9 Mind-Blowing Contributions From Thomas Sowell (feat. Wilfred Reilly, Ph.D.)

Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute today. I am joined by dr. Wilfred Reilly a professor of political science at Kentucky State University. He's the author of taboo, 10 facts. You can't talk about as well as the book behind him. Hate crime, hoax, dr. Riley, Thanks so much for your time. Well, thanks, as always for having me on the show, Good to be here. One of my favorite authors of

all time is Oh my soul. I follow you on Twitter, and I know you like to discuss a lot of other research you've done on his work. Yes. So many books. The first one that came to mind is the vision of the anointed self-congratulations, as a basis for social policy. What do people need to know about the vision of the anointed? Well I think the vision of the anointed is probably the most important, Thomas Soul book actually because it talks about the phenomenon that we're seeing today.

A of sort of the universally wrong expert, what Tom Soul does in the vision of the anointing is contrast to views almost of human functioning. There's what he calls the tragic Vision, which is the idea that human nature is hard to change and knowledge is hard to get. So institutional rules tend to exist for a reason to some extent. This is chesterton's fence, kind of stuff.

I mean so one of the few debates I ever really lost was with a A Jesuit priest, we were on stage, I think this was a men's club or some similar event back in law school and the priest said, oh you're one of those edgy new atheist guys, right? I would imagine this like 2005, you don't think there's a God or any source for these rules? These moral codes that were discussing and I said some vertical live version of, yeah, that's about right. I'm not sure.

I'd agree with that today. But the priest then said, well, would you agree though that there are laws against things like raping women in your tribe or unprovoked and cold-blooded murder? Child abuse of the worst kind of

cross, almost every society. And I said, yeah, and the audience said, yeah and he said, well, then regardless, whether or not you believe in my version of God, doesn't it imply that these are true to some extent, that it would be very foolish for someone to remove that Norm whether or not you can explain

why it exists. Let me that's 10 points on the debate board or whatever, but it's also just a valid point that the institutional rationales that exist in society usually exist, because they've been developed over a long Long period of time by kind of social interplay between very intelligent people. I mean the chesterton's fence example, is very famously like a guy in the original example is an upper class British man is walking through the woods and he

sees a fence. It's an old broken-down fence, between two properties. And there are two responses, the initial response is well, why don't I tear down that fence? It's a bit of an eyesore, but then the second is well, why don't I first figure out why the fence is there? Go knock on the neighbor's door. We haven't talked in Obviously have vicious dogs. Are there are there fighting

bulls in the yard. Like it would be very stupid just to get rid of that as ugly as it is, without knowing why it's up. So that's the tragic Vision that human beings are not bad per se but flawed predatory monkeys.

It's hard for us to get in, believe knowledge, it's hard to come up with totally original ideas and when you have institutions, whether you're talking about the quantitative Academy or the Catholic church or the family that it performs, I'm fairly well for Millenia. You want to kind of treasure those? You want to unpack and see why they work is they do and whether they can be improved, but you certainly don't want to destroy them rapidly.

So that that's one of the visions of humanity that he outlines. And that's the basis I think for a rational conservatism and going a little Beyond Soul here. If you're thinking about how you would change in this world, change would be incremental. I mean, if you think there's a problem with racism you would take steps to within your Society minimize racism. One thing I've generally done in Boss roles is have people on the HR team, just blank out the

names on resumes, for example. So I have no idea. I'm mildly racist. Is it turns out from the IAT test and so on toward black people IE? I slightly favored black people. I'm a black guy and I actually don't think that's cool. Like, I'm mildly proud to be black, quote unquote, but I mean, I live in Appalachia, it's hardly a privileged white area. So I'm actually not at all positive about the idea of discriminating against a poor

whites. So I just, I just take the names off, I take the addresses off so I have no idea where this guy's from all. I'm seeing is engineering degree, Tulane, and such and such a year or whatnot, and racism. Essentially, with that mild incremental, change, becomes impossible. I suppose that someone could have been a member of the Puerto Rican, you know, political scientists Association or

something like that. There might be outlier cases but 80 Percent of the bigotry you could engage in is god with this incremental change. So that that's what the tragic vision would lead me and I think would lead most other people to support but I've been rambling on about the tragic vision for about 5 minutes that's actually not what Tom's Soul devotes the book too. He says that the alternative to the tragic compilation of knowledge over time.

Vision is the vision of the anointed which is the idea that sort of we're in a new era, we have an academy that's able to do things. It was not able to do before. So knowledge is is being developed very rapidly and this rapidly developed knowledge, allows us to change people, very rapidly one. And it also makes experts far far more intelligent than the majority of people.

So when you're talking to someone with a master's degree in sociology, you're talking to someone who has the almost magic knowledge that's coming out of this new field qualitative sociology. So the vision of the anointed is sort of we have new knowledge has now that we never had before these knowledge has Concentrated in experts and these knowledge has allowed the very rapid change of mankind.

So new knowledge concentrated at experts rapid, change of mankind and these Visions lead to dramatically different perceptions about outcomes. So if you believe in the vision of the anointed, what you would want to do is allow the experts from the studies fields from sociology from the newer fields that were just developing to reshape the institutions that we have in society the old and Sites of the Catholic Church are

copernican or Worse, right? They don't apply anymore to this Brave New World, where we have the Marxist, dialectic and where we have state and our and so on and what soul says to some extent is that this is an empirical question. You can look at whether the insights of Sociology are really anything more than recycled human thought of the kind that judges and, you know, women Circle leaders and so on have been engaging in for a thousand years, he doesn't think they

are. I Either, but you can analyze this to some extent and you can compare the results of policies implemented using the vision of the anointed with the results of policies implemented using the older tragic vision and so the book is actually very empirical I mean it does this there three or four major sections he looks at criminal justice policy. For example, the vision of the anointed in this situation, focuses on the idea that we now have these fields.

Ecology and psycho metrics that. Understand that there are complex mental reasons. People commit crimes. So, the way to reduce crime is to a improve Society so that people no longer feel oppressed. And outcasts, and be specifically treat the mentally ill to make them better people, which should be easy to do, because of the new knowledge

that we have. And he contrast that with the tragic Vision, which is that the way to reduce crime is to have a policeman beat your ass if you commit crimes, like you get Upside and you get tossed in the county jail for a couple days. So is moving away. From the older model, IE reducing the ability of the police to engage in corporal punishment. Reducing the length of sentences cleaning up. Jails, will that increase or decrease crime? One of the points.

He says that I often die crib. Word-for-word often when I debate online is, this is not a moral question. It's an empirical question and so he spends about 40 pages on this and obviously, as you know is an intelligent guy, that's read some books in this. Field. What happened was that when we move toward the theory of the anointed that we should spend more money on social work, Social Services sentences should be shorter.

We should convince people to Criminal Justice System wasn't racist, what happened was that crime, surged dramatically it, didn't drop it. All it turned out that the majority of criminals mean, the the 60% majority of criminals are still white, they had never found the criminal justice system to be racist. The thing that was constraining them was simply how Likely they were to be arrested or beaten or locked up and as that likelihood dropped they began to engage in

dramatically more crime. So you saw Irish American, Italian, American Hispanic Caucasian crime rate, surge even among black criminals, I mean, there might have been, you know, a sense of feeling that Justice had increased, but that was counterbalanced by the idea that it was now easier to victimize. And most of the victims turned out to be other black people. So you saw black crime surge, so Soul points out.

