If one rejects laissez-faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason, also reject every kind of government action. Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute today. We have dr. James Lindsay of cynical theories. How activist scholarship made everything about race gender, and identity and white arms, everybody. Dr. Lindsay. Thank you so much for your time. Where's the best place to find
your archive of work? I keep the majority of my work at the Website that I've created, it's called new discourses is located at your discourse was.com LSU. Follow me on social media, which is probably where I do most of my work lately, which is a its own problem. Got it. What is critical race Theory?
Grigori's there? A, I'm supposed to be nice to it. Critical race Theory describes itself as a movement, which is an odd thing for a theory to describe itself as good as a movement that tries to to read, Assess, the relationship between race racism and Power in society. And that's a very friendly way to put it. It's a view that takes the position that race racism is systemic in society. It's not a matter of necessarily of individual intention or
individual action. Although certainly individuals can act or be racist or act in racist ways, but it views racism, ultimately, as a system that operates in society.
Every level whether that's through individual actions, whether through social norms of the Stewart, the way that we we talk and think about things, whether it's what we consider knowledge, whether it's our institutions, whether it's criminal justice, or whether that's schooling or any other institution that you might imagine the government itself, every level, every single thing as racism taken as its ordinary State of Affairs. According to pre-chorus 3,
that's the first underlying Assumption of critical race. Theory. Racism is the organ a systemic in the ordinary state of Affairs and Society not an aberration from them. So racism is the default. In other words, guilty until proven, innocent of racism in any circumstance. It's a very worrying ideology. There are lots of other principles we could talk about
in detail. However long you want to go on about it, but it's a very worrying ideology that I think Libertarians, and particular should be aware of and concerned about because it's pretty inimical to libertarian thought completely in the first of all, it's collectivist. It separates people according to racial categories and asks them to consider themselves as Representatives or avatars of racial collectives. So it's collectivist in that sense. It's not individualist.
But it also this is a statement that I can quote, pretty close to from memory from from the book, critical race Theory, an introduction, which was written by two critical resources that have some significance, Richard Delgado, and jeans to fonczek and on page 3, Really the first paragraph, they say that we're the describe a critical race theory, is they say that unlike traditional approaches to civil rights, which favored incremental progress and step-by-step progress.
Critical race Theory questions, the very foundations of the liberal order and by liberal here, we actually mean the same thing, the other countries call libertarian or liberal and libertarian, very similar talking about Classical liberalism and it's at its roots. And what do they name? As the very foundations of liberal order? They say, including equality. Three. So, we're going to question equality. They list legal reasoning. So rule of law, Enlightenment rationalism.
So, the idea that human beings are rational agents who can set their own course, it's going to be question. It's very foundation. And the last they list the neutral principles of constitutional law. So, we're going to question the area of constitutional law and there, especially the idea of applying. It neutrally without say, Identity or race-based Consciousness attached to it on page 23 of that book. They start out a rather ominous paragraph.
With saying crits, meaning critical race Theory, wrists are highly suspicious of another liberal Mainstay, namely rights and that's a direct quote. They are so highly suspicious of Rights. So they're collectivist ideology that uses race as its Collective as proxy. That's highly suspicious of things like constitutional law, rationalism, equality, rule of law, in particular and rights individual rights. What is post-modernism? So post-modernism is a school of thought that arose.
It's a very complicated thing in hard toward hard to Define. It is a actual, is it actually as an approach that arose within art and architecture in the 1940s, but became a philosophical movement and that's what's more relevant into the 1960s and going into the 1970s as which is when it really took off the 1970s. So it's an intellectual. All movement that is. Very skeptical of the relationship between knowledge and power.
So, when I said a moment ago, the critical race Theory takes the assumption that racism is systemic in that one of the elements of that system is even what we regard. As knowledge. This is sort of heavily dependent upon postmodern thinking which would say that knowledge is a cultural construct.
Kind of the most core thing or a lots and lots, and lots and lots and lots of things that fall under the Postmodern umbrella, post-modernism naturally, resist being defined but of course single idea could be defined as being postmodern. It would be that knowledge itself is a cultural construction. It is a contingent property of cultures. So we might have a culture.
Let's say, you know, it's the 1300s were in Europe or whatever, you know, particular country where in where, in that culture but it has a view that the Earth is at the center of Though, the solar system at the Sun goes around it and that's considered true. So they have culturally constructed as knowledge, a statement that is false and but
they treated as knowledge. They treated this true and that cultural construction is what's actually relevant because that's what's going to be treated as true. That's what's going to be put into power. We see, for example, with, with the trial of Galileo, in the 1600s early, 1600s that, that was, you know, when that was
challenged, it wasn't. Taken real well because the powers that be will lean in to what is believed to be knowledge, and then we'll enforce that through political and social means, you know, maybe if you dispute it, you're crazy. That's a social means, unless they decide to Psychopathology eyes that and then maybe you get institutionalize. Them might be a state means of coercion something like this. And so the post-modernism was essentially this very pessimistic philosophy.
That arose in French. So thought to try to explore the relationship between knowledge and power primarily. And in fact to make the case that all claims of knowledge whether or not they're true or false is less interesting and less relevant than the systems and Dynamics and properties of power. The social institutions and the the political processes that enable people to say when
something counts as knowledge. And when something does not, I have to admit that it's a very dangerous way to think but that They did have some pretty useful insights given the kind of very technocratic World. We're currently threatening ourselves with. What is theory with a capital T? Okay. So theory is a very complicated idea. It's kind of the catch-all for all of these different ways of thinking that you might associate now with the woke ideology.
If we want to call it, that theory was the shorthand for postmodern social theory, for a long time. But what happened is in the 80s and 90s, it blended with critical theory and it was taken up that blending the people. Who did that blending? Where largely literary theorists so blended with literary Theory as well.
So the theory becomes this kind of catch-all of literary critical critical literary Theory or literary criticism, plus critical theory in the sense of the neo-marxist Frankfurt. School idea of critical theory together with the postmodern social theorizing. That wants to analyze the relationship between knowledge and power that wants to to kind of in the book and cynical theories. We lay out two main principles. In four main themes that kind of characterize Theory.
And those are what I just described in terms of knowledge as we call it. The post modern knowledge principle. We say there's a political Principle as well as modern political principle, which would be generally radical egalitarianism.
