Jan. 29, 2021

#27 James Lindsay- Critical Theory, Fat Activism, Social Justice Warriors


Follow James on https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames
You can buy his book https://newdiscourses.com/books/
His latest project https://newdiscourses.com/

New Clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSnR...

Support the podcast https://www.chattingwithcandice.com​ 

Support the show (http://patreon.com/candicehorbacz)

Transcript

0 (0s): I don't know. I have tried to not pay attention to the UFO as much as possible. 1 (6s): Why? Oh my gosh. That was sad. So like tell me more. Hi everybody here listening to Chatting with Candice I'm your host Candice Horbacz. Before we get started on this week's episode, if you want to support the podcast, he can go to Chatting with Candice dot com. And from there, you can either sign up for our Patrion account, or you can hit that little link that says, buy me coffee. Both things help me out a ton, especially because I'm just getting started. And if you become a Patrion, there's some special perks. You get shout outs, early access to episodes. And eventually I would like to start doing some live AMS this week. I'd like to give a shout out to Eva. 1 (47s): Marie, thank you so much for being a Patrion. I really appreciate it. Now this week I have very special guests. We have James Lindsay joining the podcast. James his most recent book. His cynical Theory is. And he is known for taking down Social Justice Warriors on his Twitter. He is really funny guy. We got into some really cool topics and I hope you enjoyed the conversation. Please help me welcome. James Lindsay okay. Thank you so much for doing the podcast. I, I was actually a little bit surprised when you said yes, it's like still new to me. So when I get people that I kind of like follow and look up to, it's like pleasantly surprising. 0 (1m 27s): Oh, well thank you for inviting me. Okay. 1 (1m 30s): Yeah. I was surprised I saw you where you are on Twitter or the other day. And you were like saying that you got verified on parlor and you're like Twitter at zero turn. I was like, I can't believe you're not verified yet. And then I guess we didn't have the stuff that you tweet why though, just because 0 (1m 44s): I don't know I'm on the wrong side. Yeah. I mean, Andrew, Sullivan's like way more in line with what you're supposed to say and not say, and he's not verified either, so, and he is much more famous than I am still. I think so they've got, they've got some, I think it's probably the same reason that our book did not make the New York times bestseller list though. It did make the other ones. 1 (2m 10s): I saw that too. So I guess for our listeners that maybe don't know you or your background, do you want to get into that? And then I definitely want to talk about how it's not a bestseller. Cause I was actually shocked by that. 0 (2m 21s): Yeah, we can. We can do, we can do that. So we wrote a book, my colleague and I, Helen Pluckers wrote a book called cynical Theory is I can see it behind your shoulder. Cool sunglasses on the, on the cover. It explains essentially the philosophic part of the philosophical background of what's going on with the so-called woke or social justice movement. He tries to show where it came from, tries to show how it deviates from what we think of as kind of classically liberal ideals. And it did really well when it came out. I mean, it sold like crazy and it made the USA today, bestseller, it made the, what was it? 0 (3m 3s): The wall street journal bestseller list. And then it did not make the New York times bestseller list, which was odd given how many it sold. So we inquired and they said, well, we don't think that is what it is sold, reflects the organic buying patterns of Americans. And so it doesn't make our list, but it sold. It should have been by the numbers. If you looked at the numbers that we had available, number eight on the list that week and they do 15 on their list total, and it should have been number eight, it sold 2,500 more copies than the one that was in the number eight slot. And it sold three times as many copies as the one that was the number 14 slot. 0 (3m 44s): But the accusation usually is that it must be that a bunch of like right-wing think tanks bought huge bulk orders. And so those don't count and that's kind of, I think what they are accusing us of, but I don't think that's what happened. We don't have a big publisher. We aren't, I mean, we weren't really tied in with any right wing organizations. So I don't know who would have done that if they did, I guess. Thank you. But I don't think it happened. 1 (4m 11s): Okay. So is that typical when they decide who is on the list? I guess, what is their idea of what's like an organic metric of a sale because wouldn't that apply to everything like don't companies, mass order books anyways. 0 (4m 23s): Yeah. I don't know. The New York times doesn't tell anybody how they, how they determine that. And so that gives them a lot of leeway to, you know, it's kind of like their secret recipe, you know, what is it? However many herbs and spices that they've got that they used to make the decision and sneaky against the hegemony is his, is the wrong is the wrong flavor. 1 (4m 47s): Okay. So you got, I guess a little bit of a flat while you're always getting flack. You spend a lot of time on Twitter. I thought I spent a lot of time on Twitter. I think you spend even more time on Twitter than I do and 0 (4m 58s): What it is always open for me. It maybe is a little bit too much. I kind of see it as like nobody's winning on Twitter. No. So somebody has to win on Twitter and I'm good at Twitter. I'm really good at Twitter. I don't like to sound like I'm arrogant about anything, but I can tweet one thing I know how to do is play the Twitter game. And so, I mean, it's like Neo goes into the matrix. I go into Twitter, this is what I do. I'm somebody who's got to save the world from Twitter. I don't know. But yeah. 1 (5m 33s): So what, I guess, what inspired you to like get into this fight because it's not easy. And if you stand against the mainstream narrative at all, people like come for you and they come for you hard and you just like go in and knowingly, right? Like you're willingly taking on this, this battle. And that's kind of what your book is about. So what inspired that? 0 (5m 55s): Well, you've seen the giant sword, right? 2 (5m 58s): No, it's not the, the, the thing is that, okay. 0 (6m 2s): They have like an allergy to unfairness if you will, and into bullshit. And both of those things are kind of at the heart of this. I didn't go looking for this fight. I don't want to say it found me. It was more like there's the, I've said this a billion times, but there's an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry is describing how Kramer lives his life. And he says he falls ass backwards in the money. I don't fall ass backwards in the money. I fall ass backwards into fights about truth. And so I did a, in this case, I was watching people who are my intellectual heroes years ago. I mean, 2013, 14 getting accused of sexism when the accusations are every bit as flimsy as the stuff we're seeing now. 0 (6m 44s): And it was clearly unfair and it was clearly bogus and being, I guess, who I am. I wanted to find out why and what's going on. So I started looking into it, sort of looking into their literature. I started looking into they're sort of paying attention to the things that they were actually saying, you know, Oh, it's the systemic instead of just individual or whatever. And I started looking at the ways that they were manipulating things. And I was like, wow, this, I was studying religion a lot at the time. And particularly the psychology of why people become religious or why they get drawn into cults. And I was like, this is really similar. This is the same thing. And so I got really interested in studying it. I also thought it was unfair and a big problem. 0 (7m 24s): And then it was my colleague, Peter Boghossian and I decided, well, let's write a hoax paper and see what happens. And so we wrote a paper called the conceptual penis. This is a social construct because we were arguing with these people and it went nowhere. We just got called sex and you're like, Oh, you're a man, of course. And it's like, I can be okay. And so we wrote this conceptual penis as a social construct. We said, penises don't really exist are socially constructed, but they cause all of our problems, especially climate change. And that went bonkers. It got into a predatory journal, I think. And so it didn't really prove anything about the discipline. It proved something about academic publishing. 0 (8m 5s): That was a problem. But we spiked to the wrong foot wall. We were like, ah, gender studies is wrong. We were right about that, but not, we didn't have the evidence to back it up. So we decided to, we would, we got Helen on board and we decided to do, what's known as the grievance studies affair. And we wrote all these fake papers, 20 fake academic papers. We send them to feminist philosophy journals, gender studies, journals, feminist Theory journals, race journals, race and education. And This sociology journals to see what they would accept them, what they wouldn't. And then the process we learned a ton about what's going on and their scholarship. And we realized, Holy crap, we it's like, it's like if we had gone into a building and we're looking around and everything looks okay, and then, you know, we're inspectors and we kinda like pull back a little bit of the drywall or a board or something. 0 (8m 51s): And it's just infested with like bugs and roaches and stuff. It's like, Oh my God, this is a disaster. And that's our university's, this is not good. And then we started tying that to what was happening to people for real, with these like title IX, inquisitions and all these bad things that were happening to people on campus. And it's like, Oh my God, this is, this is how it works. So then obviously also the thing went public international headlines. I have a copy of the New York times when they didn't hate me, like right over here from 2018, we're where our stories on the front page, it blew up, it got so much attention. And all of a sudden we became international spokespeople for this problem, which we knew a lot about. 0 (9m 32s): And so we figured we better know more about it because it turns out contrary to what my friends on Twitter say, we're pretty intellectual on his people. So we thought, well, if we're going to talk about this, we better know as much as possible about it. So we started reading more deeply into it. That's where the book cynical theories came from, where we started tying it backwards to the, in that case, the postmodern philosophy from the French postmodernist in the sixties and seventies, I've since tied it into the, the, the critical theorists who go back to the 1920s, it's a more of a German and American school of thought and just kind of staring at what's happening and watching that unfold. And we found it. 0 (10m 12s): We can start predicting the things that we're going to happen. Like the logic of this thing is clear. And at that point we knew, we knew we were onto something when you start being able to predict things, especially things that are like nonsense. Okay. It's like, okay, we're on the salty. Well, first of all, our papers predicted lots of things, all of this stuff that we see with AI research being sexist and racist, and they need to have critical race theory. AI, one of our fake papers was about that. That that's kind of like, that was accidental prediction. We predicted, I predicted this. 0 (10m 52s): Okay. This is really kind of an odd thing. I was talking to people and I don't know how much of this I can talk about this is really kind of careful. I have to be. I was talking to some people in February last year who work or will have worked, I guess it's about to be past tense at a fairly high level and our federal government. And I said, this was in February at the near the end of February. I said, listen, I don't know who is responsible for this, but the message needs to get to them. America is about to plunge into a cultural revolution, Chinese style. I would give it six months tops. It broke out at the end of may. So that was about three and a half months. Okay. So an outbreak of a cultural revolution was a pretty good guess. 0 (11m 35s): I was like all of the logic that was behind what Mao launched into his cultural revolution is already in play. The whole thing with all the race, all of the, they, they looked at me, these government people in our lives. I don't know really. I don't think so. And I was like, no, really somebody needs to be like, starting to figure out how to the cultural revolution, because it's about to happen. And we're going to see, especially students and young people going after educators going after parents going out, trying to use these tools to extract as much leverage as they can. And it will get violent. We're already seeing that. Right. Right. Yeah. I mean, all year, the last half, I should say of 2020, it was just like all that. 0 (12m 20s): And so that was a pretty big prediction. We predicted that the universities would continue to just double down and not ever start stepping back from the sledge. They would. In fact, we predicted that the universities would, would, would hit a budget crisis once COVID hit. We're like this is going to create a massive budget crisis for the universities, which they're already facing budget crises. And what they will do is they will double down into the diversity administration. They will pay more people, more money and go more into this rather than less, when COVID broke out Twitter erupted, I got called stupid for a month. It was awesome. 