And I mean, I'll kind of shut up after this, because we've gone for A couple minutes on this but Soul points out that you can just really measure this. I mean between 1963 and 1993 crime increased about five hundred percent. We sometimes forget this but the new normal for Crime that those of us that grew up in the 90s saw where people would get on trains and you know musk Ali have sex in big cities or people

would paint graffiti. You walk up the stairs and New York or even Indianapolis. There's graffiti all over the walls. You know that that one movie Kids the movie New Jack City that was a very new Era. Even if it tough blacker, Irish neighborhood in the 1960s, you would never see that police would prevent it fathers would prevent it was, it was not a thing, you saw. But we saw that for decades when we were kids and now we're

seeing it again. Following George Floyd, that's that's a result of conscious policing decisions that were made on the basis of these well-intentioned, but asinine ideas. So the vision of the anointed goes through this chapter by chapter, I mean it goes through criminal justice but then it goes through sex education, it goes to Economic Policy. So on down the line, it's a fascinating book. There is a section here.

It says, the first order of business for the anointed has been to turn the tables on society, which must itself be made to feel guilty for what it complains of, in this section. He talks about how whenever people see a problem, they will blame society as opposed to the more tragic Vision, which will blame the individual. It's amazing how the more you blame society, the less each person feels like they have.

Vested interest. So you won't have the police officers or the father's forcibly stopping people. From, you know, doing graffiti on the subway, they'll just say, gosh, the system really needs to change. Well, my hands are clean because it's actually the system's fault and colonialism and a number of other things, he then has a page where he goes through a series of stages. He says a very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed.

Turn out to fail. Well, this pattern typically has four stages crisis solution, results and response. Walk us through why this is important. This is, this is my favorite graphic it again. SOL, SOL is sometimes criticized for not being empirical enough, this is a very empirical book so he breaks down the four stages of every one of these proposals we just saw this with police defunding. So the first stage is that you identify some kind of Crisis that supposedly exists like

crime. Let's actually do police defunding so the Crisis that supposedly existed during the George Floyd. Jacob Lake, Michael Brown, early years of the quote-unquote racial Reckoning was that there was a mass wave of police killing young innocent men, especially unarmed black man. I think that's a fair cross racial summary of it. We saw these cases including the three, I've mentioned Trayvon Martin, even Dylan Noble on the white side. These are on TV everyday.

So this is the idea of the police are out here. Massacring people, especially black people, especially on our black. People the average liberal I read recently, skeptic Research Center, I believe.

Thanks that between 1,000 and 10,000, unarmed black men, alone are killed by police during a typical year, so this is the crisis that is invented mainstream media outlets in Gio's, Academia. All of these institutions currently lead more than 90% to the upper middle class, political left, and they all kind of transmute. And they promote this story and we see this all the time from Trump is Russian spy to, in a racial crime, against black people to systemic racism in medicine.

These narratives come constantly down the pipeline. And that's what that's what the triple 0 g is referred to in this book. But so, in this particular case, the storyline is in a 10,000 unarmed Brothers, a year, or killed the reality, of course, was that this never happened. That's a clause in Souls, great paragraph, describing the crisis. He says, most of these crises are not real by the 1950s crime in the USA. Was it one of its lowest levels ever?

It was declining for black men. It was declining for Irishman. It was declining for Italians. I imagine those three groups probably accounted for half the crime in the country, at the time, is declining for a Min overall, but you declare the crisis. And in this case, we declared that the crisis was Police Murder. So, step two is the solution, you implement all of these

policies. I mean, over the past couple of years, we've seen major police departments, like New York City, which is often a Bellwether reduce their stops by between 35 and 50 percent. So that's the Adds to the crisis. You quote, unquote, defund the police cities. Like la like NYC. This never reached the levels that right-wing media said it didn't, but it was very real. I mean, you saw police departments cutting their budgets by five by seven percent

more to the point. You saw them reducing infield stops, which is really the key variable here by more than 30%. So there's a direct response, like we're going to take those officers on the street. We're going to put them out into community policing, we're going to put them on sort of the engaging, with black leaders beat because the The important thing is that we stop massacring these innocent people, we rebuild our relationship with the black community, and that's

when you'll see crime drop. So again, you have direct counter predictions here, that can be measured the prediction of those with the tragic vision. Is that criminals are in general bad, people more than half of them, are whites and Latinos who don't give a damn about any of this civil rights stuff. And that when you stop policing in these diverse, some neighborhoods are going to see a surgeon crime, that's the tragic

vision and to anyone's dada. Golf Course or the basketball court or in the barbershop it would be as obvious as two. Plus two is four, the prediction of the anointed is a little more complicated. They always call our predictions simplistic but it's basically that, you know, as people learn to trust the justice system more and as the massacres stop people would be more comfortable engaging with the police.

And the police would be freed from Simply harassing black Innocents, to go, chase rapists and so on. And so you'd see a drop in crime, and the Assumption there is that the police do spend a great deal of time engaging. Aging in racist, violence has nothing to do with police. That's a baseline Assumption of the vision of the anointed otherwise it doesn't make sense and so then you get into step 3.

So step two, the solution is cut the stops by half cut the budgets by 7% devote the police to community policing, pure anointed Solutions. Step three is you look at the results and soul has a great line here where he says the policies of the anointed or implemented and Lead directly to, you know, - result Z like We've been told all along will not happen but what everyone in the hood in the mostly Caucasian suburbs. I do on the athletic fields that have talking about knew what happened.

Everyone knew it, everyone called it. And that's what happened. I mean in 2020 and 2021, we saw murders soar above 20,000, murders of the most reliable crime data for the first time since like 1994. And I mean, that's the year before broken windows policing. I mean, it's an unbelievable predictable.

Pattern. As soon as we stop doing the things that we've been doing and black and poor white neighborhoods crime, went back to exactly the point where it was, except with a slight increase, the reflux, like the six percent, or whatever increase in population. It's exactly what you would have predicted.

If you were kind of a cynical businessman, on the tragic side, the which I am. But anyway, so and then step four is that the the anointed will deny that the obvious Is the obvious pattern and we're seeing this now. I mean, I frequently debate online, with I've mentioned, the sociologist Rod G, the doctor - Iquitos some other people. I don't think people are bad as men, but they're good representatives of kind of the left-wing school on this.

The psychologist, Pat Lockwood is kind of in the middle, sometimes jump in and what these guys will say is, well, it's you're being too simplistic Riley. Like, yeah, I know, we saw this. I know we saw these shifted back, but you have to understand, they're also covid effect. And so you tend to get lost. Like to publish a research paper on this. I'm probably gonna have to adjust for all this bullshit.

Forgive me like, you know, but was it, the disease affects, you know, and five years later will know, of course, it was the fact that we pulled back the police, but by then the story will be gone from the headlines and you won't be able to get your paper cited in the times or anything. So, it's just, it's just that, I mean, first world problems there, that's the ultimate, first world sentence. Like your paper won't get its recognition, but I mean, like, it really is this consistent

pattern, right? It's just like we the anointed says, one thing. Like teaching kids about Hardbody raw, anal, sex is going to make them have sex less because they will respect their bodies more in the understand a range of options. And every one that hooked up in high school straight or gay is like, no, it's gonna make them have sex at parties. Now, that they understand how to do this. The only reason even girl said

no to anal, was that lube. And so on wasn't involved, this will dramatically increase the frequency of this type of Sex. And the, this will then be tested five years later, you'll look at reported rates of And of course Taipei among high school and college women. It will have surged by 30% and then there will be a series of denials about it. How, you know, the feminism in our culture can also explain this this occurred. That's just a sideline example.

What it relates to souls comment on sexual education. He talks about STD rates in the book, like all of these things, follow this same very predictable pattern. I don't think it's a coincidence that this pattern is predictable. He wrote a gun, another great book called civil rights, rhetoric or reality.

And there's a section in here, where he says before crediting, either political policy with economic gains, it is worth considering what trends were already underway before they were instituted in the period from 1954 to 1964. For example, the number of blacks and professional Technical and similar high-level positions, more than doubled. The reason that's so important is because I'm ashamed.

