Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
Well, the WOAK revolutionaries on Twitter are gunning for James Lindsay. He's a mathematician, he's an academic prankster. It's not quite the right word. He's brilliant. James Lindsay. Lindsay does not care. He's moved beyond caring about academic radicals who bully anyone they disagree with and they disagree with most of us. The last time we had James Lindsay on this podcast, he was a little different than he is now. He still cared about trying to find a way to reason with the bullies of WOAK liberalism.
But his new book doesn't give me much hope that that's going to happen. It is a groundbreaking book. It's called Cynical Theories How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity and Why This Harms Everyone. This is a must own book. Go out or just go online and order it right now. You'll see why after this interview. These days, James is spending much of his time fighting the cult of critical theory, translating the language of the WOAK and math now into plain English.
In nineteen eighty four, George Orwell wrote, Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows in a world that is becoming more and more nineteen eighty four by the day. James is a very brave man, willing to stand up and say he had two plus two does not equal five.
So, James, I want to really concentrate on the book cynical theories, because I don't think people and we've talked about it before, I don't think people really understand what's happening. They're being duped by a lot of things and really, in a way. You know, in America, it is always this way, our Achilles heel is, I think, our willingness to just live and let live and, you know, just let people and I don't believe that.
But that's OK.
And we're in a different time now. They've used that against us. And now we're just at the very beginning of seeing how dangerous and literally deadly this will be. Yup, that is the correct assessment. This is this is not a ideology that we're we're looking at with everything going on as we Southerners say, everything going on now, this is not an ideology that can tolerate compromise. So live and let live requires a acceptance that there will be compromise, that requires acceptance, that there will be forgiveness of mistakes and that people can work together and that our differences will be our strength.
That E Pluribus Unum founding concept, the motto of the United States. And as was outlined, kind of ironically, going back into the forties with Karl Popper outlining, outlining the paradox of tolerance. When you are struck with genuine intolerance, too much tolerance becomes a problem. And so the question becomes, of course, how do you tell when it's speech which should be protected universally? People's beliefs, people's matters of private conscience are their own.
But when the paper says when they when they print out the knives, when they bring out the guns, that's the point where you absolutely can't tolerate any longer. And the question becomes in a realistic sense and there are different ways to analyze this. What do you do in a society built on tolerance and plurality? What do you do to deal with a genuinely intolerant ideology that won't compromise? And that's the question that we're now facing, not in a theoretical way, but in a real way, maybe for the first time since the late nineteen sixties.
I think it's more serious than the nineteen sixties because there doesn't seem to be any anything that is strong standing against it, we still had some universities and some and some professors and scientists and everything else. We had some churches that understood exactly what was going on. We had a society that was at the end of understanding the importance of the Constitution. But we we recognize the Constitution. And we saw this this double speak and Orwellian kind of world coming from the Soviet Union.
We don't have any of that. Right. We have nothing.
Right. The brakes have been taken off of the train rolling down the hill. That's where we are now. And the primary way that it's taking the brakes off of the train is by making things about matters of of identity and bigotry, which are so sensitive for so many people that they would rather just roll over and maybe even hand over the keys to their way of life, then be caught up in association with bigotry. And so this this is the way that they figured out how to remove the brakes from the same kind of thing that was attempted in the nineteen sixties.
There was a major summit for liberation, as they call it, in nineteen sixty seven. We saw the roll out of riots and violence through late nineteen sixty seven and nineteen sixty eight. That was largely informed by Herbert, our Coosa, the neo Marxist who started the so-called new left, and he's the one that led the charge toward identity politics. And now we've had 50 years of that line of thought ripening. Plus, as we document in the book that you mentioned, the adoption of postmodernism so that it no longer has any tether to the truth.
It's all about feelings. So if somebody accuses somebody of bigotry or racism or sexism or homophobia or you name you name it, there are so many that even Judith Butler, one of their scholars, called it that exasperated, et cetera. If you accuse somebody of it, that's a wholly subjective determination. And if you say, where is the evidence that racism is happening, say, in our school, in our institution, at NASA, you say, where's the evidence that racism is happening here?
They say the evidence is my lived experience and that you think we need more evidence. And that is just proof that you're racist and that it's actually a racist system to ask for evidence because it denies the realities of my lived experience. And by having moved the entire question into matters of lived experience on something as sensitive as bigotry in our society, which tries to be open and tolerant and and pluralistic and welcoming and inclusive and diverse, they've removed the brakes from the train that that would drive the revolution.
So, James, I've been saying for a long time, there's going to come a point where you won't recognize your country. If some people found that during the Kavanagh hearings where they were like, wait, wait, wait, how is this happening? Where is the evidence? I'm I'm open minded. And if he's doing those kinds of things but we don't just convict somebody like that without anything. And people thought the world was upside down. That was a year ago.
That's a playground state. That's like McDonald's playground compared to where we are right now. I can't even imagine 12 months from now. Are you are you seeing any slowdown is are there and we can get into these I know you have a great answer for how to fight it, but are you seeing anything on the horizon that makes you feel better that maybe we're going to slow down on this?
I see a grassroots movement waking up, and that is the most interesting and hopeful thing, I also am hearing from more and more people who are within business, within industry, within education, within universities, within the nonprofit sector, within the activist sector that has pushed for many even progressive left changes in society, all saying, wait a minute, this is all gone too far. I wrote an article a while back, I guess two months ago called The Breaking Point, and I compelled people in that article to think for yourself.
Maybe if you're out there and you're listening and you're you're somewhat progressive or you think this is a movement that has the best interests of certain vulnerable people at heart, and you have sympathies toward it. You need to wrestle with yourself and you need to take this to your friends and get your friends to wrestle with it. And your family and anybody else that you can reach is that supports that you have to wrestle with. Where is the line? That's too far.
What does it look like? And you have to understand that psychologically we have to see that line before we cross it in order for this to be effective, because what happens is something happens that we normally wouldn't tolerate, then we end up going and we get in a culture war on Twitter or whatever, and we rationalize something unacceptable. And so what is this?
You haven't so what is the line for you? Give me, give me give me some cross.
I crossed my line in two thousand thirteen or so when I saw my intellectual heroes getting called sexist for things that had nothing to do with sexism. And that's when I realized something wrong was happening here. When I asked questions, I got the academic literature as sociological, they called it. But it's not actually sociological definition of systemic sexism and systemic racism. And I said, well, here we have two definitions. Why are we not trying to be clear?
Why are we muddying the water and using these like they're interchangeable when they mean different things? And for me, that was my breaking point. And that was that was seven years ago. Cavanaugh I actually heard from somebody yesterday that the Cavanough hearing was his breaking point. When he saw that, he said that that's it. A lot of people, though, not many on the left, when Donald Trump was elected and we saw the emergence of a so-called hashtag resistance and we saw marches for abstract concepts like women and with no particular policy goals in mind with no, it's just a women's march for what?