0 (13m 0s): Everybody called me stupid. They said, Oh, woke is luxury beliefs woke is over. The pandemic has finally ended woke. And I was like, you ain't seen nothing yet. Health equity is about to be a top priority in our country and we're going to see them rearranging healthcare racially. We're going to see them saying that we have to level the playing field and well, I was right. So those are some predictions we were able to make or I was able to make anyway. 1 (13m 31s): Yeah. That's, there's just so much that was just said there. So I guess we can, and I think the problem is with a lot of the stuff is the average, Joe doesn't know what a lot of these terms mean. Right. So when you say, when you start talking about title nine, like a lot of people don't know the consequences of title nine, right? Like they have jobs and families and they don't have time to delve into these things unless they're directly affecting their family or themselves. Right. So, Oh, I guess let's start with that because I saw that Joe Biden in his administration. So that was one of the first things that he was going to re repeal. Right. Is to start letting that go crazy on campuses. 1 (14m 14s): So can you kind of let listeners know in a brief overview, like what his title, title nine and like the dangerous yeah. 0 (14m 21s): Yeah. So title nine is the gender, or I should say the sex aspect of federal civil rights legislation. It basically was installed to say that you can't discriminate against women on college campuses in particular. So that that's sort of, I mean, when I was in college, we had to have our little title IX card saying that we have been instructed and understood, and we had a little card. We had to carry around the city, we had our own, we were title nine, instructed them. We had to get it renewed every year. And this is kind of weird looking back on that. And it's kind of like a little, yeah. But it, it allowed for the creation of women's sports that prevented the on college campuses. It prevented any discrimination, like saying women can't be in college. Women can participate in athletic departments, all of these kinds of things. 0 (15m 4s): And so for a long time, it was actually mostly good. It was just in fact, I would just say good. And then what a lot of people don't understand is that, that civil rights legislation, which I think we should hold up as being wholly valuable and good and progress for our country is also very manipulable. And there is some radical activists figured out over the course of the past, first in what? 64 and then 68, I think there was a edition to it. And there have been further additions to it since radical activist through the seventies and eighties and going into the nineties, figured out how to manipulate it. And so it turns out in 2011, there was a massive expansion of title nine following up it's called the dear colleague letter that was sent by, I think the federal government, I know Barack Obama stood up and talked about it. 0 (15m 52s): Joe Biden led to changes to title IX in the department of education. And what they did was they expanded it based on a paper that is an academic paper that is methodologically completely flawed that many people have heard of Obama talked about that either says, depending on the number is a fraction. So, but they, they claimed that one in four or one in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted. But their definition of sexual assault included things like getting padded on the butt or, you know, sex regret the next day or something like that. They have a very expansive definition. So expansive that there were people who were classified by the study as having been raped, having claim to have been raped, who later said that never happened to me. 0 (16m 37s): What are you talking about? That's not. And so it was a completely, the real number is not a happy number. It's still from what I understand, I've seen another, but I don't, I couldn't cite it offhand that its closer to one in 40 or one in 45, which is still not good. But one in four is a complete you're one in five is a completely different thing. So what they did was they made it so that basically accusations of sexual assault get handled in colleges by what's known as the preponderance of evidence standard. And there's, it's all put behind like secrecy and stuff. So if I were in college and I got accused of sexual assault, I would go to a hearing and the title nine office, I probably could not have an attorney. I can't know who accused me. I can't actually know what the, the substance of the accusations are. 0 (17m 21s): And if the committee, which is not made of judges or, or jury work to decide with a 50% plus one standard of evidence 3 (17m 33s): That I probably 0 (17m 35s): Committed This sexual assault based on what is obviously almost always is going to be a, he said, she said argument, I can be expelled. I can be all kinds of things are handled at the university level. And lots of people got expelled. And then without due process of law subsequently turned around and sued their universities and civil suits and won because they were, I mean basically had their future destroyed. They were classified by the university is a rapist and thrown out of school for something that was probably more like awkward drunk sex or less. And when you have something like that going on and you have a problem and this li literally did lead to, I mean all through the mid 2000 tens, like there are all, these are really sketchy cases. 0 (18m 18s): All these people are getting their lives wrecked and it took Devoss three years to figure out how to walk this crap back and then Biden saying, Oh, we're going to put that right back in full force. So everybody that works on a university and its got that whole like tyranny feel to it. Everyone that works in a university is terrified of their title nine office because they know that if they get called up, even on false accusations, they're in a kangaroo court now and their fighting for their job or their education or their future and the standards are absolutely not reflective of what you would see in the American legal system. The, the due process of law is not present. 0 (18m 59s): So it's, it's a really scary situation. And it's only even been walked back mostly, but not all the way by Davos. So the Biden's going to put it back and put it back stronger. Mace makes college campus it's. So I don't know a good parallel is when I was, this is what it was sexism and misogyny and sexual assault accusations that were, that tore apart. The atheism movement I was involved in from the, in the early 2000 tens. And it got to the point where everybody was scared to go. All the men I should say were scared to go to conferences without a chaperone, less they get falsely accused. Or so it's like they're taking their spouse there, which is just, I mean, it's fine. 0 (19m 44s): Everybody likes to, but, but it's more expensive and it's more cumbersome and you can't focus on work and whatever else they're taking their kids, which that's even slightly awkward there. You know, not like making it a family environment. They're literally taking chaperones with them and they're behaving in weird ways. It makes the conferences no fun of course. And nobody wanted to go to them and they collapsed. Eventually they couldn't bring in any money. So it, it really creates a chilling effect that shuts things down. And again, it's primarily predicated on this, this one paper that's completely bogus about what sexual assault means and subjects it's the, the, the, the very short overview is it allows people to make false accusations almost. 0 (20m 32s): It's I think there's been two against women, but they're almost all against men. And those things have so much power that they can destroy lives. Even though, I mean, just one, one vindictive storytelling ex-girlfriend can destroy somebody who's life at that point. So you can imagine what that is going to do is just everything bad. 1 (20m 55s): Yeah. So when you have this evidence of these boys that are being falsely accused like that, they wouldn't win these lawsuits. If there wasn't something there, right? Why aren't we saying there's something wrong here. And then also it's kind of crazy that we don't have to provide evidence for such a, an intense accusation. And then if it's proven that let's say the woman was lying, that there is no consequence for that. So I understand the, I understand where I, that probably isn't in place or wasn't initially in place because you don't ever want like a true victim to, you know, suffer consequences because she can prove whatever umm, the accusation is. 1 (21m 36s): But at the same time, there are these vindictive people on both sides, right? Both genders can be malicious. So when you have the case like that, where someone's really just going after someone innocent, like there should be a consequence, 0 (21m 47s): Right? So we should acknowledge in fact that there is a problem, a difficulty, I should say with things like sexual assault, they are extremely hard to prove. And so you do have a situation where due process of law will kind of, you know, the old saying about it is better. The better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person is jailed. And with sexual assault, you kind of get that. You know, there's a lot of people who did something wrong, get away with it. A lot of people because it's very hard to prove. It often comes down to, you know, personal testimony versus personal testimony as far as the evidence goes. 0 (22m 27s): And so I understand the motivation here. I don't want to come off. Like I don't care clearly. I mean, I, I don't, I don't think there are a few people who don't care about sexual assault, but almost everybody cares a lot about sexual assault. So it's not an issue of that. It's an issue of balancing the ability to protect legitimate victims in both directions, which due process of law is meant to do. And in this particular type of case, is it struggles to do so there is something legitimate underneath the entire thing. And so that there is an argument how much due process to we protect. But when you, when you adopt a standard, like we've all heard, believe women, all women all believe all women all the time. 0 (23m 14s): I've never met a woman that told a lie in my entire life. We're very honest creatures. Yeah. And not men though. We were always, we're always scheming. You can see us scheming. I am right now. I'm totally scheming. That's a problem. And then we've seen even worse. How can I get to that? Can get applied where the double standard, you know, when we saw what happened with the accusations against people like Al Franken. And so he bails out to the Senate that was probably cooked up as a, as a political sting. We had the accusations against Kavanaugh that turned into this gigantic circus. As a matter of fact, that probably turned into a circus that hurt me because our fake paper story came out in the middle of that Kavanaugh mess. 0 (24m 2s): And so all of the press on the universe was, you know, gravitated toward pretending that we have to believe all women around the Kavanaugh situation. And then we have Joe Biden gets accused and all of a sudden, Oh, that's not real. You know, it's like, so it's like, okay, so now we're going to have like weird double standards and how we even apply that the idea of due process and evidential standards is to minimize the ability for those sorts of abuses. So when you have this, you open up the ability for people to have these kinds of abuses plus believe all women is a ridiculous standard. 1 (24m 39s): Thank you have a really valid point when you bring up that a lot of facts don't matter to certain people, right? Like you can just, these people are leaving with emotions and it's very easy. I remember the Kavanaugh thing. There was a time where I like got swept in it because swept up in it because you see this woman and she's crying and she's telling like this very detailed story and you want to sympathize with her and have compassion for her. But at the end of the day, there's someone else on the other side and their entire life is going to be, you know, tainted or ruined if he's innocent. So you have to give, you have to give an equal opportunity to both parties, not just say, well, he's the man that was automatically guilty. Let's kick them out of school and forever call him a sexual predator in high school. 