Say it literally never occurred to me to say, well, what was happening before the implementation of policy X policy. Why I think soul is just so good on issues like that, and it was just totally new for me, anything with regards to civil rights or the ability to empirically test theories that you learn from Thomas Soul. Yeah. Well I think so. No, I often say that for a tenure track professor at a State University like I'm a Holiday - methodologist.

I mean I'm definitely good enough to get an academic or think-tank paper published. I mean I know what I'm doing. I think Souls about that same level. His methods were used to be cutting edge. He's still quite good, but he's moving on port age 90. But I think that Beyond just the tricks because neither of us is doing like regressions that take eight pages to print out, or something like that. What's so great about so is that

he expand? I try to do this myself when I teach methodology, I mean I am a professor of the subject as well. So we both, you know what we're doing. But I think what's so great about souls that? He very clearly explains from a pretty politically neutral standpoint. I mean stole is on the right a little bit. He's a registered political independent. Just the tricks that everybody uses and how you can get around these tricks and make accurate effective scientific

predictions. So I mean the first thing that we talked about is the importance of effective modeling. So we just went through his model of how things almost inevitably collapse after excited. So by the anointed, another point that Soul makes that may be a question later. So I'm not going to go out and go off on this for too long, but it's just the importance of adjusting for things. If you're doing regression which I think you he and I are all at

a level to do sort of analysis. You see in most serious papers. What you're doing is trying to compare equivalent people so you can see the effect of one thing like racism if that makes sense. So I mean if you're running stata or are your Looking at your dependent variable is for example, something like income. And you might be interested in the impact of prejudice on income. But to find that out, you're going to adjust for age. The most common age for a black

man. As I always say, is 27 for a white man. It's 58. You're going to adjust for region minorities are far more likely than whites to live in the south or the Southwest where wages are far lower. This is mildly controversial but you're going to have to adjust for test scores. I think the gaps here. Cultural rather than genetic.

There's quite a lot of literature on both sides, but the simple reality is that if your SATs 950, you're going to have a different job than you would, if it were 11:18, those are the averages for blacks and for I believe want to be Asian groups respectively. So, when you adjust for all of this so that you're comparing a black guy who's 27 went to U of, I got an 11:00 lives in Missouri with a white guy. Who's 27 went to U of, I got an 11:00 lives in Missouri.

If you see a 3% difference in income, there that's likely due to racism. If you simply find an inn even there, it's questionable or what fields are the two men going through so on. But if you find an initial starting point, thirty percent Gap in the wages of these two guys. And that's as far as almost all journalistic reporting and about half of the social science papers ever, get that doesn't mean anything at all.

So one of the things I learned from solar just always adjust, always be honest with it. Set up your model, explain, what's in? In it and put in the variables other than racism, that likely explain the gaps that you're looking at. And in terms of the particular question that you asked, oh yeah, pre-existing trendlines, this is another one. Like, I guess the simplest way to say this would be, what is your, what is your beginning year? And why?

So you very often see when people are looking at the Civil Rights Movement, you very often, see people beginning with the year 1964, which of course was when we pass that great accomplishment, the civil Where are the year 1967, which is when affirmative action began. That was the national Philadelphia plan under mr. Nixon and saying, well since that point, black incomes have increased substantially at a

four percent annual rate. The problem with that as Soul points out in the book is civil rights rhetoric and reality as you said is that black incomes have been increasing at that same four percent annual rate for something like 35 years. Before this happen? The, the idea of the black family is being entirely Southern and lower class, hadn't been true for decades. He's I mean that's like Gunnar myrdal era stuff. I mean, the Great Migration had

already happened. The Harlem Renaissance was in the 1920s, blacks and many Northern cities made his men, much as members of many oppressed white group, so, on down the line, so, Obviously I do think the Civil Rights Movement was useful, it did help out those brothers quote-unquote, who are still stuck in the South who are

facing certain obstacles. But you can't just say what made the African-American Community successful was a decision by the government to pursue policy x. What actually made the black community successful and indeed many of those white communities. I describe the Irish, for example, migrated outside of the tenement core areas of cities where there was very little for them. I began to seek out jobs in the suburbs. They began to explore

construction even farming. These are often very libertarian individual choices by people that began to move these groups forward. So I think again where you're beginning, your frame has an effect on what you think groups and countries should do going forward. If you think that the government pulled black people or Irish men out of poverty, by making major national scale moves your assumption will be that with fur Example, Mexican Americans today

or something like that. That's what will be required. It's always the state. We need to expand the state. If you simply change your beginning year in the model and realize oh the state had nothing to do with this. The law was probably a good idea but 95 or whatever percent of the increase came about due to Natural declines. That bigotry and migration patterns that leads you to totally different starting assumptions.

I mean, that actually began And a really valid conversation where you can ask, does it make sense to take away people's freedom of Association to produce the other three or four percent in economic gains there? That's it. That's a pretty significant question. I mean, modern civil rights law dramatically limits, what you can do, I couldn't operate a club. If it used any kind of resources from a city, anything like that, that catered to, for example, upper middle-class black men.

I mean, the moment it came out. That we had reject not that I would probably but I mean the moment it came out that we had rejected a Caucasian or Asian or something like that applicant. I mean lat the lawsuits would begin. The business would be destroyed again, not something I want to do, but should you have the right to do that in the absence of a formalized legal, right? That would be a conversation. We could have right now, we can't and all that rests on a

misunderstanding of data. So the misuse of numbers and these obscure social sciences is important One of seoul's great intellectual contributions. I think is his ability to analyze. The origins of what's referred to as Black Culture or even the ebonics language finding the origins in places like England. Are you familiar with his General thesis in Black rednecks and white liberals? Yeah, of course. So I think black rednecks and white liberals is a really interesting book.

There's a deeper question. So culturalism, we write down a few things, hey ve. So, first of all Tom's soul is one of the most prominent Advocates of What's My Philosophy, about most things in terms of human performance which you could call culturalism. So, stripped of a few nonsense philosophies in a feminist Marxism. In the like there are pretty much three explanations Ins for why we see gaps in performance between groups. And by the way, you know, the even Candis.

And so on again, aside, gaps in performance between groups, as a political scientist are a characteristic of every society on Earth, you know, the Flemings and the balloons and Belgium and the different groups in Nigeria, some of which have IQ scores 10 points above ours and some of which are still living a largely tribal existence and now the wooded Northlands of the country and so on, I mean, there there are massive differences.

In performance among people of the same race and of different races in every country, I can imagine around the world. I mean, I'm thinking about the, what does it pre booming, the indigenous Malaysians and then the Chinese and Malaysia, you know, the Indians there occupy a role between those two groups and all these groups are I suppose racist toward each other, but the government includes representation from all of them racism, is almost by definition, not the reason for

these performance gaps. So, the idea that performance gaps, Or unusual is just wrong. It's a provincial American idea. I don't know any political scientist that takes it. Seriously some sociologists do but leaving the academic squabbling aside. Their three explanations for. Why these gaps exist. One is what you could call critical theory, which is sort of the candy and Elizabeth and realism I just mentioned. But the idea is that some kind

of prejudice. Generally racial Prejudice on the domestic front I guess you could argue class prejudiced More broadly is responsible. So eeprom candy basically says that all gaps in performance between any groups anywhere due

to racism. It's hard for me to take this explanation, seriously for the reasons that I've just given, if you, if you look overseas and how people perform and so on, even in the u.s.a., I mean, for example, Asians earn 30% more than whites do. And it's hard to say, well, that's because this is an institutionally Korean supremacist system. But decrypt model, The kind of

makes sense. If you apply it to whites and blacks, it's essentially that all gaps are due to racism some form of hidden sophisticated racism, the hereditary and model is a bit clearer. It's the oldest of these models and it is essentially the argument that gaps in performance between groups are due to genetic differences.