And so, what that means is, that if your culture has been in the past excluded, marginalized, depressed, colonized or whatever, then you're the knowledge, and the other cultural artifacts of your culture need to be Acted in elevated, whereas if your culture has been dominant say what they would say is white Western eurocentric masculinist fall, but, you know all the favorite poet heteronormative in all these words that indicate so-called dominant perspectives
within this view, that those perspectives have been unfairly favored and so we have to downplay things like white, Western masculine perspectives likes a science under theirs and up play. Kind of level the playing field is the phrase views that are from cultures that have been have been excluded or marginalized.
And so that's called a radical egalitarianism, which is in a sense, the effort to make things more equal, more egalitarian, by cooking the books tilting, it away from that, which has had power and influence before and toward that, which has not on the assumption that we must be missing something. And that the power is always corruptive Etc.
Then we said that there are these four themes which are the blurring it. So this is I'm saying that this is all kind of what characterizes a behavioral Theory. Those four themes, one of which is the blurring of boundaries, you know, male and female should not be considered stable categories, any longer research and storytelling, we should blur the boundaries between those.
These kinds of things are there efforts to kind of say that the categorization process is illegitimate and enforces power dynamics and needs to be questioned. The questioning is usually subversive and calling into question. The, the categories themselves so that their boundaries become blurred together and it's unclear. What they mean. We talk about the power of language that language is given undue influence. We believe the theory believes that language constructs reality.
This is the social constructivist thesis that, they, that they operate on. So, the way that we talk about things, the way that things are able to, Be discussed the parameters of dialogue, the limits of Truth and falsity. All construct how, and people understand reality, and thus, their interactions with reality itself. So language gets elevated to an extremely high level of importance. We mentioned cultural relativism, which I kind of already touched upon but the one
culture can't judge another. That it's art artifacts are its own then that's going to get mixed with that, radical egalitarianism to tilt the playing field. And lastly, the denial of the universal. And the In favor of identity groups or Collective groups, cultural groups. And so, that's where, I think
one of the biggest. I mean, all of that fall in conflict with this kind of libertarian thought, but especially the denial that we are rational agents, who can derive facts about the world and proceed in a logical and rational fashion, but here we see another one which is the the denial that there's Universal Humanity. Thus that natural law, might make sense and the denial that there is The individual is Meaningful.
In fact, the theory would regard the individual as having been conditioned by Society, depending on what identity collectives, they happen to belong to. So if you are, for example black, then you occupy a particular social position in society views blacks and imposes, certain things upon being black and that centralizes your experience as being black. And so that's inescapable.
This kind of mindset. So there is no such thing as a black individual because the black individual either is representing that experience correctly as Theory describes it. Or they must have false consciousness, or internalized racism or something like this. That they're not actually being honest, for whatever set of reasons and the same would go for any identity group or any intersection of identity groups. The book is cynical theories.
How universities made everything about race, gender and identity and why it harms everybody. What I love about the book is how you guys don't have any assumed knowledge on behalf of the reader. So, well, I think that I know something, the fact that I can't explain it to someone means. Alright, I was kidding. I with myself, I actually don't know what you guys do. A great job of explaining how it's important citing the primary sources. Not like this is a big deal and you all know it.
Well, how do I know? It's not some, you know, so Panic panic. Where we all think something? Just cause we're in the same circles. I really love this book and I highly recommend it. What are meta-narratives. Yeah. So the post-modernism describes itself. As skepticism as this is a quote from from jean-françois, lyotard, one of the one of the post modern philosophers French Coastline phosphorus, and he has a book that came out 1979 called the postmodern condition and in that book.
He says simplifying to the extreme. I And postmodern as incredulity toward meta-narratives. So meta-narratives are at the heart of the thing that the postmodern project is questioning. And so meta-narratives RC are the broad sweeping. It's not just stories but stories about stories that people tell it's how we contextualize everything in in a
particular culture. So, when we say that it's culturally relativistic the stories, the story structure, the way that we think about and interact with, Ideas, that's at the heart of all of. That is a meta-narrative.
So we might talk about the western meta-narrative or we might talk about more specific meta-narratives like Manifest Destiny that came along that we were you know possessed by this, you know Frontier spirit in that, you know, we should spread from coast to coast and it's Manifest Destiny. Like Destiny is playing itself out to get to, you know, the complete occupation of the North American and maybe even South American continents and then that could be applied.
Of course, you know, To traveling to the moon and Mars and so on that, they sometimes bring up now. So yet another one that they criticized as a key meta-narrative. That was a problem, was a civil advises, the civilizing mission in France. The French colonialists had this idea they're going around spreading civilization. Of course, so did all the other European colonists. They believe they're going around, spreading civilization to the uncivilized backwards,
Barbarian parts of the world. That's a meta-narrative. American exceptionalism is a meta-narrative, but they went further than all of this. By the way, being on the right side of history is a meta-narrative, but that's I digress, they went further than this and they started to say that entire systems of thought are met in, there's a Christian meta-narrative. That's probably correct, broadly
speaking. Although we'll let the Protestants and the Catholics fight about who has the real Christian meta-narrative or maybe they would say that there's a Protestant one and there's a Catholic one and then There's, they said that Western liberal liberalism is a meta-narrative. They said that Marxism.
In fact, this being a postmodern analysis, which headed mostly abandoned that Marxism as a failure while still retaining much of its kind of underlying, you know, intellectual architecture, but they said that Marxism was a failure. Marxism had a meta-narrative. They history was going to progress from capitalism into socialism to Communism. That's a meta-narrative. So, It's a way of framing, all the stories in society. And so that's the thing that
they were calling into question. They also said that science and the scientific method constitute a meta-narrative that we can understand the world that we can can gain insight about the world. Suppose Myers was extremely cynical and pessimistic in this regard because progressivism, the idea that history is going to slowly progress toward better and better and it never particularly back slides or takes a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
That's a meta-narrative. So these are the The things that post-modernism said that they are incredulous toward, they don't believe any of it. They believe that basically all descriptions of reality are just cultural constructions that they're largely false at their enforced by consensus. This is kind of summarizing leotards work where he talked about what was called legitimation by / ology and he
believed that. What happens is that people actually including in science, they have a Such a view, which is socially constructed in socially, enforced, way of thinking about things and they all tend everybody in the, in the social structure tends to agree with it, broadly speaking. And so there's a consensus that it's the way things are. Things are true that supposed to be interpreted this way or that,
this is how things are true. This is how we should approach questions in the world and all of that is just merely Consensus. It is horology. It is not logic. It is something that lives beside logic. Para logic Harold. Horology means, I've talked to a guy at one point. He said that you never understood what horology meant until he took a philosophy seminar at the University. And Professor asked, you know, let's talk about why it hurts
legitimation by virology. What is / ology and they argued about what it might be and Bubba blah, and then, finally, the professor said, here's an easier way. It's lies. What is intersectionality? Okay, so intersectionality is a contemporary concept. I say contemporary it is the dominant identity Theory. That's operating right now, even though its creator whose name's Kimberly Crenshaw, said that she, she claims. I don't I don't believe it. Could be honest with you.