To resist Donald Trump and his existence. And then particularly, I've heard many people say the movement of, quote, not my president, where all of a sudden a duly elected president, according to the Constitution, was considered illegitimate based on who he was. That was a lot of people's breaking point. The recent I've heard hundreds, if not thousands of people that the recent month or two month long trochus on Twitter over whether two plus two equals four or five was a lot of people breaking point where they said, OK, if they're willing to throw out objective truths, that's too far.
Yeah, that's too far. So even basic mathematics, science. I shared a thing on Twitter this morning. It's actually old. I've seen it before about a project to decolonize light, saying that the way that we've studied light has been wholly from a scientific perspective and other perspectives on light aren't considered legitimate science. And so we have to decolonize light. And this is real. This was funded, I think this is Canadian, but it was funded by their government to to support this line of research.
And so when people see things like that or when they see Dr. Ebrahim Kendy, the How to be antiracist book author, getting invited to speak at NASA recently, last week, that was too far for some people. When they see today, Jack on Twitter announced that he's giving Ibram Candy in his antiracist policy institute at Boston University. Ten million dollars. That was some people's work breaking point. A lot of times, though, it's going to be personal.
It'll be when somebody that they love gets fired, gets cancelled, gets pilloried, gets called a racist illegitimately like it was for me. My intellectual heroes are called sexist when they weren't sexist. And I said something's wrong here. So it'll be something for everybody. But people need to find out what it is and they need to get their friends to to deal with it and say, you know, if they tear down a statue, a lot of people should have said if they ever tear down a statue of George Washington, that's gone too far.
And a lot of people didn't, and they tore down a statue of George Washington and a lot of people rationalized it. Let me let me tell you, one of the more frightening things that I've done recently is while I was on vacation, I read nineteen eighty four again. And I haven't I haven't read nineteen eighty four since, I don't know, I was in high school or whatever and I remember reading it then and it being a really good book.
But you had to, you had to kind of, you know, play into it and give it a little more credibility. And you could think of when I read it, you could think of the Soviet Union or whatever this thing read like a newspaper. It read like today's newspaper in America. And it was hair raising, which brings me to the two plus two equals five. You you you've released a Twitter storm that just I mean, it became like a Category five hurricane where you were mocking two plus two equals five, right?
Mm hmm. That's right. And you all of a sudden saw all of these people backing that up and arguing that, you're right, two plus two isn't for.
That's right. Even today, while I was waiting to sit down with you, I was checking my Twitter and seeing that one of the most prestigious mathematicians in the world, one of the most accomplished mathematicians in the world, a fields' medalist was still arguing about how two plus two doesn't always have to equal four.
And so this is happening all started where somebody asked me to explain how would this ideology, the critical social justice or WOAK ideology, think about something like two plus two? Well, they say it's for what they say it's five. What they say it's three. What they say it's something else. And I said the answer is that it would say that. They would say that it doesn't matter what two plus two equals, but that we should be suspicious of the answer.
Four, because that's a dramatic narrative that came from white supremacy. And so I made this card that I put on Twitter. I woke Menis and I put just a little satirical quips and little pretty cards and I put them out on Twitter and it said something to the effect of two plus two equals four is a perspective in white Western mathematics that excludes other possible values or marginalizes other possible values, maybe. And so this kind of just was funny.
And then somebody ended up tagging the creator of the 60 19 project, Nicole Jones, within about a month later. And then she tried to make fun of it by saying that I had used Arabic numerals for two and four. And she said, that's so damn classic. And she made fun of it. Well, this ends up within a few days it had tapped into this massive movement. So this is actually not just a Twitter fight. It tapped into this massive movement to change our education in terms of ethnic studies.
This is already the law in Washington. It's already the law in California, just passed in California when California. Now what they no longer are going to be teaching just history. They are now going to be teaching what they call herstory.
My head hurts and they are to h, x, r r story instead of history, and so this is working its way into the education system of New York. This is three, of course, very blue states, but it will go to others. This is the objective to change our education system. And so one of the reformers, if we'll call them that, one of these activists trying to change our education systems in Washington, the secretary director of their program there tweeted, wow, somebody had gotten into the two plus two equals five thing.
And she said, wow, there's this line of attack against my ethnic studies program in Washington, mathematics, saying that it would mean two plus two equals five. How can we turn this into a true statement? That's what she said. How can we turn two plus two equals five into a true statement? And now that was at the very beginning of July. Here we are in mid to late August. And ever since it's been raging for people to try to turn two plus two equals five into a true statement.
And the reason is because they want to and they've said this explicitly, I'm not just interpreting. They want to undermine the idea of objectivity in mathematics so that you can't trust your own senses, just like in nineteen eighty four. You can't trust your own reason, just like in nineteen eighty four. You have to listen to them. They will tell you what two plus two equals. One equals four when it doesn't equal four because two plus two equals doesn't matter.
But we should be suspicious of the white supremacist answer for you. They want to set themselves up as the arbiters of what is true and false for everybody.
You need to read an article that I just read this morning in Forbes, and it was doing your own research, maybe deadly. And it was that no one, even some scientists by themselves, no one is qualified to give you the truth unless you are an expert in that particular field. And so that people should no longer do their own homework, no matter how hard you try, you will never come up with the right answer because you don't know even the questions to ask.
That's the most enslaving idea I think I've ever heard.
Yeah, it's a complete perversion of the idea of expertise, expertise is supposed to mean that somebody has studied the proper methods or the proper material to be able to be more likely to render a correct opinion. Not not that they automatically will. Right. And that everybody, therefore, must trust them. The liberal principle, meaning philosophically liberal, like our Constitution, when applied to knowledge, is that we have checking of each by each science works because anybody, anybody it could be some teenager in his basement fooling around with his chemistry set could overturn the biggest Nobel Prize winning scientist by saying while the experiment says you made a mistake.
So you are correct.
This is the exact opposite of of of what leads us to truth, what leads us to knowledge and what prevents us from falling into the tyranny of people who are on Twitter. I've just started calling them our betters in a very sarcastic, satirical way. Our betters have said this or better's think of us this way. This is what our betters say.
And I mean, you know me, I'm not not exactly a right wing populist, but this is a this is this is the sentiment, though, that has to rise up from everybody who's not already captured by this mindset is that these people are attempting to appoint themselves philosopher kings who are going to rule us because they know better than us and that we we can't do the experiment for ourselves. The other one, that's when you were telling me about Forbes.
I was thinking of how many things I've seen where they're trying to make home schooling illegal or now they're trying to with the with the coronavirus we're all having a lot of school is going to be virtual. It's going to be via the Web. And I just saw just saw an article minutes ago that was talking about how a school system and I don't know where I'd have to actually look into it more closely with the school system is requiring parents to sign forms, saying that they won't watch what the teachers are doing with the kids in their own homes.