So the reason that Asians score higher on IQ tests than white who score more highly than an blacks who perform about equally with Hispanics, who outscore natives is genetic differences that there are gys style predictors of intelligence and that those vary among population groups, that's hereditary anism. And like I said, this is kind of the simplest of these theories. I mean the reason there are more black guys in the NBA is a black

eyes, jump a little bit higher. The third theory of group performance has fallen out of fashion for some reason, but to me is by The most persuasive and it's called culturalism. And the idea is that there may be some four percent genetic differences between groups. But these tend to vary all over the board, for example, whites have slightly better Vision than blacks. I see no reason that if you're looking at basketball, that would encounter being able to

jump one inch higher. You know, there's this broad range of abilities among people and the differences seem to be generally tiny. There's a famous that this is just a sideline. It's kind of funny but there's a famous study in the Journal of Urology where they actually measured the penises of something like 2,000 men. They wanted to test whether stereotypes about forgive me. Dick, size were real and what they found was hilarious.

First of all, all the penises are on average about five inches long and secondarily. There were no massive racial group differences. I think black guys on average were like five point, eight inches whites were like 5.6 Asians were like 5.3. So like there were there's a Gap there. But the, the writer of the study who is a woman very politely said men. White might want to focus more on oral sex and physical health

than on directly competing. The racial gaps are little, these are, these are all pretty much in the same range and that's my opinion on the genetic stuff. I don't think the racial the racism stuff is really worth taking, seriously. In a lot of situations, I can't imagine that the reason East Indians outperform whites is that Society displays some kind of subtle biases. Against whites and toward East Indians. But the culturalist perspective is simply that on average.

In each group, there are differing percentages of people with different interests and abilities and levels of training as the result of a large number of different things. I mean, what the founder culture was. So the founder culture for black Americans came from the medieval level Warrior societies of central Africa. It was the iron using tribal city states that were defeated by the Ashanti. Adame. And there were shipped over here basically.

So that's, that's the Baseline some literacy, not much fighter cultures. Generally, the males are the people that came here. Then there's encounter culture, which is the group of people that you run into when your new space and this is where we're going to get into black rednecks and white liberal seriously for a minute or two, then there are kind of structural variables that don't have anything to do

with racism. So I think something that really impacted the black community is that when we got to the north we got to the North at almost exactly the same the same time Northern cities moved to the left and stop kind of kicking the white trash out of the Irish and the Italians, if you will. So, there'd been brutal. Anti-crime. Policies for a long time in New York, or Providence like Patty. Wagon is a term that has a Genesis and that stopped when

black people got there. So, I mean, you saw black migrants arrive from the south with a culture that was at least on par with the Irish migrants. At the same time, people stopped enforcing the law. So you start cloward and Piven welfare, if you're familiar with that check started coming out early in the 1970s, you couldn't have a man in the house to receive what at the time, was a pretty good supplement of money. And so, you saw black families collapse.

For this reason, I had nothing to do with racism, nothing to do with genes between 1945 and 1985. The blackie legitimacy rate went from about 10 percent to about 70 percent. So that's that's culturalism or that systems theory, like they're all these things Tribute to this founder culture and counterculture variables, other than Prejudice, you'd have to throw in past bias.

I mean, I frankly assume Southern written X and blacks hated each other as a great deal of black and back and forth violence with them, getting the better of it. So how does that does that contribute to your attitude toward whites? Which we certainly see. There's a large amount of black-on-white crime, it's never discussed. So all of this makes the culture

that you have at a given time. So I'm a culture list, I mean there might be two percent potential IQ differences cause my G Jeans or racism or something, but I think when you look at like levels of black crime in Baltimore like that, something as the mayor of Baltimore, I think I could reduce that by 90% if I were given full range to do so the odds of that happening would given the methods involved and so on are zero like 0.0% but I think that those cultural or

systemic variables are pretty key and kind of back on track. I mean black rednecks is just Soul explaining culturalism and he says this a very important point that Leaders like this kind of trendy idea that Black Culture came from Africa and that specifically, it came from the great powers of Africa, that sometimes fought the British about evenly and that had the cool kente cloth. And then that the, the dope

hats. I mean, like the Ashanti and the banana and so on. And he points out that there's no evidence for this at all. Like those are actually the enemies of the people that became black Americans who beat us and sent us over here. Like, there's very little by me bluntly real. There's very little of the language of those groups. Oops, in avf can American vernacular English and doing a basic obvious analysis that I've never seen anyone else to do. He Compares about 200 words in

white trash dialect. Like Scottish Highland redneck dialect with African American vernacular English and he

actually finds the overlap. There's like 98.6% that these two groups live next to one another and fought each other for 200 years and began to behave very, similarly and written X, quote-unquote, today, still have a Early High rate of violence so on, but unlike their white competitors Southern blacks migrated to the north to seek out specific jobs or what we're becoming majority black cities. So you took a culture, that would have been 90 percent.

Is problematic had Appalachian whites brought it up, but you took it in massive numbers to Detroit, Memphis cities like that, and that became Urban slum, culture, Urban slum culture was Black, ex white redneck culture. Stood two cities where the law was no longer followed and it's a really Innovative explanation. I don't know whether it's entirely true, but it's hard not to see a lot of that.

I mean, if you're on a bus with a bunch of hood, black dudes, I mean, the language used, I'm finna get mines, is exactly what you would hear in regions of Appalachia, where I travel right hunt or something like that. So, it seems a lot more plausible that that is the inspiratory or for violent, Urban culture than the those characteristics somehow came here. From long ago, African populations. I love that you brought up a cloward and Piven. Did you ever see Frances Fox

Piven? Debating Thomas, Soul know. I pay a lot of money to see that though. Know what was her side of the debate? I mean that she was anointed policy. We know didn't work. Yeah, so she was saying, well, it was these affirmative action policies that black Americans fought for for so long and he interrupts her. He goes, no, damn it. That's the idea is that you put in the mouths of black Americans, blacks have never more than 30 percent supported. A b and c policy.

She is the perfect person for excuse me, for the anointed Vision. I mean, every single shortcoming. We are just like two pieces of legislation and a few tax points away from just having a solution. Speaking of the word solution, one of my favorite quotes from him. I want to say it's in a conflict of Visions where he mentions that there are no Solutions only. Trade-offs, I can find the page because I had forgotten that What what does that mean? There are no Solutions only

trade-offs. Well I think that I'm glad you brought that up because even as versus the idea of the anointed versus the tragic Vision that maybe Souls best quote on leadership, that may be the best quote on leadership I've ever heard. Actually what it means is that you can't directly solve problems.

Excuse me, without externalities that are massively - and this is something people forget when you look at leaders especially young and - you know, Junior Executives or just tenured faculty, there's a desire to take this on and knock out this problem. Like we're going to solve world hunger and I used to feel this way, I mean I volunteered with Habitat, for Humanity, the Human Rights Campaign, just so on down the line, I actually love doing good works.

We just ran a GoFundMe page for a major health care procedure through my Twitter, my social, but I think that as you get older you understand that there's no such thing as Is just solving a problem without externalities. What you're generally doing is sacrificing a massive amount of money or Freedom or something else to resolve the issue and soul in his books. And yeah it is a conflict of Visions. I believe explains how this

works in practice. So one of the things is Airline safety like in the 70s and 80s, we honestly used to have very poor Airline safety. You know there was a situation where a baby was ripped out of his mother's arms, his mother. By the way he's holding a drink. Like she's a nice lady. It's The most the stories, but this one you could drink on Poise. You still drink applies when you

drink a lot on planes. So, I mean, you imagine this where you have the, the ashtrays and the arm rests and, you know, everyone in the Rose, holding a martini glass, and you got a baby just under your arm. Is this is old-school. Aviation people like hooking up in the bathroom. The pilot is sitting up there singing. This is business travel at this point and they hit some turbulent air and people get hurt like someone falls down

injures their leg and the baby. This is the important point is Ripped out, the mother's arms thrown across hits, the cabin door to that time is old school hardwood and is killed. I assume horribly head shattered, probably blood and brains on the ground, and the response to this is, well, we're going to fix up a lot of this. We're no none of these Antics.

