern internet comment culture.

• How Bitcoin is disrupting the industries of accountants, auditors, compliance, IT, security, human resources, the police, the military, and politics.

• How Bitcoin allows you to establish a permanent legacy long after your death--much like the Rockefeller family did in previous centuries.

• Why Bitcoin probably won't be your currency for daily expenses.

• How Bitcoin can monetize a volcano.

Buy it on Amazon here!

*As an affiliate, I may receive a commission on the sale, but it does not affect the price you pay.*

My guest for this episode is independent journalist and author Jeremy R. Hammond.

It's been over a year since the last episode, although with COVID it feels like a decade, and I'm coming back to podcasting with a vengeance by wading into some controversial waters. But that's what we're about on this show, so buckle up.

Today we're talking about a state medical board who is persecuting a family physician who dares to practice Informed Consent with his patients, particularly as it relates to vaccines.

This was a really fun and intellectually stimulating episode, and I hope to have Jeremy on the show again to discuss some of the wider issues of COVID-19, medial misinformation, and rising authoritarianism.

Show Notes

• Buy the book directly from the publisher

• Buy the book on Amazon

• Jeremy’s website

• Jeremy’s newsletter

• [Sponsored] Nord VPN - get 72% off their 2-year plan and protect your internet connection

Like the Show? Give it a 5-Star Rating and Write a Review!

Go to www.RateThisPodcast.com/CMP to get step-by-step instructions for your device and podcast app. It’s easy, and it helps to expand the audience!

++++++++++++++++

Thanks to LEVV for the bumper music.

If you're looking to read something that generates powerful feelings of nostalgia and wanderlust, this is the book for you. The story of June and Farrar Burn is incredible. Our culture has changed so much since the 1920s and 30s; no longer could you traipse all over the country with no money, jobs, plans or possessions, and not just survive but thrive, relying on the goodness of strangers, the opportunity for short-term and immediate cash-paying work, and the rural countryside to provide sustenance for days and weeks at a time. Yet that is exactly what the Burns did, and for years. They intentionally lived in such a way as to never become reliant upon material things, to always be ready at a moment's notice to start a new adventure and follow the desire to explore.

Although the Burns wandered far and wide--from homesteading a tiny and previously uninhabited island, to spending a year teaching remote Eskimos in Alaska, from living out of their car while driving all over the USA, to living in an apartment in NYC--their home base ever remained the Pacific Northwest, specifically Bellingham, Washington and the beautifully rugged San Juan Islands. I spent much of my childhood in both those places, so the nostalgia was powerful and ever-present. It was sheer delight to flip back and forth from the prose to the map inside the front cover, following their adventures and comparing the details to places I know personally. Countless times while reading I pulled our my phone to swipe myself around the satellite imagery of Sentinel Island, Waldron, Orcas, and Bellingham, visualizing the locations of the story.

And yet. I felt a deep loneliness throughout the second half, and at the end. There was very little recounting of deep relationships they built with friends over the years, or of any rooted community within which they flourished. And there was virtually no spiritual content, beyond some light insinuations that the author was above anyone they met in their travels who express concern over their eternal souls. Their love for, and deep enjoyment of, the beauty of the natural world is tangible and infectious; I felt a deep connection over that shared joy. Yet to lack a corresponding recognition of the Creator is a saddening miss. Now, it could be that "Living High" purposefully limited its focus to just the details of the adventures and the Burns' creative attempts to meet their basic needs. Perhaps they were indeed spiritual creatures who recognized the truth, and it was just beyond the scope of her writing for this particular book.

I intend to read more about the Burns. They produced their own newspaper, The Puget Sounder, for a few years, and June had a regular column with The Bellingham Herald. It will be fun to track those down. What I do know for certain is that reading Living High has swelled an already existing longing to spend time in the PNW again, and to share it with my wife and kids. One day.

Although the Burns wandered far and wide--from homesteading a tiny and previously uninhabited island, to spending a year teaching remote Eskimos in Alaska, from living out of their car while driving all over the USA, to living in an apartment in NYC--their home base ever remained the Pacific Northwest, specifically Bellingham, Washington and the beautifully rugged San Juan Islands. I spent much of my childhood in both those places, so the nostalgia was powerful and ever-present. It was sheer delight to flip back and forth from the prose to the map inside the front cover, following their adventures and comparing the details to places I know personally. Countless times while reading I pulled our my phone to swipe myself around the satellite imagery of Sentinel Island, Waldron, Orcas, and Bellingham, visualizing the locations of the story.