And, you know, you had the guy at Harvard saying that home schooling should be illegal. The children are literally wards of the state and therefore they need the state education. And all of these people are now arguing that home schooling is racist. It's a way for racists to keep making racist children and to perpetuate the ideologies of white supremacy. And there's a real threat that this could win. I keep hearing people say, well, if this keeps up in our schools, I'm going to homeschool.
And I'm I keep thinking, if you don't fight back now that in a year that won't you won't be able.
You won't have to. Yeah, it'll be illegal.
You want to know the secret to staying sweat free this summer? Tommy John's ultra breathable underwear and bras. I'm wearing one of their bras right now and my breasts are breathing like they've never breathe before.
They have a range of some already breathable options, but they're cool. Cotton underwear for men and women is like having your own on body AC. Tommy John's cool cotton made from premium natural Pima Cotton for enhanced airflow. It evaporate sweat super fast, keeping you dryer, cooler and more comfortable than regular cotton. And if you want to add some chilled to your cheeks when the summer heats up, choose Tommy John cool cotton underwear. All of Tommy John's layers are built for next level comfort.
Whether you're on the hunt for lounge pants or lazy day joggers or the soft Zoome Ready Tees and polos. It's Tommy John there. Have you covered upgraded Tommy John today with enhanced designs that are super breathable and way more comfortable than anything else out there? It is Tommy John. Right now you can get a full refund with their best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee. Tommy John. No adjustment is needed for a limited time. Go to Tommy John Dotcom back and get twenty percent off your first order.
They keep shape and Tommy John Dotcom back for 20 percent off Tommy John Dotcom back. James, do you know that I built the blaze years ago because I was in the system, I worked for CNN and then I worked for Fox and I saw it's the same game. It's the same game. And I wanted an independent voice that no one could ever squelch.
Depending if things move as quickly as they are moving right now, I'm not sure that I have a voice left in twenty, twenty one and in a lot of people go, oh, that's I'm not alone in that. I've talked to some of the biggest broadcasters and some of the biggest people on YouTube and online, and they're all saying the same thing. I'm not sure we're going to be able to say things next year. Right, yeah, it's actually very concerning and there are very realistic mechanisms, I don't think a lot of people believe this is a problem we talk about and cynical theories is that a lot of people have become comfortable with liberalism again in the not left right American politics, but the broad constitutional sense.
And so they don't want not only do they not have the ability to articulate clear defenses of what it is and reasons that people should stand up for it, they also have come to take it for granted. And they can't think of how a system like ours could become a liberal even while while models for such things are happening in the world today. Mean, I don't understand her model.
I don't know how people don't see it happening here right now. How are people still duped when people say, oh, what rights have you lost? Are you kidding me? Are you not seeing the handwriting?
I feel like a Jew in Germany who's like, I don't know, maybe we should get out of here now. There's nothing to worry about. I mean, this is how it happens.
Yeah, I've actually had the same feeling, and the problem is, is that all of the Western democracies, of course, not all of which exist in the West, but all all of the advanced democracies in the world are going to be subjected to this. Yes.
To keep. Yeah. Where can you go? Because this is this ideology is uniquely parasitic. It is modeled to it is designed to to model itself after whatever it attaches itself to. So if it gets into the Republican Party, it will speak to Republican Party language and will twist the words, twist the policies and and subvert. That's actually the term that they use for their activism subversion. It will subvert the thing from within. People say, oh, well, there's contracts, so there's the Constitution or there's the First Amendment or there's this.
So there's that. You change the word. If you change the meanings of the words, then you change the contract without changing a single word in it. You change the meaning of the words in the Constitution doesn't mean the same thing anymore. And it doesn't it doesn't protect you at all. And so this is what's happening. So when we come back, not to drag back to two plus two, but this was one of the literal this is the main argument that's being made.
The two plus two doesn't always equal four. Is that well, if you change the meaning of two or if you change the meaning of plus or if you change the meaning of equals or if you change the meaning of for one person even said explicitly, no, this isn't a person of any significance. But one person even says explicitly that if we just allow the symbol to in the symbol for to mean completely different things or the symbol five, to mean completely different things, then two plus two equals five is a true statement.
Automatically we just change the meaning of the symbols. And then the statement is it means whatever they want it to mean. But this seems silly and funny or whatever. But it's very serious because if you change the meaning of the words in the Constitution, the Constitution now means something different and you have no protections left. If you change the meaning of the words in your contracts, your contract means something different and now you can be held to something you never signed up for.
And this is a real threat. And this is actually how this ideology operates because it's so concerned with the power of language that it manipulates at that level and it's able to therefore enter into anything and subvert the thing itself by changing the way that the language that that whether it's a community, whether it's an organization, whether it's a company, whether it's a government, whether it's an individual relationship, how all of the language used by those people takes on, meaning that all gets changed and then it has all the power by making you you think in its terms.
You know, I used to just think this was excuse the expression mental masturbation of of of naming and necessity. Suld Kripke wrote, A wheel is only a wheel because we call it a wheel. And I thought that's the biggest waste of time. In my opinion. That's a useless philosophy for me, but that's really not useless anymore. They have found a way to make the naming and the necessity of naming really a powerful weapon. That's right, so that's ultimately what we wrote cynical theories to track was how did that happen?
Because we know that this and it was mental masturbation, really this this post-modern idea of putting everything in the world of language. We take Jack, dare we say? Oh, he said all the words existent discourses and discourses are kind of like webs of words where meaning is the meaning of any one. Word is is actually defined in terms of its relationship to other words. So if I say dog, we have to think things like animal, we might think canine, we might think Carnivore or omnivore.
I guess for dogs we might think. We also have to think plants because plants are not animals. We have to think cat because a cat is an animal that's not a dog. We have to think in terms of things that that dogs are and are not. So all of the words are just in relationship to other words and meaning is completely different. You can't say dog and point to a dog and anybody actually understand you. That was the point he was making.
And in the same token, you can't read a text and understand what the author intended. You you can only understand the words in relationship to the other words on the paper and in terms of how those words mean something to you. And so you take that is a structural deconstruction idea. And so then you take that and you combine that with with Michelle Fuyuko. Power works through everybody and power is generated by what we validate is knowledge and what we don't.
And to talk about truth and falsity misses the point that it's politics that decide what's true in politics and decide what's false and that constrains people and their potentialities of being. And so it all generation of that generation and a half of kind of worthless academics just doing this screwy stuff with language that didn't make any sense. And as you said, it's mental masturbation.
And then what happened is in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a bunch of literally radical activists, properly radical activists who wanted to change society and exactly the way that Marx laid out. Figured out how to use those rhetorical tricks to take apart everything they consider to be dominant in society while safeguarding everything, they decided to be their own interests. And so they learned how to twist that postmodern language game, which that's what they actually referred to as language games to their to their advantage for for real effective activism.