But even at the first level, even if you cut drinking on planes by half, even if you made everyone sit down the entire flight, you're massively inconveniencing hundreds of millions of people. So I mean, I would say you can put a dollar value on that, maybe fifty dollars per person and you could ask whether The loss of one life every 10 years, valued at the usual 10 million dollars by the actuaries, whether that is worth that move, that sounds cold and brutal.

But I mean we don't Harden the tires of every car or lower the speed limit every time someone's killed in an auto wreck. So, even at that first level, do you make this massive move? Do you remove the social amenities on planes? Do you keep the seat belt? Sign fought on the entire flight? Affecting people with bladder issues. Do do all this in response to one death but we didn't just do this.

I mean we Mandated the purchase of seats for infants, we mandated strap Downs, with, can themselves be quite dangerous for infants. I believe you have to use a sort of baby seat on a plane, although they give it to you. I don't know, I haven't flown with an infant, but I mean, all of this stuff was done in response to the situation that killed one person that hurt one person and soul points out that the total cost of it was something like 1.8 billion, not

massive, but pretty high. I mean enough to affect the ticket of everyone. Flying on that Airline by about 25 dollars. Let's Date for the next couple of years, down the road and he makes the obvious point that if even a thousand people didn't fly because of that, that led to one death and obviously it would be more people than that.

Like if all tickets increased by dollar amount X more than $20, more than 20 years ago and you had to buy separate seats for infants doubling the cost of your flight and you are no longer allowed to do certain things in the flight becomes much more unpleasant. I think we've all flown modern commercial you know non first class air Are tens of thousands of people were probably like fuck it. I'm going to drive the issue with this is that it's much more

dangerous to drive than to fly. The the range of negative externalities had just skyrocketed sharply upward. So in reality saving the life of the next baby and we've never had a baby killed like that again although I will know we had never previously had a baby killed like that was an unusual freak accident but saving the life of the next baby. Probably cost, 15 20 lives and that's what Is meant by there are no Solutions, they're only trade-offs.

Do you, when you see the brain spattered against the bulkhead, do you make some basic changes? Like, not allowing mothers with babies, for example, to consume alcohol or monitoring that row? Very closely. I mean, either certainly things I would do, you know what that to happen, but do it again. I've read different stories on this, I don't know. No one's saying to the mother was drunk or anything like that. We don't know the details of case.

But like, do you do something like that or do you on the the other hand change, everything about the plane and raise the price of the tickets and kill a bunch of people. And I think a lot of people move toward option to they're saying, I'm going to permanently fix this issue and that may not be the best way to go about this, so that that's Souls Point.

Yeah, I have seen a number of examples of this one is to say that, well, what we have are people that earn low amounts of money, the way we solve this, Shoe is we raise the minimum wage this way? No one's able to pay someone so little. Well it turns out this increases the likelihood of someone never getting a job opportunity in the first place until they're much older, and then they're less

desirable. And since they never got their foot in the door to get on the job skills, it's harder for them when they get older to compete with other people. So they have fewer skills, they have less money because it's more expensive people like Amazon and Walmart could easily grow. Smaller businesses can't compete. So now, consumers have less

options. Now, employees have less places to go. So the more you raise these hurdles without ever, considering the secondary costs, it's just such an important introduction into how you can start to analyze things. There is another book. Titled applied economics, Thinking Beyond stage one.

Where Seoul says, the voters political decisions involve having a minut influence on policies, which affect many other people while economic Session making is about having a major effect on one's own personal well-being.

My understanding here is that he's saying, look, people are ignorant about politics, but it's rational for them to do so because you could spend thousands of hours and maybe understand agricultural subsidies, but you're still going to get a one in 100 million vote and that's not really going to tip. And it even if your guy wins because of your vote, he's probably a liar. So people don't really get involved politically Lee. What do you think about this as a potential explanation?

Rational this sort of rational irrationalities about why the average person who might say, I love politics is still very ignorant empirically. I think it's probably true. I will say this is the last line. I feel kind of guilty about my description of the, the mom and the the previous scenario, like accounts of, you know, whether all the people on this plane were drinking. And so, on vary, from what I've seen, so no one's blaming her for this. This Terrible accident.

The my point is just the over-reaction damaged, a lot of people so but moving on, because that's pretty much it. The thing about voting, I think that your point, your analysis is good, voting is not actually, this is kind of taboo for political scientist to say but voting is actually an irrational waste of time. Most of the time to some extent, you're very very unlikely to sway. The result of an election by Your vote even when people talk

about very close, intense races. And so on Bush, V Gore. I mean the margin and you're talking about one state, not one of our three biggest, I mean the margin was 500 votes before they got into the Chad's. There's a very, very little chance. You personally are going to impact an election. I vote as a kind of wrote civic duty in the way I go to church on Christmas and Easter. And I most political scientists. I know don't vote at all, to be

honest. So yeah, I think Sit when you're saying that it's rational not to engage too much with the issues. I think that's probably correct. The one issue with that though is that in understanding what's going on in the world. Also impacts almost literally everything else you do so for example if you invest knowing that Jim Cramer is almost always wrong or that climate change is not going to destroy the world. World but that there are things people are going to do in

response. So I'm investing in Seawall companies that kind of thing. I mean, that's all very useful. So I mean that would require reading up on climate change or reading up on the failures of the media, the Business Media

song. So, I mean, I've read both of those books recently and they were fascinating and the same thing really worth anything else just to minimize personal fear, you know, you might be interested in looking at the numbers on black lives matter, on the left, how many people actually are? Killed by police officers or the

equivalent on the right. How many white women are raped to death by gangs of black men or illegal immigrants and when you realize that the number on both sides is 18 or something like that. There's going to be a dramatic effect on your personal mental health. So I encourage people to get as much knowledge as possible. I mean you you want to be aware that you generally shouldn't be afraid. Most of the time you want to be, you know, able to do other things like make money in the

market. Market. You want to be able to judge a media and talk trash when you watch political Sports media with your friends. But you, I mean you want to be able to vote in local elections. I mean, they a lot of these elections were things are critical are, for example, School Board races where an accurate understanding of the lies on both the left and the right about CRT could help me pick a candidate. And where the winning candidates going to get 12 votes.

I mean, so there's a lot to be said about gaining knowledge but when it comes to voting and National races, I mean when people criticize individuals for just In the donkey or the elephant or not really going deep into the issues that are being discussed, Ukraine. Yeah, that that's likely a rational choice because quite frankly, whether Ukraine or Russia wins is going to have no impact on your life whatsoever.

I mean, in the, at the presidential level, I mean, Whether Kamala Harris or Rhonda Santa's I think biting and Trump are both of that level of daughter and where they could do real damage, but whether Kamala Harris are Rhonda Santa's wins in most ways. If you're in an independent state with a strong, Governor isn't going to affect her life,

very much. So, people behave appropriately, they, they take the citizenship Duty, they walk into the booth they spend four hours on it, but no, I mean, people don't deeply prepare themselves for elections and that's because we're not a

city-state of 50,000 people. I mean, they're close to 400 million Americans. So wrote a book called knowledge and decisions, tell me what what you think this means and if and I hope I'm not repeating myself from the anointed book, but I think this is a different analysis. He says the use of knowledge in decision-making processes

affecting social well-being. Depends not only on the supply of ideas which are usually abundant but on some process of authentication to weed out and reshape those ideas in the light of faith. Back from actual experience, resulting from their application. So how do we know if something is a tradition that's been around for a thousand years? How do we know if that's the way to do things versus a new way? Is there some system that we

could start embracing? So we could make sure we find the balance between embracing tradition and still engaging in progress. Well, yeah, I mean so I think it one level one of the few things I've ever said it. A speech that got me booed was that you need liberals and conservatives? And I think the audience is made up of a mix of liberals and conservatives and neither side

like that. So people just started sort of jokingly but really booing and hissing but I mean the reality is that that's true to some extent like the role of the conservative is to defend and maintain working and functional traditions. And the role of the liberal is to propose new somewhat better ideas. And both of these are obviously essential. I mean, you know, 1500 Norman England. Lynn was a very functional Society.