And yet. I felt a deep loneliness throughout the second half, and at the end. There was very little recounting of deep relationships they built with friends over the years, or of any rooted community within which they flourished. And there was virtually no spiritual content, beyond some light insinuations that the author was above anyone they met in their travels who express concern over their eternal souls. Their love for, and deep enjoyment of, the beauty of the natural world is tangible and infectious; I felt a deep connection over that shared joy. Yet to lack a corresponding recognition of the Creator is a saddening miss. Now, it could be that "Living High" purposefully limited its focus to just the details of the adventures and the Burns' creative attempts to meet their basic needs. Perhaps they were indeed spiritual creatures who recognized the truth, and it was just beyond the scope of her writing for this particular book.

I intend to read more about the Burns. They produced their own newspaper, The Puget Sounder, for a few years, and June had a regular column with The Bellingham Herald. It will be fun to track those down. What I do know for certain is that reading Living High has swelled an already existing longing to spend time in the PNW again, and to share it with my wife and kids. One day.

Buy it on Amazon.

Today I'm talking with Commander Dale Brown, founder of Detroit Threat Management, a private security force that protects businesses and neighborhoods in the Detroit area. He's been doing this for over twenty years with great success, and his story is particularly timely in this era of riots, protests, and intense social controversy over the role of police in society.

Important Links

• Detroit Threat Management Center

• YouTube page for the Detroit Threat Management Center VIPERS

• VICE News feature (video): "People in Detroit are hiring paramilitary guards because they've lost faith in the government"

• Reason Magazine feature (video): "Detroit Threat Management: #Anarchy in Detroit, Part II"

Other Materials

• William Norman Grigg profile of Dale Brown: "Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's 'Security' Monopoly"

• "Think, Don't Shoot!: Detroit Man Bridges The Security Gap Left By A Failing Police Force"

• ItsNotGov.org report on Detroit Threat Management

In this episode we're going to talk about some things that will get you kicked out of polite society.

It's progressive and fashionable these days to talk about the Patriarchy and the oppression of women, their hard-won equality from the shackles of home life, and the immense sexual power than men wield over women in society. But what if everything our culture believes about these things is wrong? What if traditional morality and gender roles actually function as protections for women and limitations for men? What if most of the sexual power in a society is actually controlled by women? What if these claims are self-evident if you slow down and think clearly about them? What if you can arrive at these conclusions without once referencing religion?

All of Krehbiel's thoughts riff off a fundamental concept found in the book's title: Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. That is, women have a finite number of eggs to reproduce with, and the costs of having a child--measured in time, energy and other personal restrictions--are significantly more than the costs to men. Men have the physical capacity to father literally hundreds of children, while women do not. So, cast in evolutionary terms, society has an innate desire to protect women and consider men expendable.

This makes women the de facto gatekeepers of sex and, therefore, relationships. The "economics of sex" is a fascinating study in how men and women respond differently to incentives.

Once you accept the basic premise, you realize how much it informs the way cultures have developed in a myriad of ways. Instead of being repressive and misogynistic, the so-called "traditional" moral norms that have prevailed through most of human history make perfect sense in light of this principle. And so, because "eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap," we fight wars with men and not women; we harness the raw sexual energies of men and channel what would otherwise be destructive power into a constructive life of service to a wife and kids; we unashamedly treat men and women differently because they are different.

This book was a delight to read. It is witty, clever, and absolutely unapologetic in its skewering of politically correct modern ideas about men and women, human sexuality, dating and marriage, and general social cohesion. If you recognize that men and women are genuinely different, this book provides a very readable--and very rational--discussion of the topic.

Resources Mentioned In This Episode

Kindle or paperback edition of "Eggs Are Expensive, Sperm Is Cheap: 50 Politically Incorrect Thoughts For Men"

"Keep Your Hands To Yourself" by the Georgia Satellites

"The Economics of Sex" - A very informative and helpful YouTube video

Greg's blog - www.crowhill.net/blog

Greg's other books - www.crowhill-publishing.com

Juicy Quotes from Greg's Book

Bonus Content

Make sure to check out some of the resources I've gathered for those interested in a wider perspective on the pandemic than what you get from cable news and the corporate press.

I am going to point you to some alternative voices that are challenging the Approved Narrative around this pandemic and the government's response to it. I don't necessarily agree with everything these people say, but it's extremely important that we engage ideas outside the echo chamber of the corporate press. In the case of COVID-19, I believe there is a lot of analysis that brings good news to the reality of this pandemic, things that you aren't going to hear if all you do is listen to the experts on TV or read the papers.