And so these people, this handful of activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s who were deeply informed from the Frankfurt School of Neo Marxism, the black feminists, the radical feminists, these these people who are deeply informed in those regards figured out how to play post-modern language games to remove the necessity of truth and falsity from their their their work at all. They no longer had to be constrained by the truth. They no longer had an obligation to tell the truth or to define the truth or to look for the truth or to communicate the truth.
In fact, they were able to recast and this is famously in a paper by I think her name was Kelly Oliver in nineteen eighty nine. It was no longer a necessity to be concerned with true theories or false theories, but only politically useful theories. And so the idea of true and false following Fuyuko became political. The idea that meaning cannot be found by pointing to the world, but only in how words relate to one another, gave them language games that came from Derrida.
And the next thing you know, these radical activists who were the same ones that rose up in the sixties that we were talking about earlier had the means to take the brakes off the train and run it down the track anyway. So, James, what is the.
I mean, because it's you're just making imbeciles out of people, you're you're creating the situation that the Soviet Union had where they couldn't grow crop, they couldn't make a timepiece that could actually keep time. And when you can't make a time timepiece, you really can't do a lot of things. What is the goal of the people? I mean, are they just evil?
How did they how do they see good coming out of this?
So it's complicated. There are, of course, one people who are more cognizant of how this is a very explicit kind of revolution in the way that you are talking about. But I think the majority are sincere, to be honest with you. Most people don't agree with me on this. But I do think that the majority of even the scholars are very sincere and they've been convinced by, as South Park put it, by smelling their own farts for now, a very long time, by getting too lost in the theories.
I mean, we have that saying an idea so stupid and only an academic could believe it or something like that. And so they've convinced themselves that oppression really did come from the system. I hear people all the time who say that, well, I used to think about things this way and then I studied, say, critical race theory or I studied even Marx Marxist theory. And then I had to learn to think in systems. And now that I think in systems, I see how it's the system itself that everything has to be torn down.
And so they believe that if they can get all of the problems out of the system, if they can unmake the problematic system, that the utopia is sure to follow, that everything all the they believe that the problems, all the problems of society come from the fact that dominant groups create the problems they've completely lost, the lost all perspective of of anything else. And I think that the majority of the people doing this are, in fact, in some sense what would be called useful idiots.
They don't realize that their theory is bad. They don't realize that there's a giant non sequitur. It's the same non sequitur, but in a different context that Marx had. Marx laid out his great theory about the failures of liberal societies, of capitalist societies, and he wasn't wrong about everything. Obviously, he was able to identify some real points, in particular the group richness of people and the way that society ratifies and sees themselves as class groups for Marx or identity groups as we see it now, and that this has real meaning for people and that way.
But his belief was, well, if you just wake everybody up to this, everything will be perfect. And there was no mechanism by which that was supposed to work. There was no actual economic theory that would explain how this is supposed to work out in practice. And so then what you get is people who have to start denying the truth when it doesn't work, then to get increasingly brutal, to force people to go along with it. And then, as you pointed out, to make them dysfunctional, to make them they don't have time pieces at work.
I talked to a systems expert, if you wanna talk about systemic things, a systems expert recently who was telling me about his own research, one of the things that he had done years ago without any knowledge of this particular question was what happens if you just do synchronize? So you have a functional organization needed, did a computer model and you just synchronize people's clocks so that on average people are a little bit late to every meeting. They missed deadlines by a little bit and then they built a slider on it.
And so what happens is that the drop off in productivity is not anywhere near as slow as you might think it is. You slide that thing a little bit, you do synchronize people a little bit. You take their time, pieces away a little bit and productivity drops off a cliff. And he said, you don't even have to go very far. And actually, the entire the productivity of the organization falls to zero very, very quickly. And the entity cannot function just by synchronizing people to a relatively small degree.
So when you talk about building tiny pieces that don't work or as we hear about it now, you can hear about decolonizing time or you can hear people literally in the state of Washington and then the government who are on video saying things like keeping to a schedule on a meeting agenda is literally white supremacy coming out of my mouth. It is now a I think it was on the I don't remember if it was on the list of Smithsonian published or not, but they had that horrendous list of things that were white.
See, but it's very common now to see punctuality is a vestige of white supremacy. But I remember to tell you it falls apart.
I remember I don't remember what City was in. And I remember telling this story back then.
I used to do, believe it or not, at one point before the world got so serious, I was actually I did comedy and we went to this big Fox Theater or whatever it was in this southern city. I grew up the Pacific Northwest, so we didn't have the busing. We didn't do so. We just didn't have that. Problem and so I didn't really understand it, and I remember I walked up and I was talking to the sheriff of the town, I think the mayor of the town was there.
And the person that was running the theater, the general manager of the theater and I, we just chatted for a while and I said I got to I got to go. And I looked at the theater manager and I said, and we really like to start on time. Eight o'clock, eight o'clock, seated or not, we start and they all laughed. And one of them said, well, you're on colored standard time down here. And I couldn't even process it.
I was like colored one. And then I realized, oh, my gosh, you're talking about black people. I felt like it was the heat of the night or something. This is this is exactly what the Smithsonian put out. It was it was just reverse racism.
And that's what's happening now in California, where they're trying to take away that. You can't discriminate based on race. They believe now that the only way to reverse discrimination is to exact is to do that reverse discrimination and discriminate against those who they say are racists. This is progress. It takes you back four hundred years. Right.
And so you can even we mentioned Abraham Kennedy, the how to how to be an anti racist guy who's now bestseller lists all over the place speaking to NASA. Just got a huge grant from Jack at Twitter. And he explicitly says in his book, which many, many people have been compelled to read, it explicitly says explicitly says that if if antidiscrimination creates unequal results, then it's racist. And if discrimination creates more equal results, then it's anti racist.
And that's the impetus behind what's going on in California. You have literally people saying we need to start discriminating and they can say some nice thing like, oh, well, we just mean something like affirmative action. What you could say is a positive discrimination. We're going to we're going to we're going to discriminate in favor of certain groups to try to help them out. But because I mean, what does this turn into? There are only so many spots.
It's not to say that everything is zero sum, but at some level, this does require negative discrimination against other groups. And you see this very vividly with the now it was at Harvard and now there's a much bigger scandal about Asians at Yale. And then Yale comes out and just like, yep, we're going to keep doing it, Justice Department, whatever, we're just going to keep doing it. And it's astonishing because there's now the I cringe to call intellectual, but there's no the intellectual architecture in place to justify the unmaking of one of the crowning achievements of American history, which is the Civil Rights Act.
And it's like you said, it's it's like you fell back into the heat of the night.
I felt the same way when I was watching the video of this meeting I mentioned in the Washington State Equity Task Force. So this is, again, state level. This is not a legislative body. This is a administrative state level body that has been installed. It exists. And they literally we're talking about how if people somebody came in late to the meeting, we need to we need to pay attention like they would do in South Africa and this kind of slow speech or do like in South Africa.
