All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:32
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #666
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, folks.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters for the 1st of June, 2023.
I'm joined by Peter Boghossian, former Portland State University professor of philosophy and online commentator and well-respected thinker.
Thank you, appreciate that, it's a pleasure to be here.
I realise that sounded like a backhanded compliment.
Swindon.
Yes, sunny old Swindon.
This is my first time here.
It's not sunny, is it?
No, but the breakfast here that we had together was absolutely fantastic.
Took him out for an English breakfast.
I'll post a picture of it.
It was pretty great, actually.
But yeah, so today we're going to be talking about how young people have been misled about everything, how women and their genitalia is somehow a political conundrum in Britain.
Basically, I'm going to give Peter an introduction because back in 2017, it was 2017, wasn't it, when I came out to Portland?
Yeah.
Peter put me up in his house.
We went to Portland State University.
We had a great time.
A massive show with like 800-900 people there.
Didn't even get shut down by Antifa, which was nice.
But they did pull the fire alarm.
They did pull the fire alarm, but it's all right.
We salvaged it.
And back then, we used to be like, you know, this isn't staying in the universities.
This is going to go everywhere.
And now the British political class are obsessed with this problem.
And we were so right.
Yeah, we were alright, and people looked at us like, again, we were conspiracy theorists.
Yeah, and so it's nice to be vindicated, in a way.
I wish we were crackpots, though.
Yeah, and it's also obvious that what's taught in university doesn't stay in the university.
What's taught in K-12 doesn't stay in K-12.
Or, I don't know what the analogue of K-12 is here.
Younger.
But why would it?
Why would it?
You're indoctrinating people into these ideas when they're young.
They carry them with them when they're older.
Ridiculous thing that's just going to end there.
And the final thing is how DEI training is actually being canned.
around America, which is a good start.
So anyway, before we begin, we are actually looking for artists who would be interested in creating merch for us that we can purchase from you, merch designers that we can purchase.
So if you think that you fit the bill, do email submissions at lotuseaters.com and we'll talk.
We'd love to hear from you.
Anyway, let's begin.
Young people have been misled about generally everything, and I think this is because of a progressive education system that can't bear to tell the truth about almost anything.
And this begins in the earliest years of their lives, and it goes through the entire gamut of What people know, I mean, what a man or woman is, you know, the dynamics between men and women as they become teenagers, what is expected of them by society at large, the very nature of gender roles, the very nature of the country itself, what their futures might well look like, the kind of jobs they should be going for.
Yeah, I want to unpack something you said because I think it's incredibly important.
Sure.
A progressive education system, whether or not you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's still an ideology.
Yes.
Right?
So it's no longer about, as the psychologist Jonathan Haidt says, it's no longer about truth, helping people find truth, it's about pushing and forwarding a very specific ideology.
Yes.
I mean, the way I look at it, it's kind of like the difference between science and alchemy.
Science isn't here to set a value and tell you you have to arrive at a destination.
Theoretically, science is to say, well, let's take the value system we have and examine the world and see what facts we can discover.
Alchemy is a specific process to create something at the end of it.
And that's the difference.
A progressive education is trying to create a certain kind of world.
And in the scientific worldview, propositions are revisible, at least in principle.
You'll change your mind based upon the evidence.
With any ideology, by definition, that's not the case.
And one of the things we see now is these institutions are becoming ideology mills, where the goal is not to help people find truth, but to replicate the moral orthodoxy, to replicate whatever the dominant ideology is.
And now it's critical social justice or wokeism or Wesleyan calls it the successor ideology.
Majid Nawaz calls it regressive leftism.
Whatever you want to call it, it's the same suite of propositions.
Broadly, we can just use the term as a placeholder called woke.
Yeah, and it's totally fair to call it that.
And everyone recognizes it when they say it because they've all got the same, like you say, suite of propositions, the same issues that they go along.
But I think that the thing that most concerns me is essentially when you start drilling down to all of this, what it comes to is the desire for revolution in the people who are indoctrinating the students.
That's the problem.
And Jordan Peterson called this years ago, but it was really difficult for people to really understand what he means.
But I think actually now we're starting to get real good solid evidence, the actual numbers of how the conditions for revolution are actually fermenting in the minds of the young people who won't even understand why a revolution would be a bad thing.
That's why they need to defund the police, because the police are the individuals, the group that stands in between what they consider to be the capitalist machine.
And if you take away the police, then you can have whole scale destruction of larger institutions, banking, small business, etc.
The police are the enforcers of the status quo, theoretically.
But yeah, you know, you're absolutely right.
But before we go on, though, if you want to support us, go to lowstories.com.
Of course, we're demonetized on YouTube, so thanks, YouTube, for being evil truth-tellers.
Go and support us, and go and check out this Victorian Manners and Etiquette series that Josh is doing, because he stumbled on a book of Victorian Manners and Etiquette, so he read it, did some studying, applied his psychological know-how to it, and it's not just what they did, it's why they did it, and it's absolutely fascinating.
I'm not going to spoil it.
Go and check it out.
It's a really great series.
Anyway, so I found this poll, and this really resonated with me.
Because it's basically a poll of how Americans see their own history.
And, man, it's not good news, actually.
You know, we laugh, but it's really not good news.
And as you can see from this particular one, right?
So, prior to the arrival of European settlers, Native Americans and indigenous tribes lived in peace and harmony.
And who agrees with that?
Well, on a political level, the very liberal people, 71% agree with that.
The generally liberal, 57.
On average, the moderate, 59.
But on the conservative side, it's less than half.
Now that concerns me, because that means that almost half of conservative people think, well the Native Americans are just giving each other daisies and holding hands.
They've imbibed in the ideology because they themselves have gone to the same institutions.
Exactly.
It's proliferating through the culture.
So these people should be a strong bulwark against this kind of nonsense.
They should be like, no, the Conservatives could be criticised, but I think maybe should be credited with having a more cynical view of human nature.
As in, man is the more Hobbesian view.
Man is actually kind of, if he's not raised well, he's a bad man.
And he turns out to be a rough man.
And so there's no reason to think that any other human being anywhere else in the world would not be in the same way.
However, the very liberal perspective, of course, takes the Rousseauian perspective, which is man is flawless and faultless in the state of nature.
And if you can change the institutions, then you can somehow change the outcome.