On the other hand, there's also a lot of junk in the corners of the web that should be dismissed. I highly doubt aliens caused the virus, for example, but I'm sure somebody out there has what appears to be a well-sourced explanation of that theory.

What I'm directing you to is different. These are not crackpots as far as I can tell; despite what the corporate press would have you believe, there is actually A LOT of debate within the scientific community about COVID-19 and what the best response should be from a public policy perspective. There are scores of reasonable questions that are routinely ignored by the gatekeepers of the media. You should be aware of them, and you should demand answers to them. The sources I will link to are thoughtful, reasoned, and provocative. They are well worth your time. All I can say is, thank God for alternative media in 2020.

Head over to closemindedpodcast.com/pandemic for all the details.

NOTE: Do not assume any endorsement from my guest on any of these materials.

Summary: This book does a great job of fulfilling the promise of its subtitle.

Until recently, most American's investment activity involved saving cash and paying into their permanent life insurance policies that promised a guaranteed death benefit passed to their heirs. The concept of retirement is rooted in a social engineering experiment from Europe that decided to force the elderly out of the workforce by paying them a pension. This philosophy made its way into New Deal-era American society via Social Security and employer-provided pensions. But in the mid-twentieth century a number of events converged to drastically shift the system: the dynamics of the investment world changed when the U.S. officially severed the dollar from the gold standard and the stock market began to expand; IRS interpretations of the tax laws changed to accommodate a new investment vehicle called the 401(k), which began a slow (and unexpected) transfer of investment risk from employers managing pensions (defined benefit plans) to employees managing their own funds (defined contribution plans); the financial world exploded with a variety of service offerings and investment strategies, and with it came complexity--and conflicts of interests.

Olen dives deeply into the world of personal finance, covering the emergence of everyman and everywoman gurus of homegrown financial "wisdom": Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman--whose folksy, by-your-boootstraps advice changed and contradicted itself over the years, often in line with their new corporate sponsors and the inevitable conflicts of interest that came with them. Authors wrote books arguing that middle class families can become millionaires by retirement if they simply give up and save the cost of a latte every day. It turns out that even professional stock brokers often don't beat the markets, so it's absurd to think that the average (and amateur) middle class investor can do any better. Too many financial professionals make their money not in the market, but on commissions selling financial products that may not be in the best interests of their customers. Not that any of this is illegal, mind you.

Stock market investment tools and advice gurus aren't the only hucksters in Olen's sights. There's an entire cottage industry of seminars--about real estate, life insurance annuities, and general financial knowledge--that often uses fear tactics to separate senior citizens from their money, or encourages middle class investors to use credit card debt to fund ("leverage") investment on real estate to get triple-digit returns with no risk or management headache. Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad media empire takes center stage here.

Olen also discusses the emergence of "financial literacy" projects, attempts to educate anyone--including elementary and high school kids--about healthy habits for budgeting, managing money, and understanding investment products. The irony here is that most of these projects are funded by the very financial institutions that are neck deep in selling crap products to the masses and participated in the irresponsible practices that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. According to Olen, the research shows that financial literacy education really doesn't do much--other than provide positive PR and political cover to the big banks and credit card companies (etc.) who fund it.

There's an entire chapter about investment campaigns targeted toward women that rely on sexism and stereotypes. There was way too much focus on the so-called (and debunked) "gender pay gap," which was annoying. But my main disappointment with the book was that it finished without proposing any useful solutions. Other than a brief discussion of extremely complicated and expensive annuities, Olen appears to be unaware of the resurgence permanent life insurance contracts are making, and she only briefly mentions that until the stock market revolution took off most American families utilized whole life insurance as a significant leg of their stool of long-term planning. In this era of massive and unexpected market swings, I suspect a lot of readers would be interested to hear about a vehicle that has liquidity, creditor protection, guaranteed minimum returns (competitive with market returns once taxes and fees are taken into account), complete protection against capital loss AND loss of gains once realized, tax-deferred (often tax-free) growth, and a tax free death benefit distributed to heirs, all backed by the most safe and secure tranche of the financial sector. But alas, no mention. Instead, she half-heartedly blames income inequality and broad economic trends. Perhaps I've been subtly trained by the modus operandi of the very world Olen is criticizing--lay out the problem with cataclysmic rhetoric and then bait the audience with the "perfect solution," usually a commission-heavy product--but I expected a bit more substance from her about what we should DO about all the shenanigans she just spent 200 pages describing. But again, I may be expecting more from the book than the title promises.

Quibbles aside, what this book does, it does well. And it's well worth reading, if only to deflate the bubble of irrational optimism for "easy wealth" that we all--including myself--seem so willing to believe in.