But in one of her most influential papers, she claims that she never meant for intersectionality to become a totalizing theory of identity. It is a totalizing theory of identity. So intersectionality starts from the observation that things are When you have more than one that if we take, I should say, let me step one step, back further.
If we take for granted, the idea that there might actually be something, you know, within say networks of stereotypes or behavior or attitudes toward groups of people in society that, for example, there are stereotypes towards black people or stereotypes toward women stereotypes toward men, or whatever happens to be that when you have two or more of these identity categories at one time. I'm it's not as clear.
It's not as simple as saying. Oh, you know, the things that apply to say black people in the things that apply to women. You take those together. That's what you get for black women. They get it was both shit. It's actually the argument that not only do you get hit with both but you don't necessarily know which way you're being discriminated against. Plus there's an additional fact that black women have their own stereotypes about them and their
own, axes of discrimination. And so the idea actually arose and law Kimberly. Shah was actually a lawyer.
She was at Harvard Law and her first observation that he brought the concept of, although it really came out of black feminism from about 12 years earlier, but your list and in 1989, and she analyzed discrimination laws, a series of discrimination lawsuits, but most notably one for General Motors, and she pointed out that they were being sued for discrimination against black women and the legal defense that they gave said, we're not discriminatory against black
people or not discriminatory against women and And so there's no discrimination, but indeed the case was that they had lots of black men working on the factory floor, and lots of white women working in the office, but they had very, very few black women. And there was no legal recourse to figure out what to do with that circumstance that I admit that that is a thorny in important aspect of
discrimination law. That does need some attention, and would need some attention, but she turned into this entire totalizing, theory of identity that your social position. Going to these various belonging to Identity groups that you know, that belonging to various like identity groups that you
might have. So dramatically not just informative but determinant of your experience that you have to think of yourself in terms of those identity groups and the way that those identity groups interact. So if you're a black man, you have to be able to come out and they say, engaging your positionality. You have to come out and intentionally say, you know as a black man you swear you get these as a identity. Blah blah blah statement so much.
I understand, you know, the black experience, which is this centralized. Experience under Theory, but I also understand that I occupy the position of dominance that comes with being a man. And so that I need to, you know, be able to defer to that under a radical egalitarian mindset. I need to defer to that female perspective. When a woman challenges a challenge to me, but when it comes to race, I've become an authority. Because I'm in the marginalized perspective there.
And so it's a way of dragging your varying, various identity categories up into relevance. On basically everything. Now. This is again, me being very nice to these things. Intersectionality was created. Kimberle, Crenshaw is credited with it. The idea was already floating around for a bit before that queer theorist. For example, we're already talking about that sex. Gender and sexuality are complicated. They interact somehow and the they very intrinsically interact.
And that there's some fundamental difference, for example, between being a gay man and a lesbian woman, even though both are homosexual and there's some fundamental differences there. And then Things are very
complicated. Well, then, even before that, you also had this group is called combahee River Collective. And this is a mouthful, the short answer is that these were black feminists, but the reality is that they were lesbians who were queer black feminist socialists who had formed a collective and ident and they coined the term identity politics. What we saw in the Civil Rights Movement was not a daily politics because this was a 1977, the combahee river Collective. I think was formed.
In 1974, they coined the term identity politics in 1977 and they were talking about. The idea of the intersections between queer politics, Black Liberation politics and feminism over a decade before kimberle. Crenshaw, brought it up. And so what you actually see here is in practice and this is kind of controversial to say, but it's accurate. That is that intersectionality is basically an extortion,
racket. That's built so that Queer black feminist socialists can create a network of solidarity? Very much. Like, the mafia would create a network of families that are all going to kick up Advantage resources, money influence, opportunity, power, Etc, toward queer, black feminist socialist women.
So what It ultimately boil and this is this was revealed, by the way, I don't want to sound like, you know, you don't read them saying this but you see it throughout You know, these ideas like always will matter when black lives matter. So this means that we're now going to do a extortion, racket toward black lives, mattering. And all other lives are just going to have to deal with it. And the assumption is that black
lives being the least valued. Once they matter, it must imply that all lives matter which is, of course, a fallacy because you could easily make it so that black lives matter. Nobody else is matter. That's actually a possibility. So it's based on a fallacy, but you saw In particular last summer when all the riots and so on broke out, you see it right now when what happened was, people started talking about not just about white fragility and white complicity.
And in white supremacy, this sort of talking about Brown fragility and brown complicity in white supremacy and brown anti-blackness. You see it right now with the issues are in the Asian American community that have come up. And I hate to say Asian American Community because first of all, there's no community. Second of all Asian-American is insufficiently, granular. Chinese-americans Korean Americans, Japanese Americans, Vietnamese, Americans,
Indonesia, numeric. I mean, these, these people do not have the same cultural background. Anyway, so Asian-American is already. This kind of odd conglomerate that doesn't really recognize itself, and then there's no singular or unitary Community, among any of those groups, much less the whole thing. And then, of course, that's not even good enough. They've replaced Asian-American now with a API to make an even,
you know, an acronym based. Bigger one, but what do they say as well, although they're intrinsically antsy, vantablack. So even the right now in our cities are getting beat up and they're getting robbed and they're getting assaulted in the getting raped and all these horrific things are happening and they're being discriminated against her schools, Etc, under the rubric of critical race Theory and race analysis, even though all this stuff is happening.
It would be especially the beating up in the crime. It would be anti-black to call for more police and this Taps into a History of anti Blackness among Asians who are a model minority. Bubba, Bubba blah. And so what you can see is what they've done with intersectionality is said. Oh, okay. API people Asian American people.
You guys, you guys are all an oppressed minority and we have the solidarity Network called intersectionality where you can understand your impressionable block carry water for this movement, and then the second something either, you know, the second the, the grift is available whether its power or money. The extortion racket is available. It's like, whoops, your auntie
black, too. The whole Auntie kicks up in One Direction and that direction is we even saw that last summer to, by the way, with black lives matter wasn't enough, you had trans black lives matter came out, you know, and it's like you can see the direction that it all everything points in a particular direction and it is intersectionalities of totalizing, 3, of identity, even though kimberle Crenshaw said in 1991 that she didn't intend it to be and I don't believe her.