So, I think it's really worth lingering on one thing here.
Sure.
How did this madness come to be?
Well, that's the question.
Let's talk about that very quickly.
And if I go on too long… Let me, it's fine, go ahead.
So, in the United States and the Anglosphere in general, teaching has become predicated upon, as crazy as this sounds, a single book, Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
I have read this.
Yes, I have also read this.
And James Lindsay, New Discourses, does some great stuff on that.
But the shift is from, as we spoke about before, the telos or the end of the institution being truth, to alleviating oppression.
Yes.
Once you start talking about the goal being alleviating oppression, your north star of truth is not gone.
So you'll forward any narratives that talk about that.
Now, this is an example of a disparity.
So let's take an example of some of those propositions that we talked about.
Any disparity in outcome must be due to systems.
That would be one.
So African-American test scores on SATs, for example, that has to be, that's Ibram X. Kendi's position.
So this is forwarding a very specific narrative of Indigenous people living in harmony with the land.
Now, if you had a truth-seeking institution, then what you would do is you would say, okay, here's a view found and you would put forth for the best proponent of – I don't – this is such a deranged and utterly false notion.
I don't know who it would be.
We'll go through some of the facts of the pre-colonial Americas at the end of this segment, and you'll see what's really interesting is where those facts come from, right?
Because it's not like, you know, right-wing, you know, evil right-wingers who are like, no, here are the real.
No, no, no.
This is totally mainstream.
This is just a massively false narrative.
So if it were true, So that's the problem with losing truth as the North Star.
When you lose truth as the North Star, you lose a compass, you lose a kind of integrity, and so madness like this gets forwarded because it's fashionable.
Yes.
And the problem as well is that this kind of madness is a delegitimizing factor to the United States Yes, 100%.
But why would you do that?
The only reason you would do that is if you were looking for revolution, because this can only breed revolution.
Right, because you believe that the systems are inherently racist, patriarchal, misogynist, and evil, and you have to overthrow them.
Exactly.
You can't just expect people to live in what they perceive to be an unjust world, even if they can't actually see or identify any injustices around them.
Correct, and the litmus test for that is how many unarmed black men were killed by police in, insert the year.
Yeah, I mean, it was the New York Times' one from like 2019 or 2016 it was.
2019 or 2016 it was. - It's under 20.
It's between-- - Yeah, yeah.
It's literally double digits. - But even some of those are like, you know, I just wrote the afterwards to Matt Thorton's "The Gift of Violence." Some of those are like, man attacks a police officer with a toaster.
But they don't consider it a toaster, so that goes into the unarmed... Trying to take the police officer's weapon.
Well you are unarmed.
Yes, correct.
But there's a justified reason to do that.
So those things, so one of the things, so I asked my neighbor that, oh actually you sit at my house, the woman, well I won't say which side, I asked my neighbor that and she said, I said, how many unarmed black men were killed by the police in whatever, you know, 2019?
She said 22,500.
Yeah, there was, I actually don't have it for this one, but in previous podcasts we've covered it, where literally the very liberal people will think over 10,000.
Right.
Wow.
Okay, so you can kind of understand if you think that there's a massacre of black people by police, like you can kind of be like, oh my God, like, holy moly, we have to do something about this.
Sure.
But that's because those beliefs themselves aren't tethered to reality because there's been no, like this, there's been nothing on the other side.
Yeah.
Like the Martin Lewis's 1999, The Green Delusion.
There's nothing showing what... And this comes down to Frederick Hayek's.
Again, I keep bringing up, but it's the most salient observation about propaganda and totalitarianism.
And it's literally, he's like, look, we're in a democratic society.
I mean, you know, he's living in England at the time.
He's like, look, there's propaganda everywhere, but it's pulling in all different directions.
You know, you get to here.
Opposite views.
And so you get to weigh up the information they're giving you, and you realize that there's probably truth in both positions.
So you're not radicalized in a certain direction.
The problem with totalitarian societies is that the narratives, the propaganda, all goes in one direction.
And so you don't know that there is not actually a disagreement.
Yeah, and the consequence of a lack of intellectual diversity is that people become more confident that the beliefs they have are true because they're never introduced to other beliefs.
So I've probably asked, I go around the world and I speak to people, when I speak to colleges I always ask, how many gender studies people hear?
And I invariably get people who raise their hand.
How many people have read Martha Nussbaum's critique of Judith Butler?
Not a single person.
So, in other words, Martha Nussbaum is a famous philosopher, Judith Butler is a famous gender theorist, and so you can't say, oh, well, she's not a, you know, this is a man, or you can't… No, it's two women having a discussion about feminism.
Right.
This is such an alien notion, but it's so important for everybody listening to understand this.
The point is to replicate the ideology.
And in order to replicate the ideology, you can't have anything that contradicts that that comes in.
And the trick they use isn't to lie either.
They'll say things that are true, but what they'll do is omit things that are also true.
show that it's not a black and white issue.
It's actually much more nuanced and much more complicated.
And this is deliberately done.
It's a filtering mechanism.
It's literally filtering out things until you get the very narrow, very strong beam of ideology is put into people's minds.
And so, yeah, this is, and this is why, like literally just, Americans are just totally ill-informed about the very state, the very foundational nature of their own country.
If we go to the next one, this is based on race, right?
So 45% of white people agree that they lived in peace and harmony.
Okay, fine, you know, half of those are going to be liberals, fair enough.
We know a lot of conservatives do.
better, but 75% of black people in America are convinced that the Native Americans are just sat around, loving, you know, hugging each other, you know, kissing each other on the cheek.
It's just mental.
It's absolutely mental, right?
We go to education level.
Now this I found interesting, right?
To get the next one.
High school or equivalent, 66% thought that.
Some college or associate's degree, 68% thought that.
But bachelor's and graduate or professional degree, only 50%.
So those people who are actually very well educated are like, well no, the history doesn't show that.
Those people who are educated but not overly educated have been given half of the information that they need.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
If we get more granular on this, I think one of the reasons for this is exactly because you get a larger dosage of this in Do you call it primary school here, K-12?
Yeah, primary school.
So you get a larger dosage of this in primary school.
As a quick anecdotal example, my daughter was learning about gentrification in school, and they weren't teaching the other side of gentrification, they were only teaching that gentrification was a bad thing.
And so this, as you can see, it's people who are not are the very upper echelons of the educational system.