Produced Noble Knight, some of the most beautiful art we've ever seen, but at the same time, I don't think anyone today would say that there were no ways to improve on that Society with it hereditary semi absolute monarch and so on down the line I mean I averaged the GDP per capita is probably on the order of a thousand dollars. Almost 70 was a peasant farmer and tapeworms were real issue so that Duality is necessary.

To some extent. The I tend to lean more toward the conservative side, because most new ideas are new, mutations are very bad. So, I mean, generally, when the intelligent left suggest an idea like, why don't we defund the police and transfer, that money to social workers. It's a parent for a series of logical reasons that this idea is bad. And why this idea is bad and the goal of the kind of quantitative serious business. Agricultural so on, right? Has to be to smack, that idea,

down knock it off the stage. Move on people often ask is the left ever lost a battle in the culture where? Yeah, they lose almost all of the battles in the culture War actually, the only problem is that the media is so complicit with the political left that then they're immediately memory hold. But, I mean, anything from the teaching of hard, gender ideology to kids, which is about to become a defeat at least in the heartland of the USA to defunding the police, where, you know, have mr.

Biden standing on stage as saying, we support research. Refunding. The police at a higher level than ever before. All of those were left block, cultural, and political defeats. So that's, that's the role of the right saying, no, we run the models, you're not moving Society forward doing this. Even the idea that masking should become a permanent thing after covid is something that's supported by more than 40% of left-wingers.

It's absolutely not going to be tolerated by sort of the business class, the mainstream, right? Is stop that. So, that is a culture War defeat. You might see a few isolated. Images, you know putting masks on the poor little bastards for a year or two but it that's not going to be what they would have liked it to be which is what you see if you do business in Singapore, or Hong Kong people walking around with the cuffs on their face for six months out of the year.

So the goal of the left is to propose, new ideas, the cup on your face, the goal of the right is to strike down the bad ones but obviously there are good left-wing ideas. I mean, so for example, I don't think gay marriage is something that the mainstream right is going to attempt to strike down again. I certainly would not be part of that campaign. I don't think that there's much to gain from it. I mean, to the extent that Eileen libertarian, I don't, I'm not sure.

I think the state should be involved in marriage in the first place, but that's that is not a thing that appeals much to me or that would improve life for my country, man, you know. So every now and then, they get one, right? And we move forward. What soul is saying. I think and knowledge and decisions is one of the books. I've only read once. It's not a book I've engaged in

at Great length. But yeah, I mean, he's obviously saying that there has to be a way to look at or to review the thousands or the millions of ideas out there that are taken seriously across the philosophies across the religions, across the political perspectives, and decide which ones have worked and which ones to pursue going forward. I mean, looking at this from a sinner right perspective in the sense of when we should Ange what we already have?

My comment would be that it's fairly easy to review, how effective systems are to some extent. How content do most people say they are with the current Constitution, how happy your most people in traditional marriages and so on. I mean, if you ask people about features of their marriage, I mean, this is something that happened during a feminist movement in the 70s, which do

people dislike. And I mean, when that actually occurred women strongly opposed the idea that they weren't allowed to do things without their husband's consent, so until 1973 as crazy as this sounds, you needed your husband's formal signature onto documents to take out a credit card. As a woman.

I believe even men needed their wife to consent for certain kinds of credit certain sorts of loan arrangements and couples did not like this, especially women, I'm sure were disadvantaged so that that was changed. The law was changed, Banks. Gradually dropped this policy. You saw some young newer Banks spring up, the didn't require this and that was, that was removed. So I think that feedback from People about which ideas working, which ideas don't is still the best way to determine

which ideas are successful. This actually gets into all the books we've been talking about so far. In fact, because I again in a tragic Vision guy, I think that the best process of review is broadly sourced national public what. I'm grappling for a word here but involving all of the people capitalist might be the word. Someone with the vision of the anointed, would probably say that the the best review of whether a policy work is a small

panel from the anointed. I don't I don't think that's the case and to give an example of this in practice, right? Are you familiar with Rotten Tomatoes The found viewing website? One of the there's a weird phenomenon that we're seeing on Artie right now especially when it comes to quote unquote content where a whole community of Wikipedia Style. Movie nerds has grown up around Rotten Tomatoes. My partner is in it and every

time I He comes out. Thousands of people will watch either the fell more the bootleg and they will brutally review it, good or bad and they will upload that review within a day and that the Rotten Tomatoes is known for that films, have a million reviews and the audience scores range from like six percent to 100 percent, the audience scores are almost

entirely accurate. In my opinion, I fall within five points of every audience score for a movie that I watched recently, which is what you'd expect with a source pool of a million. That's not even a random sample. It's just a Ation, you know, I mean so the other the flip side though, is it Rotten Tomatoes, still uses another metric, which is the hundred fifty film review columns in the country and major Publications and they are always wrong.

There's always an incredible dichotomy between the film reviewers standard and the audience is standard. So, with the recent conservative documentary, what is a woman, which is hilarious, which I strongly recommend watching, whether you're cheering for, Matt Walsh for his It's just funny. It's him talking to gender experts. Some of whom are quite witty themselves about these basic questions. Like, do you think a person with a vagina is a female and it's

laugh out loud hilarious. I think wall school. Also gets the better the exchanges, but it's obviously very Politically Incorrect. So if you go to Rotten Tomatoes audience score for what is a woman I think is 93% critics score is like, 12% or something. But they're only three critics, I mean, see, you see the Difference between the anointed review or a small number of people are taking into account. What they must say, current social mores will they lose

their job? So on and then the audience score were a million people. And I would bet this pool includes many of the same critics under pseudonymous Twitter style. Handles is giving their actual opinion. So I think that when we judge ideas one, you simply ask pollster style questions about a Praxis or a process or a situation like marriage and see what people say. Two. I think that the larger the group of respondents you have and the more representative it is the better.

So this I guess is an idea that I share with soul and I maybe even extending a little bit from. So knowledge, rests within the body of the intelligent people knowledge isn't some unique thing that's contained within a hidden Ivory Tower Elite at all when you look at the group of people I mentioned basketball or golf or The Barber Shop earlier.

When you look at the group of grown men in the occasional, A woman that would be in those situations and they're obviously female equivalence all over the board but I mean like a local lawyer farmer deacon at a popular black church. I mean, a school teacher, a coach, I mean, it's a group of quite intelligent, people sharing positions, a couple

salesman a criminal. I mean, it's a group of people that are that have different takes on life and they're all IQ 105 plus that have things to say. And there are hundreds of rooms like that hundreds of these local salons around the country. And The world. And I think that the sum total of intelligence in those, local salons is dramatically larger than the sum total of intelligence within a few isolated forums that produce

media. For example, like there are there is more intelligence in the entire city of Frankfurt, is Chamber of Commerce. Then there is in one academic department at my University and I'm not insulting either of those, but it just seems self-evident. I mean, one includes the mayor, the chief of police on the line but we've been trained to look at the second as kind of the source of real knowledge. And I think it's a problem. A couple of more of my favorite Soul quotes.