It is a totalizing theory of identity that causes people to focus on their factors. Of identity and divide themselves and sort themselves by factors of identity and other factors I heard today. In fact, that children in schools are sorting themselves by how tall they are and all kinds of other things, you know, where this, you know, you can't be in our group because you're too short or Too Tall or
whatever. They're just sorting themselves and sorting themselves into more and more, you know, into little collectives. Not into each person's individual and let's learn across four different. No, no little collectors, but at the same time as it being a totalizing theory of identity, it was correct Construction. Fit as a solidarity based racketeering effort to kick advantage in money and power and grift toward queer, black feminist socialists, which is way more accuracy than they like
having told about them. I want to get into the mindset of one of the post modern thinkers and Michel Foucault in. What is Enlightenment. He says what must be grasped is the extent to which what we know of it in reference to historical generalities. The forms of power that are exercised in it and the experience that we have in it ourselves constitute nothing but determined historical figures through a certain form of problem. Metas problematization, that defines objects.
The actions modes of relations to oneself. What does that mean? I will ask you to read it again. So this is first of all, let me just say, this is typical of how the French postmodernist through there was a lot of people don't understand this. There was actually a kind of academic social Norm within the French blue in the mid-twentieth century that maybe still persists, but less that the
belief was basically. Lee genuinely that if people could understand more than about 70 percent of what you had to say, you were probably not that smart. And so there was this kind of showing off with these complicated statements and complicated sentences and complicated words and very complicated ideas and it's not entirely clear all the time that they even knew what they meant themselves, but it probably is the case.
So if we co is actually talking, they're primarily in again to get all of it. I probably have to hear it again because it was a lot but he's Talking primarily about the idea that we are, in fact, caught up in historically contingent those culturally continuing processes. There's no external perspective from which somebody like yourself, or I could step aside and say, we're looking at the world objectively.
This is what's true. In fact, we have to say, no, we're actually denizens of the 21st century who live in the United States and that cultural. Lou Shades how we think Shades, how we know we are not separate from the processes of History. We are not separate from the contingencies of History. We're not separate from the culture in which we find ourselves embedded, therefore, that colors.
The way that we think, even though we tend to think that that's not what's going on. We tend to think of ourselves as independent of that. Whereas, in fact, we are not independent of that. And the most generous thing to do would say, oh, well, we need a proper recognition acknowledgement and accounting for that. Try to figure things out. Am I just leaning into a particular bias? But Foucault was more hopeless
than that. Kind of believed that there was no such no Avenue by, which such a thing could be resolved, everything comes back to that same problem. So the sort of indicative, you know, of the postmodern thought about knowledge and about the contingency of History to the
way. Contingencies of History would mean that whatever cultural context you find yourself in ultimately frames out everything that you say, everything that you think every every way that you You're able to live your life or be even, what if you were to talk about Liberty, what your what Liberty means is all conditioned by the society.
You know, what, an American in the 21st century thinks of his Liberty, might not match what Thomas Jefferson thought of his Liberty and might not match what somebody who lives in China in the 21st century thinks of his Liberty. And, you know, I've honestly had conversations with people in China who explained that Liberty is not having to think for
yourself. Being told what to do which is inimical to the idea of Liberty here, you know, but they think know you're free to live your life the way that you want to if you're just told what to do all the time because you don't have to think about the about all of that. You don't have to figure out for yourself. How you're going to order your Affairs. You don't have to figure out for yourself. What you're going to do with your life.
You're just told, you know, go be a doctor, go be a go, be a janitor, go be the guy who has a this is real and China a broom tied to the back of his bike that rides up and down the highway. Pennies a day to treat sleep. So they have zero unemployment. You're just told what to do, and you don't have to think about it and it's free. It's freeing in the this line of thinking.
And so Foucault would say there's no way for us to evaluate because we're trapped in our own cultural context here in America. And say, that's actually totalitarianism. That's not freedom, and there would be no way for the Chinese and they're called context. So look at what we're doing and say, well, Americans think they're free, but they're chained to all of the things
they have to do to manage. Has their own lives, there's no way for either of those two cultures to communicate and to resolve that difference or the result of that distinction. That's kind of what he's talking about. Being trapped within those particular contingencies of history and thus culture. There was a research book on the Frankfurt School where it summarizes horkheimer, the Frankfurt schools, credited founder saying the dichotomy of absolutism and relativism was in fact a false.
This one each period of time has its own truth or timer argued. Although there is none above time. What is true is whatever Foster's social change in the direction of a rational Society. Why is there such an attack on objective truth and morality? Because, that's where if you objective things, remove power from people who want to have power. Hmm, objective. That which is objective is something to which every person has to Defer, its external to every individual.
And so, nobody has any authority to Proclaim over the objective. If we were Christian, you would say nobody has the authority to Proclaim over God. If we're strictly scientist would say, nobody has the authority to say that the world is other than it is. But if we get rid of this idea that there's objective truth, then all of a sudden there have to be people who are considered the authenticators of Truth and those people become empowered. Those people become the experts.
Those people become the technocrats who can order In run Society through their dicta. And so that's why there's an assault on objective truth. That's why there's the attempt to tear this down is because it empowers the people. So when you have horkheimer, there were marking that, you know, we have to be heading toward a rational Society should also be remarked. That horkheimer was a neo-marxist. The swear Kaymer imbibed in believe a lot of marxian thought.
And so for Marx, remember that Marx said that the dialectic Materialism is the true science of society, the true science of history and that it is direct socialism is the rational than communism worth of is the truly rational way to live in to order a society. And therefore when he says that we anything that doesn't Point toward a more rational Society. What he actually means is anything that doesn't Point toward communism because the Communists believe in.
They still believe that true rationality, true science and true democracy all exist, only under a communist. System. So when you put those two things together that statement then becomes very indicative of what's going on. You have these philosopher types these marks in place for types of neo-marxists philosophers, who want to be able to order Society in the direction of a
communist Utopia that they believe is possible. and, What they want to do is undermine the idea of objective truth because that's what would reveal them to be charlatans. That's what would reveal them to be utopians. I would prove what we reveal them to be. In fact totalitarian. You want to control the way everybody thinks. If you don't understand it's about communism is a very important point.