1 (25m 21s): One of the boys and my, one of my classes, he had like broken up with a girlfriend or something like that. And they were at a party and she went around and told everyone that he had raped her that night. And even his closest friends were like, I don't know what to do in this situation. Because you know, like even just that, that claim, right? You're just like, there's no evidence. Maybe it doesn't even go to court, just like the accusation can ruin somebody. And he got kicked out his school. Didn't M go to him. He had a scholarship for university that lost that, like ruin this kids. I mean, we're talking like 15, 16 years old, like entire life off of nothing. And then it later was found out that she was lying and nothing was done of it. 1 (26m 5s): It was just like, oops. 0 (26m 6s): Yeah, this is, this is the nature of that problem. And so you do, you're not even allowed in the present circumstances to say that there are false accusations being made because that denies apparently real accusations or the claim is that it makes people who have real accusations, less likely to report them because they're less likely to be believed. And I can see that there is some credit to that argument, but I can also see kind of how it works the opposite direction because people who make false accusations are often doing it for attention. They're people who want attention and or malice, but attention is often mixed into this This bag. 0 (26m 49s): And so it's like, This, this is a much more complicated situation, which is why in evidentiary standard is it's just something that has to be deferred to while we try to improve our ability to get into evidentiary standards. And I don't know, like I said, a moment ago, I don't know what the resolution did. The problem is because I believe that literally zero people should ever be victimized by anything ideally, and everybody who is victimized or who does victimize, somebody should be held to account one way or another. But this is an icky situation because it's almost always going to boil down to things that, unless we have really weird surveillance that I don't think any of us should want, there's always going to boil it down to kind of this. 0 (27m 39s): He said, she said mess, 1 (27m 42s): But that's inevitable. At some point, I think like you're going to have zero anonymity going forward. I think you're going to be the cameras everywhere. And 0 (27m 52s): My underwear pictures are going to leak sinner. 1 (27m 55s): I was looking forward to those the other day of them, but then the last 500 followers. So that night, 0 (27m 59s): Oh, I have lost like 1500, but I heard it's mostly because people are leaving Twitter. Like some people are mad at me and they're always mad at me, but I think it's just people like there's an Exodus from Twitter because they locked the president's account. And I mean, whether whatever you think that Trump, that's the symbol of censorship, that's frightening that, you know, Jack Dorsey has the power and his, his team, which I will tell you is not unbiased, that this is a very politically biased team, has the power to decide what speech is and is not acceptable and can, can even lock the president of the United States as account. 1 (28m 39s): Okay. Do you think, I think speech is a really important topic. So do you think that language can be violent or even by degree of just saying it's inciting violence or do you think like all speech should be unsafe? 0 (28m 53s): Okay. So it is a bit of a complicated issue. I actually think that we're pretty close with what we've managed to work out in the U S so most, almost all of our speeches protected. You can definitely incite violence with, with speech. You also can issue a clear, or you can issue speech that indicates a clear and present danger of violence that can be then responded to with force. But that's a matter for courts to decide when, and it was and was not adequate speech itself being violence. I don't think so. I think that we should draw and keep a clear line between violence, which is physical and speech, which is not physical, but I will acknowledge that you can definitely tear somebody down with speech. 0 (29m 40s): You can definitely them up psychologically. You can definitely push them to the point where they end up harming themselves. I mean, we've seen cases where people get one of these mob, mobbing is on social media and I guess the, the commit suicide, I'm still having one of my colleagues actually. Yeah. I know all about it. I'm still very angry about that one. Yeah. 1 (30m 3s): I just got a goosebumps that was such a terrible thing on the industry. Did absolutely nothing with it. 0 (30m 8s): And I absolutely, I was absolutely. I'm still livid about that. 1 (30m 12s): It is that. What is that? Why is that? Where they go with it? It's like you have this like beautiful person, like not out on the outside. Like she really wasn't wonderful person taking our life for the listeners. I don't know. Are you talking about August Ames? Because people intentionally sent a mob after her because she said who she was going to work with the mind blow. 0 (30m 34s): Yeah. Eh, and eh, it's horrific. The Dogpile phenomenon is something that we really should be looking down on. People who are participating in dog piles often though, don't know they're participating in dog piles. They're one voice. Lots of other people are all doing it independently and don't realize the cumulative effect. But I still think that it's absolutely crucial to understand that the speech itself cannot constitute violence. Although it it's so important to acknowledge that it can lead to horrific consequences. And so they're, they're the norm that we try to keep, like, I know that I go, you said, I go hard on Twitter and I try I I have a few people who keep the check on me with this mean though. 0 (31m 22s): That's exactly. You said it. You said it. It's always, I have a handful of people who are my barometers and they tell me you're, you're still in good humor. You're still being funny. You're still like, you're just speaking plain simple truth. You're not being mean to people. 1 (31m 39s): But I think if you can joke about things, like what else do you have? Really? I feel like comedy and satire can like bring us together and also show us how ridiculous certain ideas are like GAD. Does that really well? Like to the point where he'll like, say something satirical and everyone's like on the right, let's start coming at him. And he's like, I'm actually defending you, you knucklehead, but you just don't get 0 (32m 2s): Getting people to laugh at themselves. Richard Pryor, getting people to laugh at themselves about how absurd the racist beliefs that they would have had are, or what it looks like when those get reflected back in a jovial positive way that did more and was more beneficial. So if you can get people to laugh, whereas what we usually see from Critical Theory list is getting people to feel shame. And that's where you bully people into suicide. Shame is not the light side to shame as the dark side, but if you can get people to the class yeah. That's that opens things up and it does bring people together. Like 4 (32m 40s): Almost all of my, I mean, what is what we think of every friend you have, you have inside jokes. That's part of the cultural arrangement of having a friend inside jokes, which means humor that you share between it. So there's an intimacy building function to humor in that regard. 1 (33m 1s): Yeah. I feel like stories are, it can be the most powerful things that are like a unifier across the political spectrums and races and genders and all of the things. And that's one of the things I've noticed with Critical Theory is there is no humor. You're not allowed to make fun. You're not even like in a satirical way or not, or a light-hearted way it's those are microaggressions. Right. So for everyone that doesn't know what Critical Theory is you gave like the, what they say it is. Right. But what is it actually, how is it actually being implemented on the universities and now even in lower education? 4 (33m 38s): Okay. So Critical Theory is a school of thought that questions, the legitimacy in the value of liberal, like classical liberal ideals, like with the United States has based on what the Western democracies are based on and enlightenment rationalism. As a matter of fact, one of their chief books is called the dialectic of enlightenment. I know this is going to get dorky for a second is what I do. So get dorky with me. Candice the dialectic of enlightenment actually makes the, the, the point of the dialectic of enlightenment is to argue that religion and M the enlightenment itself, enlightenment rationality in the liberal societies have as an end point fascism, they always become fascist. 4 (34m 21s): And so they have, 1 (34m 22s): And what's fascism for the listeners too, cause I I Nazis. Okay. So just like a dictatorship kind of, and like This 4 (34m 32s): Okay. Absolute Social control usually by a ruling party or yeah. The ruling party really technically fascism is the combination of corporate and government interests to have complete control over society. And they are super against that, which is the Critical theorists are technically super against fascism, which is good, except that they are also all Marxists and thinks that the only remedy to fascism is Marxism, which creates fascism every single time. So they've kind of got a broken assumption going on in there. So they literally think that free societies become totalitarian every time, if you don't get involved and critique them. 4 (35m 14s): And by critique, what they mean is find the contradictions within society and pick them apart, find the places where there are things that they claim our oppression and pick them apart. And again, because these people are Marxists, everything that is not Marxism is oppression, so that you have to kind of it's when you read it, you're like this isn't necessarily as bad as it sounds until you remember that that's their background assumption and that's what they're trying to achieve. So Critical, Theory technically has three components for something to be considered a Critical Theory this dates back to an essay written in 1937, where it was defined. And those components are that it has to have a normative vision for society. And that's where I said the Marxism actually comes in, secondly, and it doesn't necessarily have to be strict Marxism. 4 (35m 59s): It can be something like Neo Marxism or communism in general though, has to go to the communist utopia. Yeah. And so it has to have that normal division. It has to be able to explain how society at present does not satisfy the conditions necessary to make that happen. They call that problematizing now. So if you've heard, that's problematic, that's what it's doing. And the third thing is that it has to be, as they say, wedded to Praxis, in other words, it has to be able to be put into action by social activists who want to bring about Social revolutionary change and all that. Yeah. It's like, Oh wait, that's what's happening. 4 (36m 42s): And this has actually gotten pretty thoroughly loose in society. And its logic is, I mean, it, depending on how deep you want to get to the philosophy, it's the logic is to tear down systems that work. But aren't perfect by picking at the places where they're not perfect and dragging up their, their weaknesses and making a lot of hay about their weaknesses rather than focusing on what good they're also doing or focusing on the reasons why they are the way they are. I used to give an example of that from one of the Critical studies, which is called Fat studies, not making that up is the critical study of Fat is a deny. It believes that obesity is not a medical situation, but rather a narrative created by medical professionals to control Fat people on hand and justify Fat hatred. 4 (37m 30s): I'm not exaggerating. And they have a journal called Fat studies. We published a fake paper in that call Fat bodybuilding, where we are, where we argued that there should be a category and professional bodybuilding where people display their Fat in a non-competitive way. And are basically that means that one got accepted. That was considered a great paper. Yeah, yeah. Fat bodybuilding. And so the example I a lot of times will give, is that a Fat studies activist would look at the seats in an airplane and you, you know, they're not 10, well, I'm, I'm a big guy, kind of I big shoulders. So there is no, they're not really comfortable for people who are of size and being of size myself. 4 (38m 15s): And so they would look at that and they would say that it has nothing to do with, with, with the design requirements, the engineering for, for the fact that you're on this metal tube that has to successfully fly. And it's only so wide. And the fact that the economics of the situation demand that they get as many seats as possible, but they would criticize the economic side of it because they're Marxists. 0 (38m 37s): They would say that it's the society doesn't care about. Fat people, therefore airplane seats don't accommodate their, their size. And in fact, they get into that level of intention. They don't care about Fat people or they hate Fat people. They want Fat people to be uncomfortable. So they'll stop being fat. And this is the kind of analysis that you can expect from Critical Theory is have some, whether it's in this case, Fat we could switch. I mean, the examples around race are just copious right now. 1 (39m 7s): So I think the Fat studies, it is a pretty good example. I'm sure you probably saw and were involved with like the Cosmo. This is a wellness thing that they did. I wasn't, this is wellness are, this is healthy and this is healthy. This is healthy. 0 (39m 22s): That was the very large woman doing a yoga pose or whatever. Put that on the cover 1 (39m 28s): Is the exact definition of like obesity as like, is it a BMI score? That has to be like, if your BMI is over a certain amount, obviously without the exception, everyone uses the rocket as an example. And they're like, Oh, well he's technically will be a, so it's like, okay, but you have an outlier. Like that guy is a mountain of a person, right? 