It's funny, you mentioned gay marriage. So I just thought I'd get this one. This is from looking for that elusive escalator to success. He says the very same people who say that government has no right to interfere with sexual activity between consenting adults. Believe that the government has every right to interfere with economic activity between consenting adults. It's just those quick one-liners that I love from Soul and then I know we're running up on the

clock here. Thank you so much. Our time. And then, in basic economics, he says, in short people tend to do more for their own benefit, then for the benefit of others. However, unattractive, greed, maybe it is likely to move food, much faster, saving more lives. So what he does here is, he says, this is something that applies to people, not businessmen, not White's, not politicians. So whether it's Bernie Sanders or Jeff Bezos or your neighbor human beings are.

Constantly looking to profit, even if it's psychic profit, even if there's no money involved, people are looking to increase the benefits and decrease the costs. So one of the primary arguments in favor of doing something as well. This or that shouldn't be for profit, or this should be done by the public. All you're changing are the incentives, it's the same race of people, whether a weather. Bernie Sanders has a job in the public sector or the private sector.

Or if he's in a quote nonprofit, in all of these situations, the incentives change, but it's still human beings trying to increase the amount of profit they have. That's why it's no surprise that when you get someone like fauci a public servant didn't feel the need to apologize after. He told everyone to wear masks, and then stopped wearing masks when he went on 60 Minutes and said, masks are useless, and then he came out and said, masks should more or less be

mandatory? So the public servant myth that At Soul, refutes just using economics. He doesn't even get political about it but he takes Universal truths and applies them consistently. So those are just so many of my other favorite ones when it comes to other things you've learned from Thomas Soul, any final, thoughts wellö, comment on that.

At that point you made first. Um, yeah, I think that's a very critical point because when we talk about religious divine's for example and we talk about people like fauci. Who's one of my least favorite public figures in the Modern era. There's there's a tendency to describe these people as well, at least they're not greedy, at least their their self. They're not self-serving, at least, they care. And I think that's a wild misunderstanding of human nature.

People who go into Power politics care, about power or about other people's money. They don't care about their money, but that's not more. Honorable, I mean fauci makes five hundred thousand dollars a year. So if OG is primarily motivated by a high salary taken from others, Or by the power to make an entire nation knuckle under and walk around with diapers on their face. That doesn't necessarily make him a better person.

In fact, I'd say the reverse, then me being motivated by the desire to pick up a few million, a year, in the markets that I mean that that argument is nonsensical the it reminds me of the Brahmin kshatriya conflict in India was talking to a good buddy of mine who's East Indian once. And I was looking at, like the hierarchy of classes and it's the, the top three are essentially the priests and writers the Warriors in the wealthy.

Engines and those three have competed about equally and every society throughout history. So I said who decided to rank them 1 2 and 3. And he was like well the priests wrote the books, so they put themselves first and I kind of flipped a coin for the next one and it's a joke but it's pretty much accurate. Like the people saying that public service is uniquely honorable are the people writing you know the latest edition of haggle man's MPA their writing

the public service textbook. So I mean that that's a bad idea. I agree with soul that it's not a Realistic idea. If you look at the things that bureaucrats compete for. I mean, in Britain, it used to be a Knighthood over here. It's the lifelong pension. I mean, I have great respect for our soldier but he never talked to one of the military boys. He's on about a year nineteen. I mean, they're they're number one motivator might not be

defending the country. It might be getting that last year and and then cashing out at 105 percent of what you made while on the forces and nothing wrong with that. You at least did an honorable thing for much of your life there. But there are clear motivations Whatever that pension payout figure would be there is I'm sure but there are clear motivations for why people are doing what they're doing in every field not just in, you know, filthy business. So I think that's absolutely

correct. One of the big problems with the bureaucratic NGO sector actually, is that there's no equivalent of profit. That's a sentence is actually worth repeating. There's no equivalent of profit. So as a ruthless amoral greedy, businessman, it's pretty easy to see how good I'm doing and whether people should invest with me, if I go Go to that business or whatever. How much money did I make? I mean, last year, how many

books did I sell? If you're thinking about publishing me as Harper instead of regnery or whatever? Whatever, that's publisher would be there. These quantitative metrics. Thank you. I see that book up on the screen taboo still has still a best-seller. I don't think we're doing, pushing them out on a day-to-day basis, that level anymore. But, I mean, just those are the metrics. But what is the metric for a charity?

What is the metric for fauci? Is it How many people died because there's so many ways to dodge around that. What they'll say invariably is, it would be even more if we had an implemented. My lockdown policy. So on, so agent for the response. Yeah I'm sorry. It's stage for the response from this new. Yeah great thank God. We did this or else. Imagine how many people would have died. What we saw that with the covid. Catechism? Right?

Where like people were once we saw the vaccines really didn't work. Now, I will say, they stopped severe illness, they stop death. If you're an elderly person, go get Vaccinated. But like didn't work in the sense of stopping you from getting covid and getting very

sick, which was the promise. Once we saw this, we started seeing the covid catechism where people would come out and say, yeah, I got covid again despite being vaccinated, but thank God for, you know, my two shots and then my three boosters and petzl Ovid because otherwise this could hypothetically have been much worse and it was just pure Tom's Soul like the entire thing. Although again, you're probably healthier knew what about the entire thing. Our part. But here's what you're saying.

It would have been dramatically more of a disaster. So, yes, that was five choose entire pitch. That's what Burke's said in every one of these cases, the reality though is that there's no way to know whether that's true or not. So it's in fact, very hard to hold bureaucrats to any reasonable standard. So I in fact rank the bureaucrat as one of the lowest forms of Power Player life. The motivation isn't their own honest money, it's either taking your money or having power over

you and there's no real way. Way to hold them accountable. And that's, that's something that we need to work on. Even in Academia. We can be held accountable. What's your number of Publications people? In that General free-flowing, bureaucratic space. It's almost impossible. And that that really is an issue for society. I think that the growth of mass bureaucracy actually is a major problem. It's one of the major characteristics of Empires on

decline. If you look at, for example, education or medicine over the past 50 years, one of the things that's almost lost The whole debate about why does this shit cost so much? You know, is it corporate greed? You know, is it failure of the clientele, the really demand a product or to seek out Alternatives? You know, one of the things that's lost in this whole conversation is just that the support staff. In those areas has grown something crazy, like, 5,000

percent. So in the schools, we've seen like a 6% increase in student numbers, 12 percent increase in teachers and multiple hundred percent increase in bureaucrats, overseeing Greek, life, and admissions, Mental health. So on down the line. So that is it's hard to track and I don't see much purpose to it that turned into kind of a sideline rent but it's an issue. Yeah.

And one more thing on the black rednecks and white liberals because I see this as such good news, but of course when you give people good news, it takes away a large amount of meaning that that they have. So it's not that. Well blacks are inferior or blacks just need to sit around and wait for whites to stop being so racist. Or else you guys got nowhere to go? It seems like if I had to summarize.

They had originally embraced sort of the capital theory of build your skills and make exchanges, and now much like the Japanese did in America and had higher incomes. And now, it seems much more of the political Theory. We have to get involved in politics and increase wealth redistribution. It went from wealth creation to wealth redistribution. It was like, originally, the mindset was Booker, T. Washington. And now it's like Marc Lamont Hill, just a total Hustler who I

can't stand. It seems like this was the big shift starting, I think sold the year he pinpoints in dismantling America. I think it's 1968 where they focused instead from increasing their skills and and capital investment, same with whites, I guess. And now they focus on much more about what we got to get someone elected. So you can sort of develop this anointed class is that accurate and is there anything? Else we could learn from Souls of culturalism contributions.

Yeah. I mean, I think it's quite accurate. One of the things that's kind of weird is that culturalism doesn't really have a home right now. I'm hoping to bring it back supported by Bob, Woodson, Glenn Lowry and a lot of other powerful people in the black and fat better East Asian communities. But I mean, Amy Chua. I mean, a lot of people have made these points Roland fryer, but culturalism began. I think in the modern sense as a response to the sophisticated hereditary.