Hey, how's your family? Let's chat and catch up for ten or fifteen minutes, then we'll catch you up on what happened in the meeting and we'll delay everything. Thirty minutes, she said, well, we need to really work on kind of like South African time. And it's just like, holy crap, what in the world is I mean, I saw that in January. I was in a hotel when somebody sent it to me. I was like twelve thirty.
And I had to give a talk and then the next day and it's like I just couldn't stop watching this boring administrative meeting. I just stared at it for nearly an hour. I couldn't stop watching it, just aghast. And that was in January. And now it's like, oh yeah, that's normal. That's just how things are now.
And so what with what is in the book, you talk about, you know, the fat theories. I think that's what's called fat studies. That's just a thumbnail of fat studies here. OK, so the book traces just to kind of give a quick overview of what postmodern philosophy is, how it changed in the 1980s and 1990s, as we spoke about, and then it details a number of the specific branches of this new way of thinking, new way of thought, one of them as fat studies.
So fat studies is is not. So I tell people about this a lot and they're like, oh, you mean people doing research into like obesity and health? And I know this is not a fad studies. It's a fad studies.
If we give the thumbnail version, if you could imagine almost the most, you know, sketch comedy support group for fat people and then turn that into an academic theory. That's what it is. It denies that it only uses the word obesity and scare quotes. It denies that obesity is real. It calls it a medicalising narrative that is used to induce fat phobia, which is a systemic hatred of fat people, just like homophobia. It's not the fear of fat people.
It's a systemic hatred, just like homophobia, and that it encourages fat stigma. And so obesity needs to be taken out of the consideration of the medical field. Your doctor should not be allowed to tell you that obesity is linked to health conditions whatsoever. They shouldn't be allowed to tell you that you're overweight because that assumes that there is a correct weight, which is a hegemonic discourse that excludes fat people from society. And it is an entire effort to essentially remove any expectation that we would be able to talk about it being overweight or the medical implications of being overweight in any realistic or scientific way.
There's only talking about the ways in which people who are overweight are oppressed by a society who doesn't welcome them, who doesn't accommodate them at every turn. So airplane seats having a standard size, for example, is an example of fat phobia, hatred of fat people, because the airplane seat having a standard size is not accommodating. The fact that some people are larger and the fact that there are seat belt extensions implies that there's an accurate side, a proper size.
And so that's humiliating to have to get a seat belt extension. And so it's a further way to to embarrass and stigmatize fat people. So fat studies is is a way to stop studying anything to do with being overweight in a realistic way and to turn it into something like a support group on steroids that believes the society literally hates fat people and is out to get them at every turn and needs to rearrange itself completely to accommodate obesity and to pretend that it doesn't have health associated risks.
So I was having dinner with Vince Vaughn about ten years ago and we were just talking about our backs. I have a bad back. He has a bad back. And the conversation just kind of meandered into that. And he said, you know, I just I just got my back fixed. And she said, I've never felt better. He said, you know, my wife was always giving me her theories and my back was bad. And he said I didn't listen.
And and he said so I went and I went to all these doctors. He said, I finally tried acupuncture. He said, Have you tried acupuncture? And I said, yeah, it didn't work for me. And he said, well, it did for me. He said, I went to this old Chinese guy in Chicago and he said, I took my clothes off and I'm laying down. And he said, this guy is just ancient.
He said, I felt like I was in China. And he said he came up and he said, you know, they put them in your ears right on the ear in the years. And he said, so they were poking the pins and he was poking the pins in the ears. And he said, the Chinese guy said, you fat.
And he said, I realized my problem was I was overweight. And so I lost weight. So his version of acupuncture working was him just having somebody else say what his wife had been saying. You're fat, lose some weight and you'll feel better. Your back will feel better. The point of this is, is all of these studies. Are dangerous, they are telling I mean, you tell me if you create a world where Glenn Beck is every right and he should feel good about going to having more ice cream.
I will have more ice cream because you're just enabling me to have more ice cream. In my case, I bring my fatness on because I'm lazy. I don't like to work out you. You have a doctor. Stop telling me to work out. You have a doctor. Stop telling me. Hey, stop eating that stuff. It's bad for your your blood pressure. You're killing people. You're killing people. It's it's like this these theories and these critical studies.
It's like a death cult.
It is in certain regards within fat studies and disability studies in particular, there are direct health implications, direct health implications.
So we can talk about and it causes us to deny as well. Like for and I don't know if you've heard of this, I'm sure you have the people who say they're born handicapped and they're born with only one arm, but they have both arms. And in Canada, they were debating on whether or not doctors should amputate arms. Perfectly good arms. No, man, that's a psychiatric issue you have to answer, right? That's right.
And it gets very literally psychiatric as well, because within disability studies, for example, there is a diseases like depression which can end and suicide are often characterized as identities. And they talk about the depressed community and the depressed identity with a capital D. And so at that point, you no longer try to treat depression. You try to lean into your depression and you try to make your depression part of who you are. And most importantly, because these are critical studies, just like with fat studies.
And this is part of why they deny medical intervention. But also here and just with everything else, you're supposed to turn your identity into a political side of political activism, a political identity. So we heard that with the 60 19 project woman Nicole Jones, where she tweeted about people being politically black isn't the same as being racially black. You have politically fat. One of the things when we did our our Greven studies fake papers, we wrote Fat Body-building and it was based off of reading in the Fat Studies literature.
Somebody said that it takes time to build a fat body. It takes even more time to build a politicized fat body. And I thought that's just the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.
And so that's where fat bodybuilding came from. And so. But this is true, though. So now you're supposed to adopt your identity as a means of politics. That old saying the personal is political is taken to the absolute extreme. And the point is to do radical identity politics where you claim that the system is hurting people with my identity. And it's an extreme example. But it's true. This actually within fat studies, for example, and it also shows up in disability studies that the doctors encouraging people to lose weight or if we invented a weight loss pill.
Of course, every pharmaceutical company in the world would love to invent this. That causes people to get to the ideal weight if they just take this pill within fat studies. The such an invention or even the advice of doctors is is construed as encouraging a fat genocide because it would make it so there are no fat identities any longer. You see this with the impetus to cure certain disabilities most frequently deafness. It's a deaf genocide to give people, say, cochlear implants or other implants that allow them to hear when they're deaf.
And so this is this very warped mind set where the identity politics and the the cultural identity of of everything becomes the most important factor in reality becomes basically irrelevant. James, I.
You know, I think you were really nervous when the first time you came on my my program because, I mean, you could you could say a lot of things about me. And people have said those things, but they're all most of them are cartoon characters and and and inaccurate. But the one thing that is true about me is I'm a I'm a very religious man. I'm open minded, and I'm not trying to preach my religion. And I know great atheists.
And I in the last couple of years, I've tried to maybe five years, I've tried to stop using the word evil because it's such a powerful word and means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And I think we've just gotten so cavalier with that with that word.