0 (39m 45s): Body fat percentage is probably the more accurate measure that comes in at a second level. And body fat percentage is of course the thing that your BMI does not have health implications because you can look at the rock and then you can look at, you know, Chris Farley or something like that. And it's not the same thing. It's not the same. It's not the same thing. And BMI is a poor proxy for that. So body fat percentage is going to be much more relevant. And hopefully that's the actual definition that they use, but this isn't what the Fat studies people care about. Critical Fat studies does not care about This there's as you know, you're not allowed to say that fat is bad for you. That's just a narrow narrative created by people who have the power as the doctors to classify people as unhealthy and therefore by implication bed, which that's something that they've written into that script. 1 (40m 38s): But there is so much counter evidence. So I don't see how like, when they had the, and you can, that's the one thing you can look at someone you can tell, like, when they're that large, like they're not healthy. There's your bones aren't meant to sustain that kind of weight. Right. And you start getting the visceral fat, which for people that don't know, like that's when the fats are literally growing around your organs and that's how you get heart failure, liver failure, all of these things. So it's not to say we should bully you and say that, you know, we find you gross or you need to fix your lifestyle. That's not what it's about. It's just saying like you're making poor choices probably right. There are a few people that have a medical condition, right? 1 (41m 19s): It's like 5% or something, but for the majority, it's a life, it's a lifestyle. And if you're saying there's nothing wrong with this and let's make sure everything's comfortable, let's have a whole segment of the plain that will fit people that are at a size. I think the discomfort is part of what's going to make you make those healthier choices. And again, it has nothing to do with like a statics. Like it doesn't matter what I think you look like, or you think you look like, but like, do you want to live to a hundred years old? Do you want to be able to bend down and go up a flight of stairs and not be out of breath when you are walking around the store? Like these are all important things and we should all want it to be healthy. So I don't know how that's how that's like a controversy, right? 1 (41m 59s): Like how, how are you mad? Because I'm just simply stating like there is substantial medical evidence that being that size is not right. 0 (42m 7s): They literally think that medical evidence is something that's created by a thin normative society that does not appreciate Fat people as a way to justify excluding and mistreating Fat people. I'm not kidding this. Actually, if you want to trace that back where that comes from that line of thought specifically comes from the French philosopher, Michel Fuko, who wrote these books, a history of sexuality, where he described how gay people have been treated throughout history and excluded and classified as having psychiatric disorders or other problems. And then he wrote a book about crazy people, history of madness, and described the same thing that people, that the government didn't want to be able to have to deal with there, listen to me, they would say, Oh, that person's crazy. 0 (42m 54s): And put them in an asylum and lock them up. And so he for co went too far with it and said that while this could be used as a means of social control, he was claiming that that's its primary nature. And then these Fat studies, people borrowing off of Fuko have gone even further and have claimed basically that all medical narratives that make them feel bad. They go to the doctor, they're told they're overweight, they feel bad. And I understand that you feel down, if you get told, like you've got a problem and it might be your fault. And they they've decided that that's all just bogus, a bogus construct of people in power it's in some sense, then it's like support group mentality taken way too far and out of its proper context. 0 (43m 40s): Because I agree that, you know, we shouldn't stereotype people based on their weight. We shouldn't mistreat them. We shouldn't assume things like they talk a lot that, that there are stereotypes that fat people are lazy, that fat people are stupid. In fact, people are gross or dirty or whatever. None of that's applicable. None of that's fair. And these stereotypes, you know, are not justified and we shouldn't be applying them. And they also talk about how it makes them feel to have to interact with a society that's not accommodating them. And I understand, I understand feeling bad. And at the same time, it's like two things can be true at once. And they're not allowing that. 0 (44m 20s): And for some reason, this view, this Critical view of the, the, the world denies the reality entirely and kind of lives that let's accommodate 4 (44m 32s): The feeling side very much like a support group would be like, Oh, that sucks. You know, if you go to the support group and you're like, Oh, that sucks. But that happened to you. I'm so sorry to give hugs, you know, rubbed back. And it's a different kind of a vibe, but that's, that's not changing the amount of visceral fat you have around your pericardium. Right. And so, 1 (44m 52s): And I feel like there's an issue too, with that kind of mentality, like the support group mentality, where everyone's like kind of coddling you and comforting you. And like, there's, there's like a fine line between when someone needs support and when you're actually enabling bad behavior. So I have, like, when I was younger, I got diagnosed with endometriosis, like pretty rough, like actually I had to have surgery to get it like removed. Cause it was debilitating. And then I ended up getting graves' disease shortly after, after. And it went a really long time without getting diagnosed. So I got really, really ill. So I didn't really know what was happening with me. I once I got my diagnosis, I joined a couple of like these Facebook groups just to like, see what other people were going through. 1 (45m 33s): And so quickly, I just saw like all of this, like self-loathing and I like just complaining, complaining, complaining. And I can say this because I've like firsthand gone through it. It sucks. It's painful. There are like shitty side effects of medications and all of these things. But if you live in this negative space and you just perpetuate each other's like misery, you're never going to get out of it. You're never going to heal. So I like quickly left all of those things. I ended up doing a bunch of work and most of my stuff is like in really great shape right now. But if I had stayed there, I would have been like, this is normal. Right. And this is how I fit into this group. So I think in discomfort is super important. 1 (46m 15s): And again, it's not to Fat shame or yell at someone and make them feel like shit. But like, I think it means something if you can't fit in a seat, right? Like, like that should tell you something like your health is in danger. Okay. 4 (46m 28s): So yeah, yeah, no, that's exactly right. No, you're right. The enablement is the exact parallel. It's the, you know, people want to accuse the self-esteem culture or whatever. Maybe that's the thing, all of the self-esteem based education. But the truth is that there is a difference, like in, nobody's confused about it. If it's somebody who's like an alcoholic or if there's somebody who's using drugs and it's destroying their lives, we all understand that there's a difference between supporting that person and enabling the problem. The same thing occurs in a bajillion, different categories of life. 4 (47m 9s): We can talk about it very easily with the, you know, this obesity kind of thing. You can talk about it with other health issues. Like you've just brought up. We could also talk about it with, you know, cultural approaches to, what do you think about education? What do you think or the right values to have in society? What are you? You know, the enablement happens everywhere and this is where, when you hear people criticize stuff like the, you know, the race policy that people are trying to pass using, you know, that whether it's black lives matter or whatever, as the, as the push that they say is the soft, biggest bigotry of low expectations that you're coddling. You're saying that black people aren't as capable. And so you have to give them a lower and different standards, for example. 4 (47m 50s): And they say, well, that's technically racist against black people. And it is it's it's and it's at some 0 (47m 55s): Level. And I think that it's, 4 (47m 57s): There's a fine line here, but at some level you're no longer helping you are enabling and perpetuating and deepening a problem. I remember my friend when I was in the military and he told me that when he was, this is back in the day, as they say, he's an older guy now w when they had an F an affirmative action program in his, in his Marine Corps unit. And the way that it worked was anybody could go it wasn't like, Oh, the only black people or only Hispanics or whatever can come to that, anybody can go anybody who needs more help, but the standard doesn't change. If you want to get through your PT test, you still have to pass the PT test exactly as it is, but we'll dump resources. 4 (48m 38s): And to helping you get over to the standard that doesn't change. And I thought meant that's just so obviously the difference between helping and enabling, right. It's so obviously the difference that when you, you don't compromise on the standard, but then offer extra support to help somebody get over the hump. That's clearly helping that. But then if you say, Oh, we'll just make it easier 0 (48m 58s): For you. You don't have to do as much. That's okay. 4 (49m 1s): Something very different. And in obviously when you have a thing, like the military, where units are going to get killed, if people aren't functioning at a high level and everybody in the units is not functioning at a high level, you can't compromise on the standards. So when did you have places where you can't compromise on standards? It becomes much more clear how important it is to use a helping model versus a, an enabling model. So like where we see people saying, Oh, it's racist, the sat is racist. So we have to get rid of it. Why? Well, because some people have more sat tutoring than others. And those people, they argue are those people, by the way, we have something in common, it's called money, which turns out not to have a race. 4 (49m 42s): You know, I look at my, my money and it's all green ish that they've made them peach and purple and bluish and things now. But it's all the same to everybody. A hundred dollars in your hand, a hundred dollars on my hand, the fact that you're a woman and I'm a guy that we have very different ethnic backgrounds matters zero. So it's not even race. But anyway, they say, Oh, well, this there's are statistical differences in how much money people have. And that must be where the racism is. So they have hidden the racism and to step back, let's find anybody under a certain income level or anybody who even wants to, we're going to put money into free sat, prep, or reduced cost, sat, prep, or whatever it is. 4 (50m 25s): So that's the helping, but standard doesn't change. But then when you have this other mentality, like let's get rid of the sat entirely. That's something different. And why would you want to do that? Because then there's no objective standard to let somebody get in. It's all a subjective standard. And when it becomes a subjective standard, you get to determine what subjective standards you want. This is by the way, a lot of people don't know This. This is literally exactly the same thing that happened when mal was taking over in China, he got rid of the standardized tests and made it party loyalty tests instead. Oh, wow. It's the same thing. It's the same thing. And so, yeah, a lot of people don't have any idea that, that that's what happened there. 4 (51m 7s): So the difference between helping and enabling is the crux of everything that's happening with these debates, because they do have a, there are points to what they're saying, you know, black lives matter. Isn't coming out and saying stuff that's just made up. Some of it's made up. Some of it is just completely crazy. If you read the well, they took their website down. The part that was really crazy, but you know, we're going to abolish the family and all of this crazy stuff. And where we stand with our comrades, your trans comrades are something that it's like, Whoa, comrades, okay. Is it like, I see what was going on here? But that said, there are points to what they're saying. 4 (51m 48s): There are disparities that are statistical, but they're also four reasons that were legitimate. You know, redlining happened, Jim Crow happened, slavery happened. These things happened, the great society, because it's not all right-wing or racist or whatever the great society happened, which was this gigantic program put in right after the civil rights act in 64 by Johnson, by president Johnson, the great society was this huge enablement program. And so you see where health became enablement and all of a sudden, they, in in fact, you can hear people to critics. If you read the critical race theory, they talk about it. And they're like, it stole our culture from us. We had a culture, even though it was bad under segregation, we had a culture, we had values. 