But also, how do you think this compares by age?
You go to the next one, John.
71% of Zoomers, people under 25, think the Native Americans just lived in the Garden of Eden.
The millennials, 65%.
Gen X, my generation, our generation, 57%.
But at least 41% of the boomers, like 60% of the boomers are like, well, no.
This to me just shows you the sort of capture of the educational system, right?
Yeah, and so you know the other thing that's really heartbreaking about this is you're credentialing people, you give them the imprimatur of some kind of legitimacy, and their degrees just don't mean what they think that they mean.
And you're doing people a disservice.
The degree becomes like a signifier of ideological conformity.
It's like an ID card for the party, right?
Like in the Soviet Union.
It doesn't become a measure of expertise.
Like, during Brexit, right, there was an interview with a chap called Michael Gove, who's a conservative politician, quote-unquote, and he was on this, like, an interview show, and the person, who's obviously very pro-Remain, was like, well, all the experts say, and Michael Gove was like, well, I think people have had enough of experts, and everyone was like, oh, you can't say that, and everyone laughed at him, and it's like, no, no, no, we are, we have had enough of experts, because like you say, your expertise is not the expertise you think it is.
There are things outside of your expertise that you've Not deliberately admitted, but you're blind to.
So here's the problem, so we don't trust, at least in the United States, we don't trust our institutions, we don't trust the media, they have lied to us about the Hunter Biden laptop, we don't trust our academies, but the fact of the matter is we need some, there is something legitimate called expertise, but we don't trust that the people who are credentialed have that expertise.
A lot of the time they don't.
So then we're in some kind of a soup or an epistemic chowder where we don't know what to pick out, we don't know how to... And the consequence in aggregate of that is nobody trusts our institution.
There's a legitimacy crisis.
And also, any of the people in this institution, you can't be sure that they weren't in some way a beneficiary of an Affirmative Action Program.
You can't be sure.
I mean, there have been, since the days of Thomas Sowell, but as we were talking about in the cafe earlier, we know that there are people who And so that's an equity-based solution.
So an equity-based solution is trying to fix things on the back end as opposed to what I'm for, and my guess is what you're for, is an equality-based solution is to give everyone, for example, access to a public education of the first rate.
Instead of trying to say, oh, well, we need what Heather MacDonald calls proportional representation from the Manhattan Institute.
We need African-Americans, blacks, or a certain percentage of the population in the UK, say, I don't know, what is it, eight?
Four?
For blacks, three percent.
I have no idea.
Three, okay.
So that three percent should be proportionally represented across the board.
See, I'm actually a bit more meritocratic about it, to be honest.
I'm actually not very bothered about the amount of representation.
For me, it's the process.
No, that's what I'm saying.
So that's a non-equity-based solution.
So an equity-based solution is that you would say, we need proportional representation, and thus we need to jerry-rig the system to achieve that.
They need to literally just be picked, chosen, rather than... Even if they're not qualified.
And then the consequence of that in aggregate is then we have what Habermas calls a legitimation crisis.
We just have a crisis of legitimacy because we don't know if the people flying the planes are operating on us or what have you.
That's where it goes, isn't it?
Because, okay, it begins in a crisis of legitimacy, but the system can probably endure a certain percentage of illegitimacy.
But then you start getting just failing services.
Things just stop working because the people who man them actually are not qualified to do what they're supposed to do.
And when that starts getting to, say, airplanes or trains or whatever, and things start coming off the rails, falling out of the sky...
That's when we're really gonna learn the hard lesson of why these standards were important And frankly, I don't even know if we'll learn.
Because the consequence of this should not, if you point this out, the consequence should not be you're a bigot.
The consequence of this should be... And that's the smallest consequence.
It could be you're fired.
You're ostracized from society.
But anyway, sorry.
Well, no, I mean, just if, like, an equity-based solution, and I think this is so important, is, for example, if women have been underrepresented on boards, you say, okay, so women have been underrepresented on boards, so now we're going to have proportional representation of 50%.
Well, then you won't trust that the women who are on the boards, so you won't trust the institution.
But more of it, you won't trust the men either, right?
Because... Explain why.
If you think like Wolf of Wall Street stuff, the steely-eyed Machiavellian who gets to the top of a corporate boardroom, those sort of people are probably going to be selected against.
It's going to be compliant, ideological, soft.
The men who otherwise would have lost in a ruthless dog-eat-dog world are like, no, no, I agree with feminism, I agree.
Yeah, but you're also not very competent, which is why you're not the ruthless capitalist who's out competing.
So even the men who are there are obviously weak and compliant with this system, which is why they complied with it, which is why they ended up being the other 50%.
Can I swear on your show?
No.
Okay.
Well, there's something called the sneaky F. Yes, Gadsad's famous formulation.
He might have popularized it, but it preceded him.
But the idea is that among primates, it's hard to say this without... I think everyone knows what you're getting at.
But that's the point, isn't it?
So it doesn't just delegitimise the people who are being selected for, it also delegitimises those people who have been selected against.
And so it's the whole system, like you say, the crisis of legitimacy, and also the people at the top are just not going to be competent.
You're not going to have the steely-eyed realist who's like, no, we just have to make cuts here and here.
You're going to get the weak, no-backbone, fawning simp who's going to be like, well, I don't know, let's just hope something... No, you need to make a hard decision now, and you don't have the balls to do it.
Yeah.
So the whole thing is terrible, right?
So let's just quickly tell you what the truth of this is.
Let's go to a noted radical racist blog, Scientific American, who said, quote, Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage, uh, quantitative body counts such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with axe marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who died at the hands of other men suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own.
How could Scientific American print this?
Go to... The date.
Yes.
The date.
Yes.
In 2010, when the telos of Scientific American was truth rather than progress, right?
If we go to the next one, a noted far-right blog, Wikipedia, can tell us all about the Incan Empire, how they conquered all of their neighbours through savage warfare.
We can also go to the Aztecs.
Again, noted, far-right blog, Wikipedia.
I haven't got this one on there.
But the Aztec Flower Wars were literally ritual wars they fought every year to capture people to sacrifice to make sure that the sun would rise the next day.
That's literally what they did.
But you might be like, yeah, but that's just South America.
For some reason, they're different.
What about those in North America?
Sorry, these are the Flower Wars, as you can see.