However, if you just categorize evil as just destructive, intentionally destructive to the wellness of a species, a planet, whatever, I can't find another word to describe this.
I mean, I just. That's right. It's just evil.
So I as you know, I'm not a particularly religious man, but I have many religious friends, some of whom are very significant religious people. And I listen to them very seriously. I want to understand how their faith informs that thinking, how it informs their life. I want to understand it on those terms. And I do agree that the word evil applies. And so it's one thing where there's the intentional desire to tear apart and destroy and that is evil.
There's another thing where the where a person has given in to self centered envy to such a degree that they'll destroy anything so that other people can't have something that they don't have that's also evil. And so I see this in a very kind of spiritual way that this movement is I mean, scratch the surface and you find that envy. It's always there. Somebody has something that I don't.
And the desire to to the the so I don't want to get to theological seeing as I've just set myself up as not, you know.
But the truth is but the truth is that there are a few features of the character of Satan or of the deceiver, that that it is the temptation to obsessing about the self and then to turn that to not to, oh, how do I improve myself, but how do I tear down that which is against me? That's a very spiritual way to see evil. And that's present here. It is a deep focus inward on the self in a negative way and then projecting it onto the world.
And then the second way, and I think this is very important, is that they seek justice, but in not to again get to theological Bible justice is paired with mercy, and that's what makes God righteous and good. And this is justice with the opposite of mercy. There is no forgiveness. There is no mercy. There is what they consider to be justice. It's French.
That's revolutionary justice. It's right. And when you combine that with the manipulation of language and you remember that the point of the character of Satan is the deceiver, and so the people are deceiving you with their I mean, it's just all there that I don't subscribe to the theology myself, but I understand the archetypes that it's speaking to and it's all there. And to consider this to be evil is, as I think we've spoken about once before, I don't like to use that word.
But this is what this is it. This is what evil looks like, and there are other kinds of evil in the world, but this is one. And here it is. So.
What does this society look like and how long do you think it takes us to get to? I mean, it it never stops eating. I mean, it's a it will eat itself, so eventually it destroys itself. But when does it get to a place of real oppressive power to where we would recognize it as the former Soviet Union or, you know, the the Nazis or whatever?
How far away are we from that? What has to happen? It's very difficult to say how far, but the first instance where a significant institution that we truly depend upon, like our food supply chain collapses, that's where it starts to recognize to look like that very quickly. Of course, if people were better students of history and I don't want to set myself up like I am a great student of history, they would recognize that the riots that we're seeing in the cities mirror incidents in previous revolutions and the Cultural Revolution of China, the cultural revolution of China is I mean, this is where you add Mao's objective was to destroy the four old the old culture had to be completely removed.
And that's exactly what you see now is the status quo. Do you even see everybody who's OK, Boomer? Everybody's a dinosaur. We're going to watch the dinosaurs die. And it was led by the youth who Mao turned into the Red Guard and he printed his little red book. And it had all of the little communist sayings and the sayings. And this is what you're seeing and all of those anti racist literature, the same kinds of the same kinds of thought stopping and revolution driving aphorisms like white silence is violence.
These are the exact kinds of things, white complicity. Now, there's brown complicity in these kinds of ideas are to have a strong historical precedent in the Cultural Revolution of China. And so I don't I don't know how to answer your question for how to how do you recognize it? How will people recognize it? Because I already see it and I can't not see it at this point. And I don't know how other people can't see it. But what what will I mean, I have a few points.
If we talked about breaking points earlier that I think will be unambiguous for large segments of the population. One would be the collapse of a major necessary institution that we actually depend upon for our livelihoods, like whether that's bank economy, banks, the economy, the food supply chain. I mean, we almost saw the early on with some some shutting down all of the meatpacking plants with with the covid.
So I think the shutting down of the banks is is I believe it could happen between now and spring easily. Might take longer than that, but it could happen tomorrow. Could happen.
I think it could happen very soon. And it's very difficult to make predictions about how soon that will be. But there are certain things another sign and I don't know what form this will take as far as getting people's attention. I predicted from the first moments of the riots breaking out in Minneapolis after George Floyd died, I predicted that the sign that would tell the majority of the public that it's time to wake up would be one of two things. It would either be literal marches on the suburbs where they're trying to do the disruptive nonsense.
They're in people's homes or and this is the more poignant one police officer swinging from trees and literal lynching. And those things, I think would actually wake people up.
No, I know the neighborhood is already happening. There were two neighborhoods last night. Yeah, two neighborhoods.
Well, and then there are three, because this week I've seen two different neighborhoods where they are literally marching and saying in the middle of the night, wake up, white people, wake up. We're here for it. Another one I saw was the this poor family was just out barbecuing and white family. And this group was just talking about how they're going to take their house and they're racists. And and the kids were just standing there. And I thought, how how how do you how do you feel comfortable?
How much longer do Americans stand by and take it? So one of the things that people need to understand about the ideology, and this was directly from a teaching education conference, but it also comes out of a myriad of their literature. There is actually a statement, there's the concept within their literature called white comfort, and they say that the idea of what comfort is that white people are comfortable with the racial status quo. And the next follow up line is, therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect.
So this idea of going around and doing that to make people uncomfortable is core to the ideology. And so it will continue. Anything that makes white people feel comfortable is suspect. And this is this I mean, this this is from Robin D'Angelo, who's now one of the most recognized figures in our culture. This is literally one of her ideas. And so this is what's going to continue. And so my question is actually. Eh, when do we decide that this is enough, and B, how do we decide that is enough and hopefully we decide through the law and not through vigilante action, and that's where I actually have the most fear.
I really do hope and, you know, there's a trick here that's being played and it's that they've laid this story for so long that Trump is a fascist, that is an outright fascist. He's going to take control. He's never going to give up. The presidency is going to be whatever all these things that they say and he's a dictator and so on, so forth. And so many people that lean left of center believe this. That we can't even have the police show up to our son.
Or to riots or to the physical beating of a person almost to death on the street, we can't even have the police show up because they'll cry. The the force of the state is cracking down on peaceful protesters. This is this is fascism in action trumps finally and acting as fascism. And people believe it, but people believe it. That's right. There is is the issue.
The problem with that is, again, it's two plus two equals five. We're being asked to deny what we see. You know, they've made Trump into this fascist. And quite honestly, you know, before he was president, I mean, you know, it was like something goes wrong. This guy could turn into a dictator like that. But he has resisted every single call for taking over situations covid everything he could. They were encouraging him to do it.
The left was encouraging.
And the states, the left states are becoming much more fascistic and they're denying that that's what fascism is.
And protecting the protecting just the the average store owner, you know, or the or the neighborhood that's now fascist to the left and to the Democrats, yeah, they it's it's just like two plus two equals five in two ways.