Get it on Amazon.

The post Turn your data into an asset you can monetize – Dana Budzyn of UBDI appeared first on Close Minded Podcast.

My guest today is Dana Budzyn, CEO of UBDI, a tech startup looking to transform the market research industry. If you've been following the 2020 presidential campaign, you've probably heard of Andrew Yang and his platform of UBI--Universal Basic Income. But what you may not have heard of is Universal Basic Data Income; this is the term that Dana uses to describe what her company is attempting--which is to allow users to transform their personal data into an asset that earns money, while retaining privacy and anonymity, instead of simply trading it all away to the Big Tech companies.

The technology that allows UBDI to work is less than 10 years old, so this is a new frontier--and a promising one in the battle against the privacy-invading corporate leviathans. In this episode we discuss how exactly how the app works, how a 24-year-old gets to be co-founder and CEO of a tech startup leading the way in data privacy innovation, and more.

Important Links from this Episode

• UBDI.com

• Dana Budzyn on LinkedIn

• UBDI community on Reddit

• Dana's TEDx talk, "Owning Your Digital Self: Monetizing Your Personal Data"

• My detailed book review of "Life After Google" by George Gilder

• Episode 8: My Interview with George Gilder

Sign up for exclusive access to a bonus segment with Dana

Want to hear more from Dana about the next, secret feature she and the team at UBDI are working on? Want to hear about her dreams for the future--ideas that are way out on the bleeding edge of taking back control of your data? Join the Close Minded Email List and I'll send you the bonus segment of our discussion.

Send me the bonus interview!

Success!

Check your email to get the bonus.

***SPONSOR***
Please consider supporting the show by checking out one of my favorite tools for web security, Nord VPN. I am a very satisfied customer currently in the midst of a 3-year subscription, and Nord has become an indispensable security tool on all my devices.

Get up to 70% off with their 3-year-plan at www.closemindedpodcast.com/vpn

Like the Show? Give it a 5-Star Rating and Write a Review!

Go to www.RateThisPodcast.com/CMP to get step-by-step instructions for your device and podcast app. It's easy, and it helps to expand the audience!

Watch the Show on YouTube!

The audio of all the episodes are up on YouTube, but this is the first episode where I have video! Check it out!

All episodes are located in this playlist.

++++++++++++++++

Thanks to LEVV for the bumper music.

The post Episode 13 – Robert Beadles on Getting Started with Cryptocurrency appeared first on Close Minded Podcast.

Cryptocurrency is a complicated subject to grasp well. Currency alone is something everyone understands, but add all the other terms into the mix—cryptography, decentralization, nodes, distributed ledgers, public and private keys, etc—and the average citizen either panics or gets glossy-eyed.

Robert Beadles has written a very basic, entry-level overview of what cryptocurrency is, how it works and—most importantly—why it matters and how it could change the world. He gives a high level conceptual overview of how to acquire crypto, how to manage and protect it, and also how to use it for transactions. As the CEO of a startup that provides a crypto wallet which supports all the major coins out there, he knows what he’s talking about.

I consider myself a very interested, moderately-informed, tech savvy observer of (and cheerleader for) the revolution that crypto and blockchain promise. No matter one’s level of expertise, it is always helpful to re-read the basics, and Robert Beadles’ intro is a great place to start.

I hope you enjoy this discussion with Robert!

Get the book on Amazon here.

Important Links from this Episode

• Crypto Beadles YouTube Channel

• CryptoBeadles.com

• Monarch Wallet

• Monarch Pay

About the Author

Robert "Crypto" Beadles is a Christian, father, husband, successful serial entrepreneur, seasoned business builder; prominent Blockchain & Cryptocurrency educator on TV, YouTube, TradingView Sessions, and throughout the world. Beadles is the builder and Co-Founder of the Monarch Wallet, MonarchPay and is a member of the C4 Crypto Consortium. He is an avid believer in Cryptocurrency, Blockchain technology and offers some of the most in-depth, educational, unique, and insightful content available.

Beadles has built several multi-million dollar companies, owns numerous patents, trademarks, helps develop business concepts, ideas, projects, and works with many various clients. Beadles also created Splash Factory; a full-service DevOps agency specializing in creating innovative and impactful Blockchain solutions for ICOs, government, and enterprise-level integrations. Splash Factory also offers Blockchain development services, community management, and strategic marketing services.

Get the Brave Browser and Earn Crypto

***SPONSOR***
I'm a proud Brave user, and I highly recommend it! Check it out at: www.closemindedpodcast.com/brave

++++++++++++++++

Thanks to LEVV for the bumper music.