The fundamental belief of Communism in the reason it ends up murdering so many people not starving them necessarily. That's just as failure. The reason ends up murdering so many people. So many dissidents. Some people get carted off to gulags is Typically because the Communists belief and re-education camps is that communism will work when everybody has the proper communist Consciousness, when everybody is awakened to the truth of Communism, that's when it will work.
That's when it will spontaneously begin to take shape into function, which is, of course incorrect. But what does that mean? It means you have to eliminate people who are irrational. You have to eliminate people who are not fitting in with that program, people who are not re-educate about people who are not not able to be awakened out of reality into the the false power struggle that they're actually trying to thrust people into.
And so the assault on objective truth is an assault on the ability to put brakes on that train in some sense. I said this recently, it's as though critical theories and communism for that, have Unleashed a train rolling down a hill and salt. Things like objective Truth. For example, remove the brakes on that train and at the bottom of the hill, there's a cliff and it's going to fly off. But what they've done is try to like it's already rolling.
The question is what's going to happen and what they are doing with the assault on objective. Truth is trying to remove the brakes so that there's no way to stop that train because they think once the train comes off the tracks and falls into the cliff. Everything's going to be perfect. That's just that's where it is.
And yeah, so in 1943, James Burnham wrote the Machiavelli ins Defenders of Freedom. He wrote about the iron law of oligarchy and says, whatever social changes, occur, whatever happens to economic relations, whether property is in private hands or socialized, organization will remain and through organization and oligarchical Rule will be perpetuated. Another words. Even if you're in a union of people trying to seek equality, only some people show up to the meetings.
And only some people speak and one or two people, or one percent of people are going to decide what the rules are and use their linguistic or rhetorical tactics to convince the large people of how to vote. So, oligarchy is almost an iron rule in nature. Do you think critical race Theory and post-modernism is therefore a Fool's errand because it doesn't accept the Pareto Principle or the iron law of oligarchy post-modernism. Yes.
Post-modernism misunderstands. Those rules of hierarchy and Society critical race Theory. No because critical race Theory actually wants to become the oligarchs. The goal of critical race theory is to enforce critical race Theory as the iron rule. It is to become that one percent who shows up to all the meetings, who talks at every school board meeting who takes all of the positions of bureaucratic power. In particular. They very rarely want to be like the president of a thing or the
head of a thing. They usually want to be an administrative and bureaucratic roles. They this was the danger with Joe Biden. People say, oh, it's Joe Biden. Critical race. Theory says you woke. Blah, blah blah. And it's like, it doesn't matter. Is Administrative state with 5000 or whatever unaccountable point. He's will be largely influenced by the ideology. And that's what it wants to do is he wants to occupy those bureaucratic positions.
It wants to show up to the meeting so that it does. In fact, create the de facto oligarchy, but when you have it in service to an ideology like that, we no longer call it an oligarchy. We call it a party with a capital P. And that is the objective of critical race Theory. So critical race theory is not
purely postmodern. It is in fact uses post-modernism, but is largely based also in critical theory and Neo Marxism, which sought to create that, you know, rash, so-called rational, liberated Society. In other words, a kind of Marxist style, but not exactly, Marxist Utopia. Where would themselves in charge? They would be the leninist? What are they called? The Vanguard or whatever? It's going to Shepherd Society through the process of refill Liberation by empowering themselves.
So critical race Theory does not does not fail to understand this. Get me talk about it as being a problem. That it says that there's all these hierarchies but it's very I blatantly like we talked about with intersectionality creating an alternative hierarchy that puts itself strongly into Power And as far as that iron law goes
is probably correct. And what this means is that we constantly have in societies that we want to have Be Free by one means or another, whether that's minimizing the size of government or institutional apparatus has whether it's, you know, other means, whether separation of powers, whatever it happens to be some set of means have to be Is that minimize the ability for the oligarchs to have absolute or tyrannical influence over the populations or systems that they
control? That is the under the underlying goal of successful. Political systems that avoid tyranny and critical race theory is trying to do. Exactly the opposite of that. They are trying to make themselves that one percent, who control everything people. I think have realized this. This in the past three to six months, rather rapidly, which is a little bit.
Encouraging Professor. Stephen Hicks says the failure of epistemology made post-modernism possible and the failure of socialism made post-modernism necessary. Do you agree with that? Yes, largely, you know, Hicks and I have some very slight different disagreements around the idea of Concord ideas of how counter alignment can't was, but otherwise, I agree with the majority of his analysis. Think he's a little bit. I used to think.
Anyway, I'm not sure. Now a little bit bent on the idea that it was all, you know, an attempt to bring to keep bringing communism into the picture. But now I'm kind of more convinced that that is the case post-modernism though itself. I don't think post-modernism developed intentionally as a set of tools to undermine Western Civilization. So that communism could come
into play. I think it just developed itself, has decided tools to undermine civilizations, period, all of them and then people who had communist, agendas were able to pick it up and then use it in that regard. So, you know, I think Hicks is broadly, correct? Their yeah, just with a little bit of nuance there at the I don't think. The post the postmodernist
themselves. I don't think we're nearly as purposed and what they were doing, as people think they were, but the people who picked up post modern tools in the next generation of thought, certainly are, which then links, you know to what what Hicks is writing there. I think the post-modernism by the way is a failure of authenticity primarily. It is. A also critical theory is an another way, but there's this
Disconnection from the real. They feel like societies progressed to a point where nothing can be real nothing. There's no connection to the real. Nobody can understand who they really are. Everybody's caught up in. Whether you hear it from like, you know, fucose talking about the idea that it were culturally conditioned and just contingent, you know, avatars of the cultures we find ourselves in with you hear from Herbert
marcuse. So, the neo-marxist, who's talking about the idea that we're subject all of the heteronomous, interests of Consumer capitalism, there's this idea that there's this gigantic disconnection from authenticity that it's impossible to be yourself and to be real. And I think that, that's ultimately what this is all kind of speaking into, especially in the, you know, modern. And then going into what we would now be in a postmodern. Hold up.
My cell phone is an example of a very digital, you know, almost hyper real world that we live in. Now, there's this crisis of authenticity and I think that the The root of a lot of that is a crisis of authenticity, but certainly, the neo-marxist were angry vengeful people who wanted to install of a communist type Utopia. I don't think the post modernists were. I think they've given up on everything.