Again, just far-right blog.
Terrible.
Yeah, so can I linger on this for a second?
So when we did our event at Portland State, one of the things that we did is we looked at a progressive style guide.
And they wouldn't term, it was disallowed to term this witchcraft or sorcery or Really?
Yeah, what was the other word they use?
Folklore or what have you.
And that's what Dawkins and others and Jerry Coyne are fighting against with the Maori.
They want kind of Maori ways of knowing, as if these are equivalent to science.
There's a long discussion to be had there, but we won't have it now.
But you can see the point.
They had a proud warrior tradition.
You can only have a proud warrior tradition if you engage in war.
And they engaged in war all the time because it was an empire.
Empires are conquered.
They aren't just given.
Anyway, you might be like, OK, but that's the Central Americans.
They are, for some reason, uniquely barbarous.
The North Americans aren't like that, are they?
No, they are, actually.
I mean, this comes from Canada.ca.
Oh, the Canadian government.
This is their...
little website talking about the history of military affairs in North America.
And these people used to wage war all the time.
War played a multifaceted role and was waged for many different reasons.
Some conflicts are waged for economic and political goals, such as gaining access to resources or territory, exacting tribute from another nation or controlling trade routes.
Wow, that's weird, because that's like every other place on Earth.
Literally every other place on Earth.
And just a data point in case people question you or question me and want to look for themselves.
The first slide that he put up showed a link to Steven Pinker.
I assume it was Steven Pinker's Better Angels where he documents this in detail.
Yes.
So society, the moral arc has been bending towards justice and society is becoming more peaceful and less warlike.
I mean, like, Hobbes is not wrong, that when men don't have a power to overrule them all, there's a lot more violence.
That's right.
I'm much more on the Hobbesian side of that, yeah.
Nasty, British, short.
Short.
Yeah, there's no question of it, right?
And the Native Americans actually show this, and like the Scientific American article pointed out, we have the numbers, actually.
And that's the point, that's why we institute governments among men, to maintain the peace, That's why we do that.
In spite of what the postmodernists would say, lying about something doesn't change it.
No, no.
And there's Orwell again, he who controls the present controls the past.
It's all true.
It's all absolutely true.
The final thing, just the thing I want to tack on at the end of this, not strictly related, but if you can click on it.
This is a poll in the UK, it's not just America where people are totally out of touch.
You can just bring this up, right?
This is the, and we've done these before for America, because I mean, Americans believe that like 30% of the country is transgender, and stuff like this, and it's just like, that's wild.
We've got the same problem in Britain, because of course the media is constantly misrepresenting reality, right?
I mean, in Britain, they think 5% of people are transgender.
I'm going to pick a bone with this.
I don't see the citation here, but according to Jason D. Hill, the philosopher, and it's been Abigail Schreier, Deborah So and others, the reality of trans people is .06.
That's before the contagion.
Oh, right.
Yeah, so I have a little bone to pick, but I agree with the sentiment of this.
To be honest with you, I think it's probably lower than that.
0.06?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I just don't see... Well, now there are entire counties, literally counties and school districts in which 15 to 20% of people are... Identifying as.
Identifying as.
Exactly, because it's cool and fashionable, and they know they'll get special treatment.
Okay, so let's just...
Very brief rabbit hole.
Once you identify as that, when you go to seek help, you have gender affirming.
Not questioning, but affirming.
So we affirm that, and the next natural consequence is chest binding.
Yeah, we've got all of this in Britain.
The Tavistock Center.
It's been a long, long... That's largely an American export.
Largely.
Completely.
And it's obvious nonsense.
Children shouldn't be encouraged to do this.
They shouldn't be encouraged to make any kind of major decision for themselves.
They shouldn't be allowed.
Yeah, it should be forbidden, obviously.
As a parent, I've just come to the conclusion that children just need less freedom.
Honestly, they don't need freedom.
They need proper structure and order and rules they'll understand.
Predictability is what children need.
They need to know that tomorrow the sun's gonna rise, the rules will be as they are, and they have got a space to move within between certain boundaries, and that's what makes them secure and happy.
And they need the tools.
To to live better lives.
Yep, and they need to be told that because without going to down the trans rabbit hole too much that Most of these kids are gay.
Most of these kids are autistic, you know, I have to get two gay kids myself.
Yeah two of two Yeah.
And so you're fine just the way you are.
You don't need to undergo a surgical procedure.
If you're a young man, if your kid likes other young men or likes to play with dolls or wear dresses, he's fine.
You can love him just the way he is.
That does not in any way I mean, that there should be some kind of what Abigail Schreyer calls irreversible damage.
And what's important as well is that a lot of people change, right?
There are, you know, as many ex-gays as there are gays.
Yeah, over 90% of kids grow out of this after puberty.
Exactly.
And they, or if not, they don't want surgery, but they're autogynephilic.
Exactly.
So this is not like, oh, at 17 you thought you were gay?
Right, you're gay forever and you can't change.
No, people change all the time.
And, you know, it'd be better for them to go on their own journey.
This is one of the largest scandals that we face right now.
I tell you, this is going to age like trepanation and lobotomies.
This is going to be, in a hundred years time, people will be like, I can't believe they used to chop off people I can't believe they drilled holes in people's skulls.
It's going to be like, this was wild, and it absolutely is.
Moving on, let's go on to the next thing to talk about today.
The most important topic in Britain, women and their genitals.
Peter, I have a question for you.
This is going to be a more fun segment.
What percentage of women would you estimate have a penis?
God, it's a good thing this is not a trick question.
Zero.
Right, well, most of our political class disagrees with you.
And we'll get into exactly why.
I mean, you know exactly why, which is why you're on the show.
But I wanted to, because obviously you're from America, so you probably aren't aware, That the woke capture of our politicians is so far gone at this point.
Again, when we were giving the talks in Portland and we were like, look, this is coming, it's shocking how quickly, five years this has taken to take over our entire political class.
Just as a quick pause on that, lest anybody think it's just in the Anglosphere, it's not.
I just wrote the foreword to Rajiv Malhotra's book, Snakes in the Ganga, where he talks about wokeism as a neocolonial export that's going to Indian institutions.
So it's not just a UK thing, and it's not just in the Anglosphere, it's a worldwide thing.
I mean, years ago I would be like, look, actually men probably do have rights because they're human beings.