The post Episode 12 – Dr. Gordon Wilson on The Right Way to Be Green appeared first on Close Minded Podcast.

My guest for episode 12 is Dr. Gordon Wilson, professor of biology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho.

In his new book, A Different Shade of Green, he argues that Christians have gotten environmentalism wrong. We've tended to fall into a couple extremes--one of supreme indifference as an overreaction to the earth-worshipping activist crazies out there, or an embrace of the latest green trends that end up overshadowing gospel faithfulness and personal transformation.

So what should Christians think about the world God created?

What should be our standard of value when caring for ecosystems?

How do we balance the need for development and innovation with a need to protect species and their habitats?

Is climate change an actual threat, or is the world heating up from so much activist hot air?

Listen to the episode and read the book for all those answers and more.

Dr. Wilson is also the narrator of the feature length nature documentary, "The Riot and the Dance" (streaming on Amazon Prime right now--see below for details).

Get "A Different Shade of Green" on Amazon.

Watch the Book Trailer

Watch "The Riot and the Dance" on Amazon Prime

https://www.amazon.com/Riot-Dance-Dr-Gordon-Wilson/dp/B07PGC9T7M

Watch the trailer:

Follow Dr. Gordon Wilson on the web:

• Dr Wilson's faulty page at New Saint Andrews College

• Dr. Wilon's articles at Answers in Genesis

• Canon Press page for A Different Shade of Green

***SPONSOR***
Please consider supporting the show by checking out one of my favorite tools for web security, Nord VPN. I am a very satisfied customer currently in the midst of a 3-year subscription, and Nord has become an indispensable security tool on all my devices.

Get up to 70% off with their 3-year-plan at www.closemindedpodcast.com/vpn

++++++++++++++++

Thanks to LEVV for the bumper music.

Becket Cook had fully embraced his homosexuality, including the lifestyle and all its trappings. As a successful set designer and supporting actor, he hung around with the Hollywood elite and lived the high life. Until a chance encounter at a coffee shop with a local pastor ended up with him in church, fully convicted of his sin and swept away by the Holy Spirit. Beckett Cook became a Christian.

This is his story--of his early life and the trauma that influenced his sexual trajectory, his fear of coming out and the eventual embrace of his orientation, and ultimately his total transformation into a counter-cultural, Biblical Christianity. Becket speaks with experience and compassion about the two worlds he has fully inhabited--progressive gay culture and a theologically conservative Christian faith.

After his conversion, Becket received formal theological training at Biola University's Talbot School of Theology. He speaks regularly to churches, universities and conferences about the Biblical approach to sexuality and how to engage with friends and family members who struggle with it.

This book is very reflective, tender, pastoral, authentic, and challenging. Becket Cook clearly loves Jesus and loves the LGBT community. It's a rare skill to do that well and to be able to speak with personal knowledge, compassion and authority rooted in his own experience, his own study of the scriptures, and his compassion for people. Highly recommended.

More Resources on Becket Cook:

Get "A Change of Affection" on Amazon.

Listen to the sermon that Becket heard the day he was convicted and converted.

Becket Cook on the Eric Metaxas Show

In the summer of 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court and President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill the open position. The uproar that followed, and the outrageous smear campaign that the Democrats and the corporate press waged against Kavanaugh, were beyond almost anything I've ever seen in politics. I followed the nomination, Senate hearings, and final confirmation of Kavanaugh very closely, and I expected them to be contentious and that the opposition would put up a fight. I'm pretty cynical about the corporate press, yet I was still shocked to see the utter depravity of their attempts to destroy a man who ended up being fully vindicated--and fortunately, confirmed to the Court in October 2018.

But the battle over Kavanaugh was much broader than an isolated accusation of sexual assault. My guest today is Carrie Severino, coauthor of "Justice On Trial," a bestselling new book--this despite a total media blackout--that provides a comprehensive account of the Kavanaugh nomination from beginning to end. Carrie and her co-author, Mollie Hemingway, interviewed over 100 people, including members of the Court and of Congress, and even broke some new reporting as part of the book. She is the leader and public face of the Judicial Crisis Network, a legal advocacy group that seeks to nominate judges who hold to an originalist view of the Constitution.

Get Justice On Trial on Amazon.

Follow Carrie Severino on the web:

• https://twitter.com/JCNSeverino

https://judicialnetwork.com

Follow Mollie Hemingway on the web:

• https://twitter.com/MZHemingway

• https://thefederalist.com/author/mzhemingway