One is the demand that we deny the reality that we can see with our own eyes. The other is the manipulation of language. Two plus two does equal five if we just change what five means. And so or if we change what plus means or if we change what people's means. And so here there's a completely different definition of fascism, which if you look into it, the definition of fascism that's in operation is a state that functions.
That's it. It has police. It has order. It has expectations that people will follow rules. That's fascism. And that can be traced again to the same thinkers tracing back into the nineteen sixties in particular. The same thinkers are laid down these ideas and they've been festering for 50 or so years and have turned into this.
You do something where you have a social justice dictionary that I think is really, really important because there's all these new words and everybody seems to speak them overnight. All of a sudden everybody is saying this new word and you're like, what? When did that happen? What does that word mean?
And I want to go through I want to go through a few of them with you, because I intentionally did not read the definition of these words, because I want to see if I can get anywhere even close.
And I don't think I can medicalising that is like mansplaining except to biomedical professional.
That's actually fairly close, medicalising is to turn an issue that should not be thought of in medical terms into medical a medical issue, and so you could think of a real example, and that is a real debate around, for example, addiction. Should addiction be treated as a social issue? Should it be treated as a medical issue? Is a disease? Is it what kind of a problem is it? Right. And so to just say, well, we're just going to give people methadone and send them home or whatever, that would be medicalising the issue and thus missing the nuance.
And so there's a real use of this word. And then there's the use as well. As we actually mentioned, in fact, studies and disability studies where saying somebody is depressed and treating that as a medical issue or somebody is overweight and treating that as a medical issue. They say that it turns this into a medical issue when it's really not a medical issue and should not be treated as a medical issue. And then they assert further that this is an example of the application of hegemonic power where we believe scientific discourses and don't believe non-scientific discourses and this constrains people and hurts them.
So responsibleize. That is the saying that something is responsible, that is part of the fascist state or the the the white culture or your clothes again.
So again, this is a term that has a real a real legitimate use. The term and it's legitimate use means to make a person responsible for something that previously some other entity, often the state took care of. So if. Social Security, in a way, to responsible eyes, you have responsibilities, right, the elderly, right. But where we hear these ideas like victim blaming, so somebody has a sexual assault happen to them and we say if somebody were to reply, what was she wearing that makes her responsible for something that shouldn't have happened?
So the way that the critical social justice ideology sees it is anything that the system should not be allowing that we then say somebody should take responsibility for. So a more realistic situation is when when maybe on college campuses, maybe just in broader society, we recommend women's self-defense classes. Women learn how to learn to use a gun, you know, get your carry permit, learn a little basic martial arts so that you can can be raped safe. That would responsiblities the woman.
Now she has to do this extra thing that she wouldn't have otherwise had to do. And if rape just didn't exist because the system didn't allow rape to exist, you wouldn't have to do it. So you have responsibilities to her. You've given her responsibility in her life where she shouldn't have to have her smile.
I have to tell you. And again, I go back to evil. Everything this preaches is against everything that we learned was good. It's the exact opposite. Don't have responsibility. You don't have responsibility. Myia, I grew up in a world where take responsibility for your own life. Pull yourself you you can the world can throw manure on you all the time. But how you react to it is what is going to make the determining if it will be the determining factor in your life.
That's no longer. That's nonsense. That's that's white. Power that will allow them to give you an explicit example of that you're already hearing people suggesting and I've heard several people emailed me about this say even in the context of their therapy sessions where they've been raped and they have post-traumatic stress over their actual rape and they're dealing with it. And then their therapist tries to point out to say they're raped by a black man. This is a true story. Somebody sent me and they were discussing it with their therapist in the context of therapy.
And the therapist said, well, you have to think about the way systemic racism shaped those those people's lives. And so maybe they aren't fully responsible for what they did and you shouldn't put responsibility on them that would responsiblities them. You see it with these new movements. Now, I don't know if you've seen just in the last few days the idea of considering crime as a social construct. Crime doesn't really exist. And if you understood the systems of of poverty, the systems of racism, the systems of bigotry, then you would understand why people say break into homes and steal things are looted, loot a store or whatever else.
And so these people can't be held responsible. We saw that literally with the looting that followed George Floyds death, people were saying, well, look at the the systemic racism. They can't be held responsible for the material conditions of their lives. So obviously, they're going to turn to these kinds of actions or they're going to turn to crime because they can't be held responsible. So saying no, what you need to actually be responsible and not loot a target.
You need to be responsible and not shoot people. That was also under this within the context here of race would also count as responsible izing people. And so this taps into literally the defund the police and the prison abolition movement, saying that those people can't be held responsible because racism is what made them into criminals. And calling them criminals applies a straight out of a disciplinary term to them that is socially constructed and unfair and meant to just control their black and brown bodies.
This is literally the way they use language and think about the world.
So the other of the other things are genocide, exclusion, science, fascism, identity. I thought I could like genocide. I mean, trying to kill everybody of a certain race. That's not how that's not what that is anymore.
Well, it's that and it's also the idea that you would in some way wipe out a cultural identity. So say, for example, that you were to encourage all fat people to lose weight. There are no fat people. There's no fat identity. That's a fat genocide. Or you are to cure deafness. That's a deaf genocide because there are no deaf people in deaf culture. Or if you were to say teach say that you have a hypothesis like we see a critical race theory that is white supremacist.
So you were to encourage black people to think scientifically that would take them out of their whatever black cultural context. Or maybe it's South African. We can talk about those. Actually, a movement there called Science Must Fall. That said, the science was a colonizing way of thinking that was displacing traditional knowledge. And so it would be a genocide of those cultures to teach them to think scientifically because those cultures would no longer exist the way that they did.
I mean, it is savage that I mean, part of that is we should have some conversation. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. However, she's changed me. She's changed. She is a remarkable individual because she has it.
It is a heavy cross that tears my heart out almost on a daily basis. But should we reverse all birth or genetic defects, I mean, I.
As a dad, I say yes, as somebody who looks at issues and it's a way to. Make you or the people around you better if you if you adapt to it, I say no. I mean, so we should have that conversation, but we don't have these conversations. They just happen. Right.
I don't think it helps the conversation. So, I mean, there's a simple line where as so long as somebody is sound enough of mine to have power of attorney over themselves, they should be allowed to make those decisions. If somebody is deaf and wants to remain deaf, even in light of a technology, they shouldn't be forced correct. To to take it. And if they want to lean into that culture around being deaf, that's perfectly acceptable. And there's a lot of strength and there's a lot of wisdom and there's a lot of opportunity to learn and learn more about each other in the world in that.
And so it can be made into an individual choice, but turning it into a collective choice and then to shame people say if, say, there was some magic treatment that could could change your your daughter's cerebral palsy. And it were to come along and you you brought it to her and said, well, what do you think? And she was like, I want that. I definitely want that. There's nowhere in the universe that it can possibly be right to try to shame her for wanting that.