4 (52m 33s): We had a core structure and the great society created huge incentives. For example, to be a single mother with many children, with no father, it created all kinds of new problems and they're not wrong to criticize those things. So progressive policy can fail. Racism is also a problem. They're not talking about the stuff that's totally made up. And there are points. There are points there, but there's a difference between helping and enabling. And that's the essence of the argument. So I'm glad you brought that up. 1 (53m 4s): So this is going to sound shocking to some people, when all of this crazy stuff was happening, like the lockdowns and the protests and the riots, like the beginning of the year, I was glued to Twitter, glued to the news. I was living in like a constant state of just like, just preparing to, for a revolution or an attack. Like, I just didn't know what was gonna happen. And we have a one-year-old and he was on the wait list for a couple of private schools around here. And they started 18 months, which is nuts. So I saw what was happening with a lot of these, I guess, like Critical Theory classes or what are the like, is that what you would call them? Like when they are teaching them to kids, I saw this happening to children and like them taking anyone that was considered ethnic to one group and anyone that was considered white to another room and telling them like these really crazy stories. 1 (53m 55s): And I was like, well, I need to see if the school is that he's on the wait list for doing this. I contacted one of them. They wouldn't even let the director speak to me after everything. I actually sent them like Sam Harris, his podcast episode. And he's like left of center for anyone that doesn't know. And I was like, because their website was saying that they teach anti-racism to 18 month olds. And I was like, well, that part of their brain is actually not even done. Like they actually don't see race yet. So they just see who's my circle of providers and anyone who's not, that is just a stranger. There is no like black, white, Asian, whatever. Like they don't have that yet. So that you're really going to teach anti-racism to an 18 month old that doesn't know racism. 1 (54m 38s): And then tell him that he's privileged and going to be the oppressor because of his skin tone. Well, unbeknownst to you, his great father was actually in Auschwitz and had the tattoo and everything had to flee hungry under persecution. My grandmother was threatened to be put in camps in the United States because she is Japanese. So if you want, and his great, great grandmother on my husband's side was native American. So you're going to tell him that he comes from this long line of privilege and it's according to them that couldn't be further from the truth. So I pulled him from that school, but how did we get from universities to 18 month olds? How are we teach? 1 (55m 17s): Like how do we think that's a good idea, but I, I just don't know how that infiltrated. 4 (55m 23s): I I'm going to say something that's going to be taken is very unfair, but the people who are doing this are crazy. That's important to understand that are obsessed with this. They're obsessed with this. They think that is the only possible way to get to a truly liberated society is to literally indoctrinate everybody who can be indoctrinated in this as early as possible throughout their entire lives, to get them, to see all of the problems with the system and to accept the new system that they, that they envision. They don't have any details of how it's going to work. You know, it's that classic situation of, you know, here's all this stuff seen missing, you know, it's just the black screen scene missing. 4 (56m 6s): And then, you know, the utopia is on the other side of it. They don't have the details that's in the scene missing black screen part that that will be filled in later, after they get power. For sure. Right? And that's where they start walking people on the blenders and why it's a terrible, terrible way to approach this thing. But they start the universities. People, people perceive the university or like Narnia. Like they're just this thing. That's off, they're in like weirdo professor's are involved. And, you know, they don't really, they're not really connected to reality in good for them. And kids go for four or five years and party and learn English and become, you know, make friends and network and whatever. And it's like, not real reality, but that is incorrect. 4 (56m 49s): The university is the center of culture. And a lot of people don't understand that. And in particular university is also the center of where we teach our teachers and our colleges of education have been grabbed by this, what they call Critical pedagogy. So it's, Critical, Theory applied to teaching methodology as what that means have been, that they had a hold of the teaching colleges by like 1981. And we're very strongly pushing it into teacher education. So almost every teacher, whether they believe it or not has been taught this at least over the last 30 years, certainly over the last 20, they it's virtually, there's no other option to do, to become a teacher except to go through these programs and learn this. 4 (57m 35s): And teachers, unsurprisingly skew very heavily into it as a result. So what happens with the university though? I don't know. A lot of people have heard of Andrew Breitbart and his claim that politics is downstream from culture, but what they don't realize as the culture is downstream from education. And so the university is constantly coming up with the ideas that are going to go into our classrooms. It's constantly going and coming up with the idea is that are going to go into college classrooms that are then going to go out into the new professional class, the culture that's happening at college, those networks, I just mentioned that people go to college to form, become the professional networks out in the world. So if you get people, if this is happening on campus now, somewhere between five and 10 years from now, that's going to become the norm. 4 (58m 22s): As the guy that told me a business guy told me a couple of years ago, he said, I used to laugh and think, wait until these kids get out of college and go into the real world that will fix them. And then I said, he said, I suddenly realized one night in a fit of terror, I suddenly realized no they're going to go out into the real world and remake it the way they think things are supposed to be because they're going to become the ones who define what the working world looks like. And you can in a rich, comfortable country, a successful country, you, because you can sustain that illusion for awhile, you can become uncompetitive. You can focus on extremely yeah. 4 (59m 3s): Variables for a little while. Reality catches up to you. So, so to your enemies, your foreign enemies catch up to you. The competitiveness. I mean, this is, this was the biggest blind spot Americans have right now is the Chinese are not relaxing. The Chinese that the competitive edge between nations now is really a thin line. And we're over here arguing about F the sat is racist and they are not the just be assured. They are not, in fact, they're telling us to do it because they know it's weakening Western countries to argue about these things and to diminish their, their standards around them. 4 (59m 44s): So how it happened though, was a series of moves in through education on the one hand, but also culturally, I don't know if you've read the book, Shelby Steele's book, white guilt. It's so important. 5 (59m 58s): No, I haven't. I've I've heard a lot of people talking about it. Yeah. 4 (1h 0m 2s): Bring it up. And they're like, I'm not reading another one of those woke books and it's like, it's not woke. 5 (1h 0m 7s): It's the opposite everybody 4 (1h 0m 9s): I did too. I may have caught, I thought it was woken re refused to read it. Shelby Steele is a black conservative at Stanford. And he explains in that book, that would the civil passage of the civil rights act. One of the cultural changes. So I kind of alluded to this earlier. One of the cultural changes that happened was that basically white people lost all their moral authority. So if black people who they had been oppressing like seriously, legitimately until five minutes ago, came in and demanded something, all they could do is strip back and say, okay, and just give it away. And so he says that the way that this is the dynamic by which it started to mainstream in the culture in a very kind of cold economic analysis, you would say that in the incentive structure was created around basically the way that Shelby still describes it is white people buying moral authority from racial minorities, by giving them their way. 4 (1h 1m 5s): Like, I'll give you what you want and you don't call me a racist. And that became a cultural economic transaction. That's started to define a lot of things. That's Shelby steel's argument in white guilt. And I think there's a lot there. And so what we've had then is this series of manipulations that have occurred. The, the, the biggest, most obvious one ones in our recent memory would be. So Barack Obama got elected in 2008. I'm old enough to remember clearly living in the South. People were like, went bonkers, right? They're flying Confederate flags, they're hanging Obama's and effigy and setting them on fire people. 4 (1h 1m 45s): I saw people with bumper stickers that said things like, you know, it's called the white house for a reason to deny that racism broke out like crazy. And the election of our first black president is insane. It definitely broke out well, these, these Critical theorists critical race theorists specifically seized upon that very successfully and said, see, we've said America is more racist under the surface than anybody ever knew. And that's what they've maintained all along is that racism doesn't go away. It hides itself better. And under certain circumstances that will reveal itself. And so you had a major step toward mainlining. Whoa, those guys might have something to what they're saying. 4 (1h 2m 27s): And then in 2013, Trayvon Martin was shot and black lives matter. Formed. Not a lot came directly out of it then, but by 2015, these exact same critical race theory radicals, rather than grassroots black activists had taken over black lives matter. And you had this huge outbreak following the, the shooting of Ferguson was that Michael Brown and Ferguson black lives matter was blocking roads or blocking roads to hospitals and airports they were doing. I mean, they're in Tennessee where I live. We, we tried to pass a law that said that if the protesters block the road, or you can hit them with your car. And so that again, Oh, wow. America is so much more racist. 4 (1h 3m 7s): They were very successful, even though the facts of the Trayvon Martin case is more complicated. But the, the, the, the Michael Brown case was just almost pure distortion as terms of what actually happened. And they were very successful in mainlining. Oh my gosh, the police are racist. And I hate to tell my libertarian friends, you got played because you hate cops. And they played into your cop hating really well. And 6 (1h 3m 32s): There you go. But the Bible 4 (1h 3m 35s): Putting it in to the police are racist. They were, they were very successful at tapping into a sentiment because nobody likes to get hassled by the police and mainline their story further. And then this has just been a cascade ever since that they've been able to hit you on when done. Then the biggest one is when Donald Trump got elected. You know, we're not talking about this year yet. What was the whole narrative? He's a racist, he's a racist, he's a racist, only a racist nation could possibly have elected him only secret racists. All these secret racist, white women come get your girl's. That was the headline in the New York times in 2018, only a secretly racist country. Like the critical race theorists have been describing could possibly have elected him. 4 (1h 4m 16s): And then you have basically the left and probably a quarter of the right half of the country, like in psychological shock that Donald Trump won that election against all odds. I guess we could say, because nobody really understood what was going on in the country is why we were also confused. And I remember I'm in the exact same room when I found out. And I was like sitting in the floor over here, like in total Trump derangement, having a conniption fit on the floor that night, like two, three in the morning, when it became obvious, what was, what was happening, watching the New York times needles like everybody else and the whole universe was, and that creates a gigantic, well, a vulnerability people freaking out dying for an explanation. 4 (1h 4m 58s): How could this horrible ostensibly horrible thing have happened? People still think people are still losing their mind over how horrible it was, where very little bad per it can be perceived to have happened as a direct result of Donald Trump. Other than the huge amount of he's a racist, our country's racist that it mainlined and critical race theory was like, we have an answer. The country's secretly racist and tons of people saw that as a better answer than in an easier to grasp answer. Then we don't actually understand what's going on in our country at a fundamental level that would have allowed this to happen. And so it, it, it mainstreamed. And then this year, of course, they, they very, very skillfully manipulated the events. 