Arianism of people like Arthur Jensen in the late 1950s and 60s. You started to see a lot of what had previously been almost, you know, black guy and Republican yelling at each other in the social science journals, getting formalized into coherent theories. So Arthur Jensen, studied young children in poor areas, where different groups were represented around the country and came to the conclusion. Which no one really disputes that there are differences in tested IQ between members of

different groups. At the time I think blacks were very well about a The eight many white groups were well under 100 as well. That's that's the white Norm.

So the idea became there might be genetic barriers here that are going to prevent these kids from accomplishing certain things and soul and others started pointing out that that doesn't seem likely to be true by the time Seoul reached his Peak when he was doing most of his writing, the black IQ had risen to about 85 86, which is what a Charles Murray admitted

it was in the bell curve. I will tell you right now, it's 91 or 92. To there's considerable fluidity with IQ and a complex way that no one really understands. But if you look at Marie's latest book while facing reality, he just notes in passing without really saying much about this, that his black IQ estimate is 91 his Hispanics. IQ estimate has gotten up to 93. So these minority IQs of 70, I mean, her something in the distant past but Seoul said,

well, I don't think that's true. I mean, we're seeing these jumps from the 78 to 92 and there's obvious whether or not there's a three-point Gap. Let's even say imats five-point Gap in the end with everything adjusted for. There's clearly a massive role for culture here.

So let's look at what's needed and he starts talking about some of the things we still talk about today, Father present, in Black communities and the era of the welfare state, we need to be utterly honest about that number of books in the home. We find that black parents for whatever reason don't read to

their kids. In the same way that white parents do. The one exception is southern white Appalachian parents who test identically two black parents average IQ for whites and West Virginia. 92.5 so books in the home, dad, what grades do your parents, demand? Even, barely literate. Asian families to mayonnaise in school. That's one of the most fascinating things I've stumbled across. What's the number of hours of Television. You watch in a day, how much do you study every day?

So, so pointed out. Like look, there's no genetic way that an IQ is going to jump from 80 to 93 in 15 years and there's not so we need to look at what's happening. What's predicting this And so that's where the cultural is model comes from. That's been advocated for by Walter Williams, John McWhorter, Glenn loury.

I mean, dozens of just heavyweights in the game, Dickens and Flynn Nisbet over on the hard psychometric said, the problem is that right now, the political left is moved a long way away from John McWhorter. And Dickens and Flynn, who would be considered Heretics today. So culturalism doesn't really have a natural home. I mean now it's kind of on the

center, right? I'd say most American Enterprise Ketut guys, are culturalist Murray himself, maybe when he's never, really said whether he's a culture hereditary? But, and although I have my suspicions, I guess I like the guy. But I mean, this is problematic to. Oh yeah, the reason for this is that the modern left is at least pretending to believe that things like IQ and race don't exist at all.

So I mean, when you say my race needs to engage in X tactics to improve IQ. It'll hereditary would say, well, that sounds like the old debate. Yeah, try it out. Let's compete with each other in the papers. But I'll leftist today would say, well, no, your race doesn't exist and IQs not real. So you're kind of seeing an odd reluctance to listen to what was traditionally the most influential of these paradigms. It's kind of funny, but I guess there's nothing to do.

But just keep saying obvious fact, that means at a level, this is Galileo, shit, like it still moves, like if you study for tests, you'll do better on them. I mean, it's one of the most Located conclusions in the social sciences and you can't make it go away by not replicating. It this happens all the time by

the way. Um I mean like people ask me like I mentioned talking to G or keto or intelligent men and one of the things they would say as well other than you and fryer why are there no scientific papers that say this? And the answer is because there are very few scientists that are on the center, right? And they're going to study this like it's you trying to get fired, you know?

I mean so it's just if you take a paper, I read a paper recently that looks At whether there's a connection between police stops and miscarriages. So like this paper looks at they find that in neighborhoods with high police activity, there are higher rates of miscarriage for black women. There are there are three major problems with this. I'll ask can you guess what they are? So I'm trying to think of going back to my Roland fryer here.

So as far as what would cause more police means that there are more conflicts settled. Violently more violence is leads to an increase in anxiety. There four miscarriages are more likely to occur s OK like random intelligent guy from a different scientific field figured out the yeah okay it took 10 seconds go on there's more second one would be Police feel like they'll have

more leeway. If someone cannot pay a lot of money for a lawyer and take them to court, which takes the police men away from his job for a day therefore is more likely to patrol lower-income neighborhoods because there'll be less resistance and lower-income, people are less likely to have nutritious Foods, what's makes them less healthy, which increases the likelihood of miscarriage? And then yes good okay. Yeah I mean so that that took that took a minute. Well done sir.

No I mean that's that's essentially correct. Yeah I mean and you it's good that you did get the one that involves potential police abuse. Like I mean I could see some bad cop saying, who are these bitches going to tell after you know, a rough arrest but realistically, yeah, the two things that they didn't adjust for. Our the fact that people in violence slum areas are different behaviorally from people and upper middle class suburbs. So to see how much of a role

stress over all played. You'd have to adjust for diet, exercise sexual activity, drugs and alcohol obesity, all that stuff. They don't adjust for any of it. And you'd also have to look at the source of the stress, which would be a secondary question. Like, do you attribute this primarily to policing to Crime to domestic violence? What you'd probably find is that the police are in the neighborhood in response to very high levels of crime and domestic violence in the neighborhood, right?

So the police themselves would be like the 8th or 9th highest cause of crime there. Or it causes stress there. So, yeah, I mean, a lot of this stuff is of this kind where people very definitely have a goal that they want to prove and it's and it's not even fraud academically. Like these people did prove there's a connection between living in a high crime, neighborhood and miscarriages,

it's good paper. The problem is that the police element the racism element is totally disproven unless you first adjust for diet and exercise and sexuality and obesity and crime and all these other things that they didn't or that they couldn't. And that's Then you see more and more and more again and that's why I think you know, the basic advice from the OG about how to skeptically approach.

This stuff is more useful than it's ever been exactly and soul gives the great example he goes, we could look statistically it turns out ref blacks were only 13 percent of the American population, yet they get called for fouls in the NBA about 80 90 percent of the time, this has to be the result of racism. Look at the inequality. Well, there's a An important step you missed, Which percentage of people are actually involved in this activity.

Before, discussing what happens in the activity are saying men are 50% of the population, yet, 95% of those who are on death row, or in prison. Therefore, we have a big sexism against men problem. Well, you forgot to adjust for who's actually committing the crime. So, so many good things that could decrease. The amount of cultural tension. I want to give you the final word but I just have to say my other favorite Soul.

Quote. He says, the reason so many people misunderstand, so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied, they want villains to hate and heroes to cheer and they don't want explanations. That don't give them that. That is it that actually may be my last word. I think that's a great summary of souls work.

People don't want an emotionally unsatisfying factual explanation that that sums up pretty much what the ogs been talking about for 50 years. And I think that's very correct. I mean, so again, when people point to things like that policing and miscarriages paper and saying and say Why are you just denying that all? This sociology has found

something. I don't deny that, I think it's found the best thing that you could find if you're unwilling to test out any hereditary in' or culturalist, or anything else explanation because those are evil evil evil and they have

cooties. But to actually find truth you've got to look at the evil evil evil and it has cooties stuff to it's obvious to most smart people that for example, Ibrahim candy is just wrong that stuff with no hate for the mankind of sounds dumb so you can either play along and act like you believe this and fall behind the Chinese or you can follow some of the basic techniques that Tom salt suggested 40 years ago and maybe find the truth.

And I think that's the last line for me, go go forth and do good, maybe find the truth. The books are hate crime hoax and taboo. 10 facts, you can't talk about by dr. Wilfred Reilly of Kentucky, State University. Links will be in the description below, dr. Riley, thank you so much for your time. Well, thank you for having me on.