I think they're just pessimists. Wanted to just question everything at its very foundations. What is falsification and why is it important to be able to falsify a theory? Yeah. So Karl Popper laid out the idea of falsification, which has become one of the Cornerstone objects of scientific thought. So what popper argued was that? It doesn't. It's not that you can show that something is true in the scientific process, but it is possible to show something is
wrong. So, you know, somebody can forward an idea, you can show, disconfirming evidence that knocks it down off of, its pedestal and now that's not correct anymore. And so you can disconfirm these things. And so what will poppers Is that for a theory to be scientific? Didn't say that? This is the only way to think about things with the only kind of knowledge. He said, before a theory to be considered scientific the hypotheses.
It forwards must be falsifiable. You can't have something that's so vague that you know, you can then argue even if you were presented with contradictory evidence. Oh, well, it's still right? Because some other complicated thing you could use the example of astrology and say, well, you know, you don't really act like a Taurus or whatever you say. Well, that's because my moon is in Scorpio, you know, where my my ascendant is in the I don't know another, another one
Capricorn or something. And so, you know, there's these just these abilities to it to dodge the or, you know, well I would, but Mercury's in retrograde so there's there's no like tight clear weight by, which the statements before, with why a model like astrology can properly be shown to be
false. What Papa said is, if we're going to consider something scientific, which isn't the only way to get the knowledge, but if we're going to consider something scientific, it has to be able to be falsified. It has to be able to be shown to be incorrect.
And that which does not fall to falsification those hypotheses, which cannot be falsified are ones that we will take provisionally to be true or regard, is true with the idea that it's still possible that maybe we will uncover the Necessary evidence at some point later. So why falsification is so important is because we're human beings are engines of the opposite. We are engines of confirmation bias. We're engines of desirability bias.
We are we desperately? But so if you have an idea, whatever it is, you know, that, you know, electrolytes are what plants crave. For example, that's your idea and you decide you're going to start. What are you going to do? Your guy most people are going to try to find ways to confirm that they're going to add electrolytes to water and water. The plants are at electrolytes and Soil and Water, you know, and fertilize the soil
electrolytes. They're going to, they're going to try to find ways to confirm it. That's we generally tend to do. We get an idea and we try to find out reasons why we're correct. That's called confirmation bias. And sometimes it's that we don't want to face the Alternatives or whatever or we really want something to be true. We really want the person to like us and so we have a bias of desirability. The thing we want to be true. We've look for reasons why that
would be the case. Falsification says, look if we're going to get properly scientific knowledge. We can't have vague theories. That could be anything like astrology or Biblia, Mansi or reading of tea leaves and entrails. We can't do that vague social theories. We need to have falsifiable hypotheses and then secondly, What we have to be able to do is step into that realm, where where? You know, ideas can be cut down and we retain what is, right?
So that we avoid the confirmation bias that we're looking for. So rather than becoming engine, if we want to get the right answers, rather than being engines of confirmation bias. We want to become rational users of disconfirmation Technology. If you will, or even to adopt a consummate scientists would have a so-called skeptical orientation, which would actually be a biased toward disking. Disconfirming things. When I was, I'm trained as a man.
Petition. And so one of the first things that you first mistakes, all would be mathematicians make. As you know, you're given a proposition but conjecture or whatever and you dive in to try to prove it. But after you get a little seasoning, what you actually learn to start doing is to look for Content, rather than looking for a way to confirm the thing that's in front of you. Start looking for contradictions.
So are looking for counter-examples specifically, we're all trained when you take, you know, under Elementary number Theory, we're all trained about this famous example. I forget if it's the mersenne Prime's or one of these famous sequences or one of these famous types of prime numbers. They're not sequences. And you know, what happened was back in the day, the very large numbers are very difficult to calculate and check, but back in the day. They checked the first one and it's a prime.
They check the second one and it's a prime and they did that all the way up to the sixth one. And it's a prime and they said, hobbies are always Prime. And turns out the seventh one is not Prime and so, but it's really, it's a what you start to do is you look, you train yourself to look for those. Disconfirming, counter-examples those places where the thing you think might be true. It's probably wrong. And this is a very typical discipline for thought.
It's a very difficult habit of mind to adopt to seek disconfirmation rather than confirmation. And that's really what poppers leaning into. So no ideas that are so vague that we that they could be you can't possibly have them. They can't possibly be wrong there. So interpretive their interpretive range is too wide to tell you anything. Her to ever be shown to be incorrect on the one hand and on the other hand is to avoid the problems of confirmation bias.
And desirability bias. Also something like the availability heuristic a lot of these. Very simple biases and are logical errors that can lead people down rabbit holes, that go the wrong way, away from truth. That's really important because when I had one said I'm having person X on my show and they go. Oh God you hang out with that racist and I said, first of all, Define racism and I got almost all of his books in front of me. Where where did he Embrace racism?
Or promote This Racist ideology. I got to get that definition first though. And of course the definition is something like the institutionalized, foundational, ideologies, that stem that are embedded Within. In the majority group in a certain demographic within a certain time based on Prejudice. It's like well from that you can't get it. You can't get anything. How about this one? I constantly hear about. You know, Robyn D'Angelo very popular.
Jimmy Kimmel show always talking about privilege. Now. I cannot imagine why I would ever say walk up to a Jewish person and say you have privilege your people have higher incomes than whites Asians. You people are privileged. You have higher incomes than whites.
Black Americans are privileged because they are better off than black Liberian. So they need to embrace their privilege and read this book called black fragility and women have privilege because they're less likely to be homeless and they have longer life expectancies. The only reason I would ever do that is if I were Iago. The Shakespearean character trying to divide People based on lies and technicalities. Why on Earth is this privilege.
Something, they put so much. Focus on because it works because it works. That's why the. So the concept I'm just going to cut straight to Bare Bones. I'm not really talk about this publicly much yet occurred on Twitter, but I haven't really dialogue about it. But the concept of privilege is a maoist concept.
It is a concept to divide Society into groups, to stratify in factor to identify stratification, or claim stratification Society to divide people into the Haves and the Have Nots. And too. Stink on the have. There is no like privilege is not a positive word and I always say it's a, my privilege, you know, it's a privilege to be able to speak with you or privilege to appear on your show.
That's one thing, of course, all these words have multiple meanings, but that's a different thing entirely to say you are privileged. Which means, what is privileged mean? It means? Oh, well, you have unearned advantages and you're probably, you probably think you deserve them. That is just something that is meant to knock people down. This is legitimately the same concept that was used. With the people who had, you know, standing in society in the
mouth cultural revolution. It is a maoist idea. They use it because it works because exactly what you said about Iago because it does divide people. And that is the goal. It is, it is the goal to get people to divide themselves across these lines of stratification to make it so that it's a poor whites and poor blacks. Now, can't unify and realize
that the it may be elite. Of society are screwing them both at the same way because now the white people are privileged over the black people and they have their own class conflict that they now have to have in terms of privilege and they have to fight with each other rather than realizing that they're in the same circumstance. So it's a very divisive kind of thing. It's meant to knock down. The people who are being labeled privilege.