But if she also said, you know, I like who I am, I don't want that, there's all it's not appropriate to shame them that way either. There's only what's appropriate is to give them make the most informed choice possible, which means getting to the bottom of objective truths about the situation and then conveying those truths to people and then letting them make up their own minds. That's that's the line. That's what we grew up with. That's the line that actually works.
And when you start thinking in terms of collectives like that, she would be betraying the disabled community by using a different life for something that's horrific.
Horrific, let me know when you do this with theory, that's not even real, I mean, it's even worse.
So let me let me just leave you with some Kipling here. I'd love to get your thoughts on this. Sure. Kipling wrote a poem called The Gods of the Copy Book Headings. It's one of my favorite poems. And he wrote it after the Progressive's. The Fabian Socialist really moved on World War One. And they tried to make this utopia in Europe and it just led to all these deaths. And and he wrote it as a warning for future generations.
And it's the gods of the copy book headings are the things that we knew were true. You know, you would write, you know, water will wet, fire will burn, God is good. And you would copy those for your your penmanship. And let me let me just let me just pick it up in the middle with the hopes that our world is built on, that they were utterly out of touch. They denied the moon was Stilton.
They denied she was even Dutch. They denied that wishes were horses. They denied that pigs had wings. So we worship the gods of the market who promised us all of these beautiful things. When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace. They swore if we gave them our weapons that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed, they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe and the gods of the copybook heading said Stick to the devil.
You know, on the first feminin sandstones we were promised, promised the fuller life, which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife till our women had no more children and the men had lost their reason and faith. And the gods of the copy book had said The wages of sin is death and the Carboniferous epic. We were promised abundance for all by robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul. But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy.
And the gods of the copy book headings said, if you do not work, you will die. Then the gods of the market tumbled and their smooth tongue wizards withdrew and the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true that all is not golden, that glitters and too and to do make for. And the gods of the copy book headings limped up to explain it once more as it will be in the future. It was at the birth of man.
There are only four things certain since social progress began that the dog returns to his vomit in the sow, returns to its mire and the burnt fools bandage finger goes wobbling back to the fire.
And after this is accomplished and the brave new world begins when all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins as surely as water will let us, as surely as fire will burn the gods of the copy book headings with terror and slaughter return.
Yeah, this is it that's oddly prophetic. Yeah, it is, is it? And very hard to find, but we found it in one book. They've done everything they could to erase this poem, I think is.
You know, in your book, you talk about the solution and it's it is the solution, it is the common sense solution. It is the solution we all have been taught and now seemingly are rejecting. Is it going to take terror and slaughter to return to those things? One hopes not, and I don't think that it has gone that far yet, and we hope that that doesn't come about, but people actually do have to understand what's happening. The reason that that poem seems prophetic, it's not prophetic.
It understands it and understands the dynamics of a certain thing. And when that thing is put into practice, what what is going to be the theme of the poem that which is going to come from? That is what is going to come of that. And so there is no prophecy there. And is also, of course, the reminder that that reality is going to last. And it you can't manipulate the situation to get away from the reliable consequences of bad theory.
So we are in a crucial moment.
And I mean that literally in the sense of a Crookes appoint an inflection point in history where if the if people can quickly begin to understand what is happening, what this ideology actually.
Social justice, anti-racism diversity, these all sound great, the branding is awesome, Black Lives Matter branding is perfect. If you can look inside the box and realize, wait a minute, this is definitely not what we're signing up for. These good things that the glitter of the not gold is is not what's really going on here. And people are willing to say no. Things that work are not inherently racist, things that work are not inherently sexist, society functioning is not actually fascist.
This is lunacy. And we're not going to play by these rules. We're not going to keep being rolled by this. We're not going to have to keep giving in to this. And the mob on Twitter will not make us. Then maybe there's a chance that we can avoid the catastrophe that we really don't want to have come as the reset. A few people have died. I don't think that it's necessary that any more die. But we have to remember what principles people need to.
I've gone back and read a little bit again of the Federalist Papers. People need to go read this. People need to understand the Constitution. They need to understand the Declaration of Independence. They need to understand the basic principles of how checking of each by each and accepting the fact that when you lose the argument because the experiment said that your hypothesis was wrong, that that's OK and actually good when people start to remember how we built ourselves out of medievalism, clawing our way five hundred years out of medievalism.
And then they can see that this theory leads to medievalism again, rooted in something like ethnic Gnosticism, they can then decide, no, we're staying with modernity. We're not going back to to a medieval system. We're not giving in to to these little petty dictators and their fiefdoms. And we can avoid the violence that will come if they keep pushing.
I don't want to take this amazing conversation and turn it political or especially leave it political. So you answer this question any way you want. I've heard people say all the time it doesn't make a difference who you vote for. They're all the same. You know, I'm here. It is all kinds of stuff. Does does it matter? And you don't have to get into who. But does it matter who wins in this election? Will that will this election?
Change things for the good or for the worse? I only see no good options in this election. I see no good options. It will matter and it will matter either way. And I think that we have to hope that enough people realize that we are now on a train that is barreling down the tracks and about to shoot off the edge of the cliff to realize that we have to not invest as deeply in the outcome of the election as we are likely to culturally.
That said. I'm very worried in particular, and I say this as a lifelong liberal who does not want to be political. I'm very worried about what will happen if Biden wins this election. I'm very worried about it because I see no, I don't see brakes on the train anywhere, but I see the accelerator pedal. Yeah. Over there. And I don't necessarily even see it in Biden himself. I just I don't I don't see it in the architecture around him and of the fact that the that most of this ideology operates administratively, which is why in some sense it matters.
And in some sense it doesn't, because even under Trump, even under any other president, if some rogue third candidate were to come into the situation and sweep up all of the electoral votes, somehow by some act of thought, experiment, magic, the administration underneath is still at the level of kind of middle management, which is still pretty big at the federal government, is where most of these changes are taking place.
And unless that gets straightened out, there's there's nothing good down this road. That said, as much as I hate to say it, one of the two candidates seems to put up resistance and one of the two candidates seems to accelerate that process. And I'm horrified. I'm horrified because I feel like I can vote for neither. James, I can't thank you enough for being honest and brave and just being who you were meant to be and not slinking away in the darkness.
These are the times that produce the men and women that eventually civilizations build statues to remember, because while they're afraid and while they may know that no good is probably going to come from my standing up, they do it anyway. And you make a big difference. And I'm I don't know if you feel the same way, but I consider you a friend and I'm honored to be your friend. And I feel that way about you for sure, Glenn. I've said it many times before.
I don't agree with you on many things, but I would love it if you were my next door neighbor. Yeah, me too. Me too.
We'd have we'd have great conversations. Thank you. The name of the book is Cynical Theories How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity and Why This Harms Everybody. It's by Helen Rose and James Lindsay James.
Thank you. Thanks, Glenn.
Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people. Oh.