So I was approaching it from the liberal perspective, actually men deserve a bit of consideration.
And there are a lot of Indians who are like, we are getting hammered over here.
So I just want to say something that's really important.
Woke-ism can work in any language, but English is the language of woke-ism.
And so, real quick, because this is so important.
So the way that woke-ism works, there's only one way it works.
It works by having a dual meaning of a word.
Inclusion, diversity, equity, racism, anti-racism, sexism.
And so what happens when wokeism attempts to colonize, or neocolonize, whatever phrase you want to use, metastasize into another culture, it does so by use of English words.
And so that's why you'll see, you can see videos of like... Lots of necks.
Yeah, or you can see videos in India of someone speaking, I don't speak any Indian languages, Punjab or whatever, Hindi, and then equity.
So for example, diversity means intellectual homogeneity.
Inclusion means creating a space where people feel welcome, and if people say anything that can make other people feel welcome, it's not inclusion.
It's not inclusion.
So, inclusion means restricting speech.
It also means, specifically, exclusion.
It creates exclusion, right.
It creates a boundary.
Only the primary meaning of a word translates.
That's how wokeism spreads in another culture.
And just to be clear, in Mapping the Margins, Kimberley Crenshaw is explicit about this.
Like, I've done videos about this, where she's explicitly, we're literally going to, I mean, racism is a great example, where most people view racism as an intention, right?
You have looked at that guy and said, no, I don't like him because he's black, or because he's Jewish, or whatever, and so you've discriminated against him.
So that is not the same as looking at an outcome, two different outcomes, and saying, well, that's racism as well.
These must be two different things, and yet they've expanded the definition of racism to mean both things.
Because if you're having a fair process, If people are diverse, if they're not all the same, then you will end up with different outcomes for different kinds of groups.
You must, if they're going through a fair process.
It has to be an unfair process to get the same result across the board, no matter what it is you're doing.
Literally anything.
But racism is used for both of those things.
So they've included the antonym of the word to get to the position they want.
And so you're outflanked no matter where you move.
Well yeah, that's Robin DiAngelo's Kafka trap.
I say you're a racist, you say no I'm not, I say that's proof of your racism.
But why doesn't that work with rhinoceroses?
You're a rhinoceros, no I'm not, that's proof that you're a rhinoceros.
Like Andrew Doyle's new book, he talks about the Salem Witch Trials and how it's there, yeah.
And it is a clever rhetorical trap as well.
They've worked very hard.
People don't realize that this has been brewing in academia for like 50 years.
This has been going on for a very long time.
And Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay write about that in Cynical Theories.
It comes from the French intellectuals.
It comes from the French intellectuals being filtered through American legal academia.
Correct, yeah, Derris Bell, Harvard, and that's the key thing.
That's why, from our previous segment, where people get those ideas, we know where they get them.
This is not a mystery.
No, no, we've read all their texts.
I've done a series on this website about all of these texts.
In fact, not only do we know, not only are they not trying to hide it, they're screaming about it from the rooftops.
They're demanding the books be institutionalised.
Kimberley Crenshaw goes on debates and podcasts and talks about her work.
She's the person who coined the term intersectionality.
She's one of the key movers of this.
Anyway, so before we move on, again, if you want to support us, go to the website.
I'm telling you, liberalism is a universal acid, and it's because of Martha Nussbaum being unable to defeat the comprehensive liberals, which is what I go through.
Because I'm going through Claire Chambers' 2008 essay, where she's critiquing Martha Nussbaum's Rawlsian political position.
They're like, oh, we should have limited liberalism.
You and I have talked about that.
We have, because the political liberal is just basically outflanked and has to admit they're not a real liberal.
But liberalism is a term that, at least in 2008, had a great deal of shine on it.
It was a very respectable thing to be a liberal, and therefore to be a comprehensive liberal was to be a better liberal.
And I'll let you go and list it and see why.
But I'm telling you, man, liberalism is essentially going to be continually one-upped without conservatism.
If you're not a conservative and a liberal, you will end up having liberalism as this universal asset that destroys all of our institutions, all of our social institutions, like being a man, being a woman.
And this is why the British political class is in the position it's in now.
So let's begin with Ed Balls, the Former Labour Secretary of State and current daytime TV host speaking to Kathleen Stock.
Let's just watch this.
It's just mad.
- Your sexual reproduction depends on us and recognizing males-- - Are you saying to something you've transitioned that they're not a woman? - I don't go up to them and say that.
But you are saying that.
I'm happy to, yes, if in general I am.
You understand that that is the thing which makes people feel as though the debate's polarized.
I understand that, but I also understand that people like you are really trying to understand my position.
Some people say they can't be a woman, and actually most people in the middle think, well actually... Well, how do you know what most people in the middle think, Ed?
Have you polled them?
Well, I mean, I think that I do know what most people think.
Oh, yeah, I can see that.
And you think I'm wrong?
Well, I think if you look at the polling on this, it depends on how you phrase the question.
If you ask, can a woman have a penis, most people say no.
I agree with that.
Ed Balls is a great example of someone who thinks that men can be women.
Again, he was a former Secretary of State, currently daytime TV host on the most popular morning show in Britain, and he's there going, yeah, well, I mean, anyone can become a woman.
No.
I wonder if he'd sleep with someone who claims they're a woman.
Well, I'm sure he'd say, well, I'm married, you know.
I can't.
But you can see he's not really thought his position through.
And what I love is that people on Twitter started noticing.
Just look how scared he looks.
We can go to the next one, John.
You see that, like, there's a kind of sweaty fear about him.
He's like, hang on a second.
Yeah, you know, my supposition is that's what happens when people know they're not being honest.
I think it's also when they know that they're actually in the crosshairs of a sniper, which is the Twitter mob, that will get you cancelled if you do not toe the party line.
He knows he doesn't know the subject.
He knows what the political correctness is.
I can assure you, I just had dinner with Kathleen the other night, I can assure you she knows the subject.
She's well published on the subject.
Oh, she's also with me a founding faculty fellow at the University of Austin.
We've had a lot of conversations with her and so he is clearly going up against someone.
But I loved her little response there, he's like, well, I think I do know, and she's like, I can see that.
Right.
And it was very, very funny.
But you can see just how nervous he is.
And so sometimes you just get Labour MPs, and the Labour are the left-wing party in this, or one of the left-wing parties, and you just get literally statements like this.