It's meant to create the scapegoating situation of those in those groups. And it's also Meant to induce shame. If you look at the Mao's cultural revolution, that was the entire purpose was to shame people publicly, shame people, humiliate people into doing the bidding of the Red Guard into doing the bidding of the maoists. And that's exactly what the purpose of the concept of privileges is to shame.
The people who are labeled as privileged as needing to, to reflect until they understand why they should be ashamed. And then to use that shame as a motivator to work in so-called solidarity, on behalf of the people. Who have less privileged or who are pressed? It is a pretty vile manipulation tactic.
There's there's pretty much nothing nice about it, but it's also means, you know, when you attach it to something like race of doing racial scapegoating, which is extremely poisonous and extremely divisive extremely dangerous. I spoke with an intelligence officer, Chase use of the behavioral panel and he said that if I could describe mind control in one word, it would be repetition. How is repetition used by social justice activists?
I mean, they have a variety of know if you've read, Robert, Jay. Lifton, Robert, Jay lifton, studied. In fact now is sort of stances around Chinese Cultural Revolution and was particularly interested in understanding the patterns of thought. And so repetition is certainly a way that you can condition, somebody. But simultaneously what they do within within this kind of woke approach as they have those variety of things that lift and called thought, stopping
techniques. Stop thought stopping ideas. And so, you know, do the work, you know, silence is violence, and then they slogan eyes. These things are all very black lives matter. These are all very slogan eyes, did things there's not a Lot of thought involved, but then they say them and stick them and write them everywhere. Site. They chant them silence is violence, you know, in particular silence is complicity. These very simple slogans.
That think it repeated again and again and again and again. And again, you see in particular also with the attempt to name, everything that goes wrong in society as a manifestation of whiteness or white supremacy, you know, something going wrong, white, some things on her own white. Something's gone, wrong white over, and over, and over, and over and over. Over and over again. And these are, in fact, kind of cult conditioning techniques.
And then when you add in these thought, stopping techniques in the idea that somebody who deviates it, somehow, you know, going to be punished. Do you end up having quite the effect of kind of cult indoctrination, going on in the ideologies? Extremely effective at this will look at how the corporate press will. So selectively choose to report on some stores and not others. The white officer shot, the black victim. When There are more White's killed by officers.
Now, of course, we're getting into their disproportionately targeted, whatever. Well, so are men, but they commit more crime. The point is, is that if you hear about the story, it's not because it's just out there and they're just unbiased Lee reporting the news. They are choosing to report on some things and not others. Dave Rubin makes the great point in his book. Don't burn this book that. Yes, a climate change. In the environment is something vitally important.
We should focus on, but please realize, you're always hearing about these environmental disaster. If you are afraid of environmental disasters, there's never been a better time than today to be alive because of technology and better infrastructure and better communication methods to get people safe and to warn them ahead of time. So you never hear about that. I mean, how often will the corporate press say the year 1795 percent of humanity lived in poverty?
Today. It's closer to 15%, Lets lets, you know, hooray for that. You know, there isn't a World War something. They're constantly using this fear and Titian in order to get us into this terrified state to look to the critical race theory has for the solution for everything. I wanted to take a look at that with the with the cases of like the so-called Insurrection on January 6th at the Capitol, right?
So all of this happens and when you hear white supremacist, white supremacist Whispering, this is a saturation. New cycle, you have the Congress going through like its own struggle sessions and crying. The Congress is crying in front of the nation, like what the hell. And so this is going on. And then literally this week. Eek like four days ago or something like this.
There was a black man and member of the Nation of Islam who drove his car into police officers at the capital into a crashing into a barricade. Got out with a long knife. You know this whole thing this get reported on in vanished almost immediately. So there is a selective repetition of stories that serve a particular narrative that pushing a particular direction and this is absolutely a part. We see this also with the with the Karis, right.
So it's like, new strain, new variant new strain, double mutation new strain. New variant vaccine vaccine, vaccine vaccine, vaccine new strains are up, cases are up. Yeah, of course. And again, and again, and again. And again, the same repetition, the same repetition. Then you have States like Florida and the Texas, humiliating that narrative and rather than cases are cases are up which they can no longer say they have to lean into new strain, new variant. Ah, you know, the whole thing.
And so, there is this I mean, I think it's legitimately. I don't know whether it's happening fully organically or quasi, organically, or somewhat organically or not. All organically. I'm not going to make any claims about like conspiracy or whatever but it's virtually taken on the effective. Its it is effectively a psyops at this point. The media. I don't know if they are my running.
Hypothesis is if they psyops themselves, they got such a bad case of trump, derangement syndrome that they drove themselves literally nuts and they just keep repeating this stuff. You can hear it like, with Jordan Peterson. He has this really great talk about. How did Hitler become Hitler with the Nazis? And he says, you know, Hitler didn't make Hitler Hitler. You can't, you have to put responsibility, but Hitler was interacting with his crowd.
So Hitler would get onstage and he would say some crazy stuff and he would hear, you know, when did the crowd Roar one of the crowd cheer and then hit Peterson says, is that anybody would just five or six people? Would be so swayed by this that they could be led way off the track, right? Then imagine 100 people or millions of people cheering.
And so what you had with the news media with trumped arrangement, for example was ever like, look at the ratings, CNN MSNBC are complaining that the ratings are in the toilet. We just saw what Jim Acosta and Brian stelter and somebody else go on TV, and they're like, we kind of have Trump withdrawals. We don't know what to do without Trump, they drove themselves. So nuts that they LED themselves, literally.
Crazy Land into blue, Adonis. Some people are jokingly calling it like these left-wing conspiracy theories. And at some point functionally speaking. This becomes a psyops, their craziness is being projected onto everybody else in this rampant detect to keep pushing the narrative that only they believe and it's driving people nuts. It's like the repetition is part of that, but they've also repeated it to themselves so many times, but it had it Maggie like reflected back to them.