4 (1h 5m 41s): We are starting with George Floyd and how, I don't know, there's been a bifurcation because people woke up like crazy on the one hand, that's probably why you and I are talking. And then on the other hand, people were, I mean, just completely indoctrinated by this. I mean, just gone. Like I have family members who won't talk to me anymore. Like gone, like literally family members who are like the way they texted me over my tweets about black lives matter, right after George Floyd died saying like, guys, this isn't what you think it is. And they were like, literally quote, what the fuck happened to you dude? 4 (1h 6m 24s): And they haven't spoken to me since, and this is like six, seven months ago. 1 (1h 6m 29s): Yeah. Sorry to hear that. It's crazy. I think it's so intelligent though. Right? Like you've said this on a couple of podcasts that you've been on, which is how clever the name of the organization is because it's, it's a statement and it's like a fact it's not, and they're using that against us. Right? Like most people, very few people would disagree with the sentence. Black lives matter. Like, of course they do. Right. So it gets very confusing again, for a lot of people who don't have the time and they're not digging into the organization. And they just think that there is one in the same, well, they, this is the name. So of course I support it. Right. And anyone who says otherwise, like you must be racist because you were saying black lives don't matter is not what a lot of the critics are saying. 1 (1h 7m 13s): Right. They're not saying that sentence. Isn't true. That statement isn't true. They everyone's behind that. What they're saying, they're not behind our, like the crazy policies that the organization stands for, which you've mentioned before is like Marxism and taking down the family and 4 (1h 7m 30s): Getting rid of police, getting rid of prisons, which is what we do. 1 (1h 7m 34s): Do what kind of country do you think we're going to have without like order structure? Right. So I want to say Nicole Arbor was posting that they raised like a billion dollars, I think in 2020, a billion dollars just in that year. Yup. If they truly had the best interest of the black community, like, why hasn't any of that been spent yet? Like, why are we not reinvigorating that into all of the small businesses that were torn down during like these riots and protests, right? Like why are we not helping that community? So someone's getting paid. It's definitely, it's not the people, the people aren't benefiting from that. 1 (1h 8m 14s): So it's like, what's there and goal. And I dunno, we see what happened with the storming of the Capitol just the other day and then buy it. And instead of saying like, you know, this is wrong. Like let's not do this. He was just like, well, if they were black, they would have all died. I'm like, why are we still doing this? Like, you're just perpetuating hate and like creating division against groups. And I had some people on DME that were like, I just don't understand. I don't know what I tweeted. I think I tweeted, can we just all agree that violence doesn't inspire change? And then like, how can you be saying this? Because if they were black, they would have died. Just repeating what they heard. But I didn't say, and I'm like, do you really think that's true though? 1 (1h 8m 54s): Because I watched all spring, I have a lot of riots and a lot of looting and police just were like, I'm not touching this. Right. Should we just let it happen? 4 (1h 9m 5s): Yeah, no, it's, it's, it's amazing how, how profound that, that mythology has, has, has penetrated the society and people just take it, like, it's true that I wrote this hard essay in publishing on Christmas for all of the poor people like myself who couldn't meet with their families for Christmas. I had just gone to a big conference and my mom had had a S somebody come into her office at work who had been exposed. So we're like, okay, let's just not have Christmas, I guess, this year. So we didn't have Christmas this year. So I was like, well, people there's a lot of people who don't. So I'm going to get this essay out. So I worked on it on Christmas Eve and put it on Christmas morning. 4 (1h 9m 45s): And I describe it as pseudo reality. Fake reality is a false reality. It is the distortion of reality where the there's a particular lens that you have to view everything through. And if you are the way that it works is that if you question the lens, you get called a name that's really nasty in this case, racist and you are correct. Is it just so's division? That just creates more problems. But the reason that it keeps happening is because it works, it will continue to happen until it stops working. And I don't know how to get people to understand that the, you know, that it's going to just keep working until, 1 (1h 10m 29s): Do you think there's a curve? Like what's, what's the breaking point. So when you say it'll work until it stops working, like, what's that breaking point, because to me, like, I have never seen anything that's happening. Like the last year. 4 (1h 10m 39s): That's where it becomes really interesting because the number of people that are getting savvy to it and sick of it, like where you just said, you know, why is this still happening? Why are we still doing this? Do you even think that's really true? There are more people, it depends on each event because people are just like tossed around by each current event. So this thing that happened at the Capitol has set things back, I think, but eventually what happened? Well, what would have to happen is that enough people see it to where all of a sudden and more people, more and more people tend to see the manipulation that this is this narrative. It's just getting pushed on us. And it, it defies evidence, defies reason. It defies experience. 4 (1h 11m 22s): But when a certain proportion of the population is clear on that, it creates a critical mass where lots of other people will tip over. The problem is right now is it's just become purely partisan. It defines which political side you're on and each side completely dismisses the other side, as you know, the axis of evil. And therefore there's this kind of blockage. That's stopping it from kind of taking that natural course. I don't know where that breaking point is. I actually perceive that were closer to it than we think. I feel like, although it might be just where I sit, it feels to me very much like the Democrats are overplaying their hand with this, and the activists are overplaying their hand. 4 (1h 12m 5s): When I see it on Twitter, which skews left. If you look at the demographics, excuse hard, left granted a lot of these kinds of tweets get ridiculous numbers of likes and retweets, you know, 500,000 for some blatantly racist comment. But at the same time, when, when people with the, you know, those blue check marks make these comments, they get ratio. A lot, people are a lot more people are not are seeing it. They're not having it. They understand it. And they're speaking up about it. So in a sense, you know, that's what my work in the last couple of years has been about is just helping people see what's going on. The reason by the way that money hasn't been spent is because what these people are after is power. 4 (1h 12m 48s): Yes, the, the, the, the, the long, and the short they're thereafter power, their power, the power that goes into the party. I tweeted this morning, speaking of going hard, like what you're looking at is a Soviet Vanguard party. If you want to know what black lives matter is doing, go read what Lennon did. It's the same thing. That's exactly the same thing is a Vanguard party. They are interested in themselves and their political agenda wholly, and that they will tolerate people have other racial backgrounds or ethnic backgrounds. So long as they participate in those politics correctly, they won't tolerate anybody who doesn't. 4 (1h 13m 31s): It's not about race. Race is a proxy for power in this case. And you can tell that because, you know, and remember Kanye put on that Kanye, he'd put on that, the Maga hat. And he's like, I think for myself and everybody, they were like, literally, I mean, no exaggeration, this isn't, this is almost a word-for-word quote. They came out like Ta-Nehisi Coates. I can name the person who did it writing for the Atlantic, came out like the next day and was like, you're not black. Wow. And Joe Biden is like, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black or something that, you know, are you a, are you vote for Donald Trump? You ain't black. That's what it was. And it's like, it's all race is a proxy for the politics. They're using race as a tool to push their politics. 4 (1h 14m 12s): And when people realize that, because everybody's grossed out about politics, when people realize that is when I think we'll see more tipping, as long as it stays as an issue about race, it's stuck because people care rightly a lot about race and racism. They should care less about race. They should care. Lots about racism to make that more clear. In fact, I think we should care zero, that race and the end of the day, the people, the people are so unjustice, they say, so when people realized that that race or gender or whatever is being used as a proxy for politics, that's when things might tip because politics is fricking growth. 4 (1h 14m 54s): And the fact that you would use race for politics is like, I mean, that's, I hate to say it. I don't want to do a Godwin here, but it's, that's literally Nazi gross. That's literally Nazi is to use race as a proxy for politics, for grievance politics in particular. 1 (1h 15m 11s): Yeah. You can't, I think there's a huge problem. When you define yourself by like things you can't change, right? Like you can't change your skin color. And I don't think that that should determine any bit of you, right? Like there are good people and bad people on all spectrums. It doesn't matter about race or gender or belief systems, whatever. So if you're like, you're black, you have to vote this way. You are a woman, you have to vote this way. I had people that were saying, how could a woman that's also like, has minority parents and also the poor and factor be anything but extreme left. And like, that has nothing to do with policies that like, sure, like there are some ugly things that have been said, like Donald Trump is not like charismatic, or he doesn't really say things with Vanessa. 1 (1h 15m 56s): Right? Like we didn't really have a lot of good options the first go around. And if we didn't really have a lot of good options, the second go around, I mean, I think we have to say, there's a bigger problem than the man that's been in office for four years. Right? Like there's people that have been in office like their entire lives career politicians, and still like, we're about to be in a civil war. And I don't think that that is hyperbolic. I mean, we have people storming the capital. We have people that are turning entire city is on fire. So I'm just trying to, I'm hoping we're like near the end. And like, this is as far as it's going to escalate, but if we keep this political division and seeing that we are entirely defined by what party we decided to go with and we only have two, right. 1 (1h 16m 36s): That's another problem. Why are there only two? I don't see it coming together. 4 (1h 16m 41s): That's that's heart-wrenching too. Cause I hear that, you know, I get I as you may imagine, my my message. Incoming messages space is a bit intense. I get every example, everybody who has the nerve to send me a DM or whatever, which is my dams are open. So it's a lot of people I get every, every example that they run into, like, Hey, this is what happened with my work today. Hey, this is what happened at my kid's school to it. Hey, Hey, Hey. And I was like, Oh my God, I can't. I see a thousand or 2000 examples of this madness every day. And so, but what kills me is I hear the stories like people crying, right? 4 (1h 17m 22s): Like literally people will come to me crying. Like they're making me racist. I never cared about race before. And now I don't want to end. Can't avoid it. It's like, I can't see a person and not think that they're going to pull some race politics on me and it's making me have assumptions and I hate it. And so it is it's generating. Exactly. And the thing is, is that that's kind of how, I mean, I've described the Theory as evil. It does. It creates the thing and then says, Hey, look, there's the problem. That's exactly the problem we were talking about. It was there all along, because what they say is that it, it doesn't, it's, it's constant. It's just hidden better. 4 (1h 18m 3s): And so when somebody gets, when they turn somebody more racist with what they're doing, it literally their analysis is we didn't make you that way. We uncovered what was already inside of you. Oh, wow. Yeah. And that's how they think about things. And did that. That's evil. That's actually evil. And it is, but I hear these people like so upset. 