Elected politician.
JK Rowling's wrong.
A woman can have a penis because JK Rowling had said women can't have penises.
I'm telling you, it's both a mass delusion and a cultural derangement.
It's, I mean, you've seen, have you seen, what was that, Chernobyl series?
Did you watch that?
No.
Right, there's a series called Chernobyl and on Netflix and it's really, really good because it's a four-part docudrama about the Chernobyl explosion, right?
And at one part, They send people up onto the roof to see what's happened after the explosion, and there's graphene, or whatever it is, all over the place, right?
And obviously, this is like the core in the reactor.
It can never be outside the reactor.
And so he goes down and goes, there's graphite on the roof.
And they're like, no, there's not.
No, no, there is.
It's like, no, there's not.
Go check again.
You're wrong.
Because ideologically, the Soviet apparatus wouldn't accept this.
And they do a good job of explaining the socialist mindset.
No, we define reality.
You have to figure out how to match that.
That's where this is.
A woman can have a penis.
Okay, stellar.
Noted genius.
So what percentage of women have penises?
That's the question.
You say zero.
That's one controversial position.
This is so stupid.
It's just so stupid, yet it dominates the discussion in America.
The Supreme Court Justice, she doesn't know what a woman is.
Nobody knows.
I'm not a biologist.
I mean, this is so idiotic.
That's why I think this is inherently unsustainable.
Because I think People know they're lying.
True, but like Communist China has been going for, you know, 70 years, 80 years now.
Soviet Union lasted about the same amount of time.
This can go on for generations.
We have, well maybe, I was gonna say we have mechanisms, but maybe the same mechanisms that we have keep people espousing things that they clearly know are false.
Maybe, but none of these people seem to have paid the price for saying things that are just demonstrably untrue.
But again, like I said, you say 0%.
Not only have they not paid the price, the people who have paid the price are the people who have said things that are true.
Those are the people who have paid the price.
That's absolutely true.
They are the people who are paying the price for telling the truth.
So you say 0%.
Well, Keir Starmer says 0.1%.
The leader of the Labour Party, going to be our next Prime Minister, Earlier this year it was like, well 99.9% of women don't have a penis, but of course that leaves the 0.1% who do.
So 0.1% of women have a penis, according to our future Prime Minister.
And he says of course 99% don't.
So is the reason that people think this is important is because if you have a penis then You can participate in women's sports.
So the reason that this is important is because we're predicating public policy upon it.
Is that the idea?
Absolutely.
This is informing who can use what spaces.
And women are like, hang on a second, we actually want spaces for women only, which is totally appropriate.
A hundred percent.
Constantine Kissin had a great tweet.
He said, my buddy said something to the extent of, someone should do a study of why is it that once a man is convicted of a crime, there's something about the inside of a courtroom that turns him into a woman.
Great question.
Because we saw this, this happened in Scotland with Nicola Sturgeon.
Probably the result of why she, Nicola Sturgeon was the leader of the Scottish National Party, the First Minister of Scotland.
She thought that women could have penises and it destroyed her career because a rapist was like, I'm a woman, put me in the woman's prison and she basically got grilled on, I forgot to include it in this segment actually, she got grilled and it was a massive embarrassment and she stepped down.
I think we need to manage this and think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion.
I'm absolutely assured that would never happen.
I don't know.
I don't know.
It's a complete mystery.
So anyway, let's move on.
That was Labour and then the SNP and then this is the Liberal Democrat leader.
Let's watch.
I think we need to manage this and think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion.
Well, that's what Sir Keir Starmer once said to me and he never did answer the question, can a woman have a penis?
Well, I've just answered that question.
They can?
Listen, I've made it really clear that if people, the vast majority of people will have the same gender as their biological sex, but a small number won't.
So a woman can have a penis?
Well, quite clearly.
Clearly, Peter.
Clearly a woman can have a penis.
Well, I will say when we see things like this, when someone doesn't obfuscate, we should thank them for being honest.
Absolutely.
But what I love about this is that he's clearly using a set of rational precepts, right?
Right.
And so what he's saying, when he says clearly, he's not saying, I have met a woman with a penis.
He's saying, I can logically deduce from the premises that we're using that given if what I've said is true, we literally through the syllogism of it, we have to arrive at the fact that a woman can have a penis.
Right.
Which everyone is like, obviously that's nonsense, mate.
Right.
Obviously, everyone knows that's nonsense from personal experience.
But because he's using a form of logic that is total nonsense, he has, I mean, literally, imagine him saying clearly, clearly they can have a penis.
Mad.
Anyway, don't ask them what a woman is, though.
The previous leader of the Liberal Democrats in 2019 was asked about this.
And this is a quick clip.
Look at the fear on her face there.
Because a caller just phoned in and was like, could you define woman for me?
And it went as well as you might expect.
Let's watch.
So please can you tell me what a woman is?
Well, I know I'm a woman and I think we do, we know what we are and I think all women are important and their rights need to be protected.
So how can you tell what a woman is?
Well, I mean, I'm just sort of trying to understand what you're getting at.
I think we know when we engage with each other, when, you know, we know if we are a woman, right?
And I, you know, I can tell you that I am, right?
So, um, and, and, you know, we're not gonna, you know, start a scenario where we go and perform inspections on people, are we?
Okay, so I just want to comment.
So I can tell you, what did she say?
I can assure you I am?
Yeah, how?
Yeah, so how?
And what if someone else says she isn't?
I disagree.
I don't think she's a woman.
Neither do I.
I just don't believe her.
Now what?
What objective standard are you going to use to prove?
But the fact that she's so evidently it's someone's alleged feelings of self-identity that make that the case.
But notice the difference in the second reaction and the first.
The second reaction, she was obfuscating, and people – it is completely justified to go after that.
But in the first one, and I'm not talking about the arguments necessarily, but there will be some people who will obfuscate and there are some people who shouldn't.
And we should always hold the people, hold everybody's argument to account, obviously.
But we should hold the individuals who obfuscate, like her, to task.
Yeah.
And like you said, we should be very thankful to the leader of the Liberal Democrats who's just like, well clearly they can.
Well yeah, just say it.
Just say it.
I feel the same way about jihadis who want to kill apostates or blasphemers.
Do you want to kill a woman who's committed a drug?