By a panicked audience. That was just gobbling it up. If you look at the ratings, just gobbling it up that I think they psyops to themselves and then use that to psyops us in repetition is a huge huge piece of that political Warfare. Well any day now Mueller is going to come out with part 2 of the report and prove collusion. So then you'll be really sorry. Final question, sir. Thank you so much for your time. Why is social justice theory false? Well, this is a complicated thing.
So if we're going to talk about social justice theory, I assume you mean the way that we've described it in in cynical theories. And so yeah, so social justice are both capitalized letters and theories, capitalized as well. Okay, so what that actually refers to, that's a kind of a shorthand, so it's accessible the formal name for this is called critical Social Justice by offers on Robyn D'Angelo or another much more academically for Animal name for this is
called critical constructivism. And the reason that it's false is because it doesn't reflect reality. It assumes a particular theoretical lens which is critique. And that's in the form of critical theory, which is I could describe for you at some length. Y critical theory is a very biased way. We already talked about horkheimer and his whole thing. But what we're Comer laid out, we need to find critical theory in 1937 for the first time.
Was that for a theory? To be considered a critical theory. It has to satisfy three criteria at a minimum. It has to have a normative vision of a perfected society and a Utopia and it has to be able to critique how the society that we currently inhabit. Doesn't live up to that or isn't heading in that rational direction as he would have put it and then three ass Inspire social activism. So this is what critical means. So this is already a problem because it has its conclusion in
mind as its direction in mind. And what it's designed to do. Do is not necessarily understand something or Kaymer. Separated, traditional theory out for understanding the world rally to understand how the world is not headed in that so-called rational communist Direction. And so it already has its goal in mind. So critical is already a problem and it uses the method of complaining raising contributions bringing up division agitating creating alienation.
It's very poisonous - cynical pessimistic approach that's already damaging. Okay, so then that's the critical aspect, achieving social. Through critical so critical social justice, which is social justice theory, that's probably not going to work for a while. But then what I said, is it formally? It is constructivist. It's critical constructivist, which means it relies upon the social constructivism thesis of post-modernism, that's wrong too.
It's not to say that. Nothing in our society is socially constructed, certainly, there are norms that are socially constructed. If you go to the Ballgame, which would not be baseball because we don't go to baseball games anymore. Apparently, but But that's a joke. But you know, if you go to a like, say, you got your team and everybody goes. I saw this baseball came to mind because they remember watching the World Series with the Astros and they, for some reason in
their their ballpark. They have a train or something like this as like a gimmick or something with that. Has to do with rockets and stores. I don't know, but they have a train and so there's these weird like, you know, little dances that people do at certain times like the train dancer or, you know, or the wave or whatever it is. And that there will be patterns, you know, and people will say some chance of social
constructions do come up right? Social conventions do come up and they do dictate aspects of Our Lives. We have our inside jokes and all of our social groups. These are social constructions as well. We also have socially constructed beliefs. I would say that that they're not totally wrong. For example, to say that gender is largely socially constructed where they are wrongs to believe that it's divorced from sex, the social constructions that Define what gender is.
Are overwhelmingly dependent upon the underlying biology in a very complicated way. They're not arbitrary. They're not just social constructions or social, constructions, are rooted in the fact that there's biology and that these things within certain contacts have led to more successful reproduction, or mating, or dating, or whatever happens to be. And so these things are or, you know, functioning societies, maybe with masculine and feminine Norms. These things are not arbitrary,
so too. Social constructivist thesis that everything is just socially constructed and therefore, can be questioned in a very foundational way and replaced, by other social constructions. If we just get great enough consensus around, it is all Theory. So if you have this idea, also, the social construct instructor construction of knowledge is more false than true. It's got like this tiny kernel of truth to it. That ye are our scientific theories are ultimately
expressed in language. They're ultimately, you know, they are models. They are not actually reality. There are descriptions of reality. So to the but philosophers of science who are more careful of actually dealt with this. We could talk about John Searle, we could talk about Hawking and Stephen Hawking Leonard mlodinow, they've all dealt with this kind of thing. This isn't confusing to anybody with social theorists. So what do you talk about the social?
Theory of knowledge. This is just Preposterous. There are true things about the world. The objective world does exist. We can actually very approximately know things about it in a functional sense. We can just say, we know them, we don't have to have some weird absolute perfection of knowledge for it to count. And since you take both of those aspects of constructivism is
just wrong. There are social constructions and social construction, should be investigated and looked at and studied Etc. And we should understand them and where they are. Are stupid, you know, like racism was a socially constructed phenomenon and it was bad and we questioned it and we tore it down.
That was good. But everything is not socially constructed and so the social constructivist thesis is incorrect, but a critical method is incorrect and poisonous and when you put those two things together, you don't get something better, you get something worse. And so the social justice theory, the capital theory of the social justice movement is Absolutely. And impoverished way to think most importantly though, just to kind of wrap back to critical race Theory, kind of began.
It assumes like I said, it's critical race Theory assumes that racism was the ordinary State of Affairs when uses critical methods to find it. It assumes its conclusion and then Works its way to that. That's automatically a terrible way to go, anything that does that is sofas tree. It's not a theory. It's not even remotely close to it. It's not even a hypothesis saying that racism is the ordinary State of Affairs of
society. In better than all of the fabric of The fabric of society is a metaphor. It's not even falsifiable. It's not even if it's not even a hypothesis, something that's T. It's mythology, literally mythology. And so, it's wrong because it's premises are all wrong, and it misunderstands Humanity, which it doesn't seek to understand. And misunderstand Society. It has an agenda, State goal, operating underneath it.
It's literally difficult to think of a worse way to go about it. Achieving the occasionally. There are some very Noble and that this movement seems to be, you know, after it's about treating people were fairly. So being, you know, it's about getting over racism. These are all great things. But this, you could hardly devise a worse way to go about it. And the reason this is such a bad way isn't necessarily because the people are bad people, although that's probably
true of some of them. The reason is probably mostly that. It's just a backwards Theory. It gets everything wrong. Didn't kind of its desperation to make change without, you know, making change their method matters. If you want to change something, you have to do it. Right? Right. If you want to change your tire on your car, you have to do it, right? You can just you know, stick a different wheel on there. You can just like hack at it with an axe or whatever.
You actually have to do it correctly, the method matters and they've got like the worst their methods. Like we need to change the tire, blow up the car. Unbelievable cynical theories. How universities made everything about race, gender and identity and white harms. Everyone. Dr. Lindsay. Thank you so much for your time, a link to the book, as well. As new discourses, will be in the description below. Dr. Lindsey. Thanks, so much for being so generous with your time. Thanks Keith.
I appreciate it.