1 (1h 18m 25s): I feel like we are, there's like a lot of overcorrection. Like I've seen that throughout history. If we have someone on one party or ideological spectrum does something wrong, we just completely swing. Like we have a hard time, like finding like a happy middle, right? So how do we get to set happy middle? Because obviously we went from bad orange man to know Joe Biden. So here's a huge pendulum swing. How do we get to happy middle where like, we shouldn't have an egomaniac in the office, but we also shouldn't have someone who's 80 years old with dementia in office. Like how do we find someone in the middle that serves the people? Okay. 4 (1h 19m 0s): I don't know the answer to how we find that person politically. I do know that the way that you bring people together across division is for one thing, we've got to start interacting in person with one another more often. I mean, it's lovely to zoom with you, but in person meetings are very, very different than internet meetings. And social media is toxic. And, but we are all living on it is not good for anybody. But generally when you find that the psychological literature or literature refers to this as a superordinate identity, when you find some identity that you and I both share, then we don't have a reason for division. We have a reason for seeing ourselves as together. 4 (1h 19m 41s): So it brings us together in a social identity thing. So with the military example, I mentioned earlier, it might be that you're on the same unit might be in that you're on the same branch of the armed services. That might be that your in the armed services and might be that you're in American and that you are, and, you know, taking a note to the constitution or whatever else. So seeing ourselves as American, I think for those of us who are American in our Canadian friends can see themselves as Canadian. And we see ourselves as, as citizens of the free democratic world. If we want to extend beyond that. And therefore seeing what we have in common is the, is the first place. And other thing is by finding when, when you have diversity of any sort, if you want to have a successful fusion of people, and there've been lots of like things that have come out in the last few years showing this is the kind of diversity is that these diversity officer's are calling for us is not what we need because they want people who think the same, but look differently. 4 (1h 20m 37s): What you actually need is people who are coming together, no matter what they look like, no matter what their background and that they have a shared goal in common. And when you have a shared goal that you're working for, you bond with the people you're working with. And so what we have to start doing, and that kind of hypothetical sense is that we have to start seeing ourselves as more income. We have more in common than we have different. We have to start working together to build something. And it has to be that we're building something productive, working to tear something apart is awful. We have to work to build something together and it can be the country that can be local politics. We can get involved locally together, again, that is going to get people together and person with COVID that becomes more difficult. 4 (1h 21m 20s): We have to do, we have to figure out what to do, because what we're doing with COVID right now is the problem as well. We're, we're driving people apart and we're not, it's it's as fake as everything else to be that the virus is real. The virus is dangerous. I'm not saying that, but lock-downs, don't work to control the respiratory virus. The evidence is clear that it's not working. We need to approach. We have to balance. As I heard the governor of Georgia say something like this, and I have adapted it a little bit. We have to balance lives, livelihoods, and the lives that we're living, any sensible COVID policy has to hit all three of those and we're failing on to have them. So that's got to have to let go, but what we really need to do is we also need to see, and I think this is actually a crucial piece. 4 (1h 22m 5s): I felt humiliated to be honest. Recently, I spoke with a Catholic Bishop and we got asked the same kind of question at the end, by the moderator. What are we do? And I answered first and I gave the same kind of like, Oh, come together, blah, blah, blah. And you know, nice. And he was like, we need to resist. And I was like, 7 (1h 22m 22s): Bishop was the hardest. And I was soft crap, you know? And it's true. We have to be able to see this thing for what it is this when, when you said a few minutes ago, 4 (1h 22m 34s): So that Joe Biden came out and said this thing about, Oh, if they were a different race, it would have been totally different. That is something people, the, as many people as possible need to see for what it is, which is divisive, damaging, unhealthy, unlikely to be true and unproductive. And we have to, as if we're going to come together on something, we should be coming together on saying no more of that. We have to resist that mentality and realize that though, you know, I described it over the past 10 years in, from Obama through Trump's through the present calamities, umm, we have to say to be willing to say, okay, we, we gave 10 years for this answer and it's the wrong answer. 4 (1h 23m 18s): It was driving us apart and we are not going to do that kind of analysis anymore. I think people need to go out and like, if you're in the center, ish, you need to go to a place like SeaPak as crazy as that sounds. You don't have to participate. You don't have to talk, just sign up and go walk around. I won, I got invited to go to sea pack last year and very begrudgingly went. I don't really consider myself conservative. I think I'm probably more libertarian, but I'm not a proper libertarian. I don't know what I am. 0 (1h 23m 51s): I'm me. I'm free. I always say I'm politically homeless. Yeah, 4 (1h 23m 54s): Yeah, yeah. W yeah, we, we have like our tent city in the, under the political bridge together. So it's like I went and everything that I've heard for the last 10 years about our 20 years of that conservatives is a lie. It's just like, there were people of every race. Everybody was friendly, race. Wasn't an issue. There were people with diverse views. There were people, everybody was getting along. Everything was like, there was, there was no racist rhetoric. All of these things that we've heard about all those myths that we I've heard my entire liberal life about conservatives, w w was just poof, gone in a puff of smoke. 4 (1h 24m 35s): It was just like, what in the world? This is the opposite of everything I've heard. And I attended a big religious conference actually last year, I'm not religious either. I attended a big religious conference and same thing. It was like, these are just people. Race is irrelevant that these people are brothers and sisters in Christ. If that's whatever, whoever that's important to me, it's like, that's still there's magic there. Right? There's that thing that's above their race, their identity, their man, their woman, their gender, their sex or sexuality or whatever. Maybe not sexuality with them. They got to work on that. 0 (1h 25m 9s): That's true. They do. 4 (1h 25m 11s): But here's this thing that transcends all of that and they're just together and seeing that it's like, wow, okay. I mean, this is a funny, it's a funny example because Trump is, Trump's a flood 0 (1h 25m 26s): Flawed individual for sure. And he talks funny, but if you can get 4 (1h 25m 29s): Just, don't do it on Google because it's like, Google is all weird, but you can do it on Google. You can go and search on the phrase. Trump was right. And it's just astonishing what you find. It's just astonishing. And so what we have to do is understand further that the, the, the media complex is making money, hand over fist, selling us hysteria. And so, I mean, I don't want to come out as hard as Trump and say, they're the enemy of the American people or whatever. But in some sense, they are making crazy money 0 (1h 26m 4s): Selling us hysteria. And so it's time to stop buying the hysteria. If you wanna watch the news, I suppose fine. But you should realize what you're watching. They are selling you hysteria the story they're saying it's very profitable. I even tweeted yesterday. If it bleeds it misleads that we've got to, we've got to have a big dose of skepticism against what we're being fed, because whether they they're pushing these crazy divisive narratives on purpose, Joe Biden, doesn't re I, my opinion doesn't have an excuse, but the media, whether they're doing a purpose or whether it's because they've driven themselves nuts doing this for four or five years now, I don't know, but it's not healthy. 0 (1h 26m 48s): And we've got to divorce ourselves from think, taking it at face value. We've got to start thinking of what's happening on the news as an attempt to sell us hysteria so that the CEO of CNN can walk home with a really Fat check. And I think that's super important and whatever the New York times is doing, that's really important for us to understand right now. 1 (1h 27m 11s): Yeah. I think it's important to follow like individual reporters too. Like a lot of like independence, especially, and from all both political sides, like I follow people on the far left. I follow people on the right and I try to follow some people in the middle, just so you can see one story from like three different lenses and then kind of come up with like your own conclusion. And for me, the stuff with the media is so frustrating because they were so happy that it was Trump supporters, right. That we're, that we're reading the capital, but then that same night, like if you Follow and Andy know he's posting all this crazy stuff, that's happening with Antifa and Portland, but no ones talking about that. So there is violence happening every single day from political ideologies, but we're only getting to hear what the, you know, with the media says, like, this is bad for everything else is happening here. 1 (1h 27m 60s): Like, this is crazy is on, on both walks. Yeah. 0 (1h 28m 2s): Yeah. The super, super leftist mayor of Portland get punched in the face by Antifa on the same night as the Capitol thing. And then that they like socked him at a restaurant. If I'm not mistaken, they stalk him at a restaurant and then like punched him in the face, physically assaulted their super leftist mayor who appeased them for like, they, he let his city Bern to the tune of billions, of dollars of damages. The people I know who live in Portland or like the city is gutted the cities going to be a wreck for decades. And he let it happen. 1 (1h 28m 34s): This it's that same though, right? That is like a radical snake. It's its tail. Yep. Yep. Okay. So it's like, you can do, it's almost like what I see happening is you have a bunch of like very spoiled children and the parent that never wanted to say no. So then the child ends up overpowering the parent and the parent doesn't even know what to do anymore. That's what I see happening at least on Twitter. Okay. 0 (1h 28m 56s): No, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. 1 (1h 28m 60s): Yeah. So you should have to start saying no. And then like, realize like where your eyeballs go is very important, because like, you are lining pockets of certain people. And if you don't like what you see, you have to just start changing what you're watching and maybe start questioning things and reading books that are outside of your norm. And maybe you'll find out that this person's not so crazy. I had Aubrey Huff on recently and I released his episode on Wednesday and I got a shit storm for it. And I mean, some of it he asks for, right? Like his Twitter is very opinionated. And sometimes he says stuff that I'm like, Ooh, why'd you say that? But I'm like just listening to the podcasts. Cause I feel like we were all so complex. And if we just say, well, you said this, or you believe this, so you're automatically a bad person. 1 (1h 29m 43s): Like you're not understanding the complexities of human nature. There's so much more to us than like, whether you're pro choice or pro-life like that. Doesn't really tell me much about you. Like, I saw a tweet that you retweeted earlier today with a woman's like, it's time. I'm just going to unfriend all of my Republican friends 'cause we have nothing in common. I was like, that's just so shallow. Like theirs. I have the most of the liberal friends on the planet. And like, there's some of my best friends. Cause there's something deeper than just like the surface. 0 (1h 30m 14s): Yeah. And didn't they already unfriend all of the Republican friends like four years ago. Anyway. I mean, but no, it's no you're she said we have nothing in common. It's like, really? I bet you both like tacos, everybody that likes tacos like everybody. And so I bet you that if you lived in the same neighborhood, you care, whether there's crime in your neighborhood, I bet you care that your children get along and are able to play together. I bet you care that, you know, <inaudible> the state and the S the community, the city, the, the country, the neighborhood, everything, every level that you live in is safe and prosperous. You have so many things in common, and that's even without getting into the whole, like, we're, we're all human kind of universal. 1 (1h 30m 57s): You're going to actually go there. So the we're all human is a good point because I have a Theory. So me and my husband were talking about it. So do you, I think, and he thinks that the whole release of like the UFO's and like talking about all these extra terrestrial, extra terrestrials as of late, is to kind of create that commonality, right? Like there's now This outside for us. That's not human. And they're going to try and blow up our planet because that's always the narrative. So like, do you think maybe the reason that they're disclosing or declassifying some of this information is to like, hopefully have a seat, see each other as human and stop picking apart, like our differences? Or do you think that they're they're unrelated? 