I do.
Okay, there's a man you can have a conversation about.
Exactly.
I'm not having a conversation with those people.
But the thing is, for Jo Swinson there, I actually feel kind of bad for her because I think she genuinely didn't have an answer.
You could see the confusion in her face.
Well, then she should say, I don't know.
Exactly, but that's terrible, isn't it?
What's a woman?
I don't know.
It's better than what she did there.
Yeah, absolutely.
But still, that's humiliating.
Absolutely humiliating.
Okay, my take on that would be it would be humiliating because she wasn't honest.
Where's the other guy?
He's probably just delusional.
Yeah, it's both, but it's still humiliating in a way.
But I mean, there are some people who disagree in the left at this point, and they call them TERFs, such as the chair of the Labour Party here, Annelies Dobbs, and this is her opinion.
Let me ask you about it, Davy, before you go.
Do you agree with him that he says that, quite clearly, women can have a penis?
Well, I'm a woman, and it's rather early in the morning to be talking about penises, frankly, Kay, but I do not have one.
And ultimately, when we look at sex and biology, which is, I think, how most people would look at these issues, of course women do not have a penis.
There are people who've gone through gender reassignments, so there's trans women, they've changed their gender, But sex is not the same as gender, and I think it's important that we keep the two separate.
Right, so you can see... Wow, there's an honest... Okay, so I just want to say this is really important.
She's on the left, right?
She is on the left.
Okay, go back if you want.
Okay, so one of the reasons that this is important is I personally do not view this as a right-left issue.
No, it's an honesty issue.
That's an honesty issue.
And I don't know if you've seen, they're pretty ghastly, so I haven't tweeted them out or promoted them, but I don't know if you've seen the surgeries of people.
Oh yes.
For anyone wondering, I'm actually preparing a premium podcast post because I don't dare put it outside of the paywall because it's horrific.
Yeah, it is ghastly.
And still, those humps of non-working flesh are not penises.
No, and the inverted penis is not a vagina.
Right.
I hate to tell you, you know, but the point... And I would still add, in fact, I would especially add that people who want to live that way should be... If you want to live that way, if you're above 18, 18 or older, and we can quibble about what age... Yeah, I'd say like mid-20s.
If you're an adult, that's fine.
We'll go with that.
You should be entitled to not be harassed.
You should be entitled to live your life any way you want, but that's not what we're talking about here.
And I do not think that this is a right-left issue.
You cannot change your chromosomes.
I think that this is just an issue of being honest and being sincere, and you can find lunatics on both sides of the political aisle.
But it's also really it's like a statement of ideological commitment, right?
It's again like saying this is my ID card for the party, you know, because the party is saying this is the party line.
You're going to believe that women can have penises.
Then I wouldn't want to be in that party.
That's a party of deranged people.
Absolutely, but it's Ingsoc, you know, it's the Soviet Union.
That's what we're talking about.
It's this ideological commitment to an orthodoxy that doesn't represent reality.
It's not tethered.
Yeah, and just think about that.
I don't really know your religious views, but... I'm an atheist.
Yeah, I am too, obviously.
So we went from millennium, in which we pretended to know things we didn't know, and now we're pretending not to know things literally everybody knows.
Yes.
It's an interesting switch in the last few years.
An inversion.
Yeah.
Very interesting.
I thought we'd just end this segment with asking the activists.
How do they feel about it?
Can women have penises?
Let's watch.
We love Girl Dick!
We love Girl Dick Anyway, let's move on from that.
So, DEI training.
Big fan of DEI training, Peter?
I'm still kind of recovering from how stupid that was.
I think I've lost two IQ points as a result of this.
That's why I was inflicted.
It's a shame that's what's become of the West, right?
This is literally the political dialogue in Britain at the moment.
This is all very recent stuff.
Don't talk about inflation.
Don't talk about price of goods.
Don't talk about the war in Ukraine.
Don't talk about the consequences of immigration.
Don't talk about anything.
Talk about whether women have faces.
You know, 13 years ago, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats came into a coalition in Britain and they were asked, are you going to build nuclear power plants?
And they were like, no, it'll take 10 years.
It's like, yeah, okay, but I intend to be here in 10 years.
I'd like super cheap energy that was super environmentally friendly and super productive and super safe.
And now look what's happening in Germany, right?
Exactly.
They've got to build coal plants and they're dependent on Russia.
I just had dinner with Bjorn Lundberg last night.
If anybody doesn't know his work or Michael Schellenberger's work, Apocalypse Never is fantastic.
Okay, next story.
Anyway, I will never stop saying nuclear power was the way to go and we haven't.
So just going to leave that there.
Anyway, so DEI training across the West is losing ground, actually, which is good news.
Fortunately, yes.
Yeah, very good news.
How do you feel about diversity, equity and inclusion training, Peter?
I think it's a manifestation of the derangement syndrome.
I think it's another example of an idiotic thing.
These are offices searching for tasks.
I have a lot of extensive experience, as you know, with being hounded by diversity boards.
Why don't you give people a quick summary of that?
Because people might not know.
So I fought the orthodoxy at my institution, Portland State University, and I was brought up on charges, investigation after investigation.
I was accused of all manner of things, and they don't have – do you have the expression due process here?
Yeah, of course.
It comes from here.
Oh, sorry.
I never really know, like... Your legal framework is English.
No, that I know, but I never really know if the terms in... Anyway, so... Habeas corpus is 17th century English.
I had no due process.
I'm not familiar with English law, so I apologize for English.
Just take American law.
American law is literally like English law from like the 18th century.
Okay, so due process is identical.
Okay, so I had no due process.
I was... At least in moral status.
I mean, I don't know about the actual thing, but anyway.
Well, that's what I said, so I can't face my accusers.
Yeah, all of these things are from English law.
Yeah, yeah.
No, no, no, no, that I know.
Okay, so my experience was these are mechanisms that people use to have a kind of ideological conformity, even the threat.
Yeah.
of being investigated has a silencing chill on the discourse.
And that's the point of it.
That's exactly the point.
You know, the institution is weighted against you.
I mean, when I visited you, you'd been moved to the basement.
Oh, that's right.
It was this awful, humiliating office.
I remember going into your office and thinking, well, they're treating you well, aren't they?
Yeah.
These people obviously singling you out and trying to get rid of you.