0 (1h 31m 37s): I don't know. I have tried to not pay attention to the UFO as much as possible. 1 (1h 31m 44s): Oh my gosh. That was sensitively. Tell me 0 (1h 31m 45s): More because I got sucked into paying attention to all that stuff like 10 years ago. And I'm like, never again. So it's like, I have to wait until there's something way more like rock solid before I'm 4 (1h 32m 0s): Going to get into that. But I don't know. I was making a joke, you know, some crazy Antifa thing happened in Portland a few months ago. And I don't, I mean, that happens all the time, but it's one of them. And I remember saying what needs to happen? And I hope nobody gets hurt, but what needs to happen is the one that volcano needs to erupt. And then I was like, no, nevermind. They would just call it the volcano racist, which is true. They would, they would say that it caused, you know, more damage to neighborhoods of different rate that they would, they would find a way to call the volcano racist. And I was like, Ugh, but if you want it, and I don't mean to dip out of universal humanity, but we do have to think about everybody. 4 (1h 32m 41s): Miss uses the word geopolitics, but we do have to think about kind of global politics. There are, there are pretty good reasons to believe that foreign actors outside of our country and outside of the West are trying to manipulate things that are going on. And I mean, it's very obvious that that China is stoking the flames of this racial division, at least among whatever else they might be doing. And there's that weird video that, you know, they didn't like Trump and now they got their guy Biden and blah, blah, blah. And so there, there are other players in the world that like, it's fun that we get the navel gaze and we think we're so comfortable. But if you want to talk about on the, and we're not talking about Chinese people is the universal humanity. 4 (1h 33m 22s): Human I've been to China. Many of my friends are Chinese. I even speak a little Mandarin and you know, the whole thing. But the truth is the CCP is a political entity that wants to get a lot of power. And it wants to be the global hegemonic wants to be the global superpower. And it's still working on that project. And that if people are in the West, those alliances that we've built in to the internal strength that our country's had, doesn't kind of come back around. We're going to find out that there's been an external enemy and not to call it while the CCP is sorta like the alien's that came down, the CCP is a very power hungry organization, and it could be staffed by people. 4 (1h 34m 6s): It is almost entirely Chinese people for a few reasons. One of which is that Chinese people tend to be racist when they're a Chinese. So yes I have, but it's not the same. I'm not trying to compare it, but no, I, yes I have. And the, there are, there are the Chinese communist party is not the good guys in the story right now. And people, if it takes a common enemy spotting, that one is a good one to start spotting because they're manipulating an awful lot of things and not to our benefit it's they have a plan. 1 (1h 34m 41s): I feel like maybe it was like an ex like CIA person that released like a book. And it's a bunch of YouTube videos that are there. I don't know if there are still up, but they were saying that that was actually one of the ways that they infiltrate the U S was actually going the universities and not like just shooting people like the old days, but there is no longer like assassination. It's like, it's a lot more eloquent now. And they kind of just go in at the seams and undermine democracy in that way. And I don't think that's a conspiracy theory, conspiracy. What's the word that he has that one. I don't think it's crazy to think that right, like that it is. It's a lot safer and it's obviously working. 4 (1h 35m 21s): No, I mean, there are issues around what they call the Confucian institutes and so on, but if you want something just absolutely hard about that, you can go look at that. It was in the Harvard Crimson, their student newspaper over the summer of the article is called something like the other Chan. I think that's what it's actually called. And it's talking about the foundation of the Harvard, th Chan school of public health, which was created by the largest single time donation to a university in history, which was given by a man named Ronnie Chan. That's the other Chan, other than the Chad and the name of the school, I think that's his grandfather or father or something like that. And Chan has massive ties to the CCP. 4 (1h 36m 4s): So the CCP ostensibly has given a gigantic amount of money to the Harvard school of public health in 2014. In fact enough to assume that they basically established it. It's like half a billion dollars is a ridiculous donation. And so yes, these influence, and this is, again, I'm not making this up, this isn't conspiracy. You just go read the article in the Harvard Crimson reporting on their own school of public health written by a freshmen. We're not talking like some deep investigators, this isn't secret stuff. So there are these kinds of infiltrations, these kinds of manipulations that are happening. People don't understand Chinese war mentality, but it's sort of, if you know what their relationship with Russia has been over many years, especially, you know, often East is that Eastern yet Eastern Russia is that they they're. 4 (1h 36m 52s): I heard it described this way. Once China is the kind of country that moves the, the, the, the, the kind of neighbor that would move their fence into your yard three inches every year, and then freak out when you tell them to stop and put it back. And they do that literally with the border into Russia, they just kind of go move the border and then wait to see a fresh or retaliates. And if they don't, it's now their land and that's the same kind of mentality, but they do it with an institutions as well. They just kind of come in and they come in a little further and they come in a little farther. And then we, but by the time we were like, wait a minute, you're in too far back up there, like that's racist, or that's horrible. You can't, you know, and they flip out and, and keep most of what they got. And so this is certainly happening. 4 (1h 37m 35s): You can see the big changes, for example, in the UN in terms of how much Chinese influence has come in to the UN and these things are happening and people are not really paying attention to them because we're too busy calling each other racist and sexist and whatever, a misogynist cell, the time here. Okay. 1 (1h 37m 51s): I can see that letting up now, though, that Biden was elected and Cabela's VP think, do you see that? 4 (1h 37m 57s): I don't know. I, they're going to continue trying to use it. I don't think it's going to work as well. Like orange man, bad, or, but Trump was like the magic spell to stop everything. It's what Robert J Lifton studying the, the Chinese communist party when Mao was taking over, he called it a thought stopping technique, but he's a, he's studied Colts. And, and essentially how totalitarianism can arise in that regard. And he called these things thought, stopping techniques. So, but Trump, you know, so you say anything, no matter how logical it is, but Trump and all of a sudden, you know, it's like your brain goes blank for a second. Its like the men and black button and got pushed with him and you don't know what to say back and with Trump out of office right now, you know, they're already turning to the people who allegedly supported him. 4 (1h 38m 43s): The most are going after Holly. They're going after Cruz. They're going after the entire, like I need to be destroyed, blah, blah, blah. I'm that needed to be defunded. I need to resign. We needed to do this. So there, I don't know what will happen because people on the ground like you and me, you don't care about that crap. And we're like, Trump's gone. What are you doing? Why are you still doing this? He's out. Like he gave his concession speech thing yesterday and he's like peaceful, orderly transfer of power. I'm going to step down new administration, the whole thing. And then all day long afterwards it's like impeach him. We have to remove him. We have it's like he just said, he's leaving. What are you doing? And yeah, nobody, nobody nobody's really, nobody respects that. 4 (1h 39m 25s): So I think what we will see as a massive change and shift in the conversation around it because it's, it becomes with Biden and office. It will become artificial for them to keep trying to push it the way that they push it. Especially as they keep enacting and they will enact lots of policy in favor of that. People are all, but the activists and their kind of orbit of media enablers are just going to see it as increasingly artificial. So that conversation may change and I's may open more rapidly. 1 (1h 39m 56s): I hope so. I have, I have hope for the future. It's kind of all you can have at this point. Otherwise this is going to bury your head for the next few years. I don't know. 4 (1h 40m 5s): Yeah. Or moved to a red state at least. 1 (1h 40m 7s): Okay. Which ones? Right? Like there's not a whole lot left. I mean, I think Texas is going to be blue before you realize it. North Carolina like depends on the minute which we are. Yeah. I was actually surprised that we were red this year. Okay. 4 (1h 40m 23s): I'm in Tennessee. Where are we ready? 1 (1h 40m 26s): Oh, it's really red. I always thought like, 4 (1h 40m 28s): Well, I mean the city's are tipping, so they're all of the city's are blue and the city's are growing and tipping and Nashville and Knoxville just grew gigantically this year. Mostly people from blue city is fleeing and coming to. Right. 1 (1h 40m 43s): Okay. And then you keep it the way that you were thinking and it's just going to follow you. And like it's not the geographic problem. It's the mentality. Right? So you just because you're leaving New York doesn't mean that you're not going to bring those problems with you. If you don't change your mindset. So you just hope people catch on to before it's too late. Otherwise we're going to be in New Zealand. That's where the, the, the abort plan. 4 (1h 41m 4s): New Zealand. Yeah. I'll have to get notes from you just in case. Cause I think I'm on the half to abort list way up there. If things go South, like if stuff goes sideways, I'm going to have to get out of here. Okay. You're on the Gulag list. I'm probably pretty high on the list. Yeah. Yeah. I'll keep you up to date with our travel plans. Yeah. Let us know. I'll get the wife and we'll we'll run off. 1 (1h 41m 30s): So do you want to tell the listeners where they can follow you, how they can support you and any projects that you're working on? 4 (1h 41m 36s): Okey-dokey so you can follow me on most of the social media platforms at conceptual James. I use it as consistently as possible. So it works on Facebook. It works on Twitter. I'm most active on Twitter until they throw me off, which hasn't happened yet? I just got verified on parlor. Like we said, same username. I think there might be other ones. I think it, I don't know. I have a website called new discourses. So there are also new discourses accounts on the social media for that. The website has lots of information. If you wanna try to understand the stuff kind of at a deep level, that's what I do. My main project of course, is still going to be to produce a materials that go on that website and to explain this problem to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. 4 (1h 42m 24s): I may start working the essay. I mentioned about psychopathy in the origins of totalitarianism as the title of it. I published on Christmas. I may start working that toward a book that explains how the woke movement fits into that picture. So those are the things I'm working on. That's where you can find me. If you want to support me, you can support new discourses and keep that going. The support button on the website's easy to find. It's almost all in in fact, is that all crowd? It is completely crowdfunded. I don't have an only fans yet, but I guess keep your eyes open. Yeah, we did start a subscriber only podcast over. Oh yeah. I'll let you, I'll be in touch know I started the podcast for my subscribers. 4 (1h 43m 8s): Only that I should probably get in trouble for and like trademark or whatever. Cause I called it only subs. James Lindsay only six. I get like, like I get the like, no, it's not like that. You know? And it's not a BDSM thing, but no I do. So if you subscribe, I do have a, a small, you know, shorter form, five to 20 or 30 minute podcast on, on new discourses, on all of the subscriber platforms that I call only subs. But I don't have an only fans yet. No underwear pictures yet. 1 (1h 43m 38s): And we need the blue check Mark and then we'll make it happen. 4 (1h 43m 40s): Yeah. Give me a blue check Mark. And I'll tweet a picture in my underwear. God, they're going to give me one tomorrow and I'm going to have to keep my, I will keep my word. That's the problem. 8 (1h 43m 52s): Well, thank you so much. This was super fun. It was nice to virtually meeting you and have you on again 1 (1h 43m 58s): In the future. Let me know, that's it for this week's episode. I hope you enjoyed it. If you have the time please rate and review and you can always hit subscribe to stay up to date with our latest episodes. I hope to have you back.