Yeah, it was a pretty, it was a horrific experience, but I, being constantly investigated and being harassed, but it brought us.
It made me realize who, to a certain extent, my true friends were.
All of the people who were still pieces of the orthodoxy.
The other thing that was really interesting about that is, DEI officers, you never really know who believes what, and you don't know who believes what because they've been really successful at creating a culture of fear.
So, if someone will come to you and whisper to you, but people will just be silent and nod because they don't want the machine to come for them next.
And also, if they were to be spotted, like whispering to you, then they would be informed upon, and they would fall into suspicion.
Very Stalinist.
Totally.
It's completely Stalinist.
Anyway, thank God these things, and for anyone who doesn't know, DI training is basically the woke formatting of the company through the HR department.
Right.
And it's the way that they have taken over all of these companies, and this is one of the reasons why you're seeing all of the pride flags now, because we're June, right?
And now pride flags are everywhere.
Well, these are going to be put up by the HR departments, because all these people have gone through DI training, because they've been taught that it is good to do.
And if people genuinely believe this, if corporations and companies genuinely believe this, then why don't they do that in the Middle East?
Why don't they do it every other day of the year?
Why do they need a special month?
You know, exactly.
There are loads and loads of tells that show this is all very cynical.
But before we go on, if you want to support us, go sign up, watch Connor's podcast, Daycare Will Destroy The West.
And I totally agree with this.
Daycare's bad.
For kids, for parents, for mothers, for families, right?
This is not good to have that you go off and work a job that is almost exclusively to pay for the daycare.
Daycare costs a fortune, an absolute fortune.
And my wife was like, okay, should I get a job and put the kids in daycare?
I was like, well, how much do you think you're going to earn?
And we tarted it up and it was about as much as the daycare was going to cost.
You know why I put my kid in daycare?
No.
I had a totally different reason for this.
I put my kid in Chinese immersion daycare.
Oh right, I don't know what that is.
They just speak Chinese to them.
So they learn Chinese?
Yeah, my son has been in Chinese emergency, he's been three.
And that was the reason that we put him in daycare.
Okay, well that's like a practical reason, but for most people, there's literally just, we need to work and therefore we need to pay for daycare.
Well, they must think that the calculus, they must just do the numbers.
Sure.
It edges out just slightly.
But the thing is, there are going to be loads of economic calculus.
So look, if half the workforce is essentially, the workforce essentially doubled, then that's going to create a dam of pressure on wages.
And so one wage won't support two families anymore, and things like this.
And now I'm not an economist.
So I wonder if a consequence of that is the, you know, Yohan Hari says that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it's community.
And I think we've been losing a lot of our communities and, you know, I know with myself, it started off my grandparents helped raise me in Massachusetts and my grandmother got sick and then I helped take care of her.
And so I wonder if we've lost not just the nuclear family, but the extended family of people who come in and help.
You mentioned your mother-in-law coming in and helping with your kids.
Think about the sort of boomer mindset of, I'm going to make it on my own.
When, when my parents and I fell into this, like you move far away from your parents, right?
And it's like, well, why the hell would you do that?
And that's creating a whole series of extra problems for you and taking away a bunch of support systems.
And it's a totally Western thing.
The English speaking world really suffers from this.
Like the Mediterranean world has got that sort of extended family structure.
Right.
And it's, it's genuinely something English speaking world kind of suffers from.
I wonder if that, and I'm out of my depth here, but I wonder if that manifests itself in homeless rates, homelessness.
Oh, it's quite possible that it does.
But anyway, let's go check that out because I think that is fair and a good, a really good critique.
But anyway, going back to it, so DEI training, again, something that's destroying the West, or was until it started failing, thank God.
So I just, you know, went around, just looked for DEI courses, and I found this.
I mean, this guy, runs a DEI course.
It calls HR University, which is one of the largest communities for HR professionals.
Thousands of global members, 500 companies around the world has been featured by Forbes.
And so they've done like all sorts of major companies, right?
And so this is the sort of thing.
So, I mean, it's literally, if you go to the next one, there's hardly any point going through it because you know exactly what is going to be in here.
So it's about inclusion and diversity.
Equity.
We want to include everyone regardless of racial and ethnic diversity, gender diversity, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You know exactly right.
And what it means is to break people down into individual categories and manage them in an actual framework.
Because then literally you have a manager with a spreadsheet, which literally divvies up the races and genders and any other category that they choose in order to essentially micromanage an entire department and whatever.
And so this is, I think, a very unnatural, anti-human way of doing things, because now people are essentially barriers have been put up between individuals, so they can't negotiate their own relationships with one another.
Now they have to mediate it through a third party who has a particular ideological perspective.
So this, again, it's very Soviet.
It demeans the meritocracy as well.
Absolutely.
But it means that you aren't in control of your own relationships.
You have to mediate through an authority figure.
So it becomes, this is the sort of Soviet way of breaking down the society.
You know, you have to go through the party.
And I really don't like it.
And so they've got these everywhere, right?
So we'll just skip and move on, right?
There's a massive industry worth billions.
But it doesn't work.
It just doesn't work.
Not only does it not work, it's opposite land.
Yeah.
Can we go to the next one?
Sorry.
This is from the Atlantic recently and it just doesn't work.
It just doesn't work, right?
So in this, I'm just going to quote from a few things, right?
So they say, a recent New York Times op-ed by Jesse Singal delved into the multi-billion dollar equity, diversity, equity and inclusion industry.
Well, as advocates claim that diversity workshops can foster better intergroup relations, improve the retention of minority employees, close recruitment gaps and so on, in practice there is little evidence that any of these initiatives work, and the type of diversity training that is currently in vogue may well have a net negative effect.
Put more simply, perhaps 15% of human beings are psychologically ill-suited to dealing with difference, and when DEI industry programming deliberately raises the salience of race in a given organisation with the intention of urging anti-racism, the effect is to exacerbate differentism.
So the more you highlight the differences, the more people feel estranged from one another.
A deep body of scholarship across history, political science and economics all broadly point towards the conclusion that increasing the salience of race can have harmful results.
I mean, you're literally saying you're different to me.
You're different to me.
You're different to me.
You're always... And it's... How can that breed bondness and togetherness?
Okay, so here's the problem with this.
So we briefly spoke about this, but it's worth talking about.
That clip that the woman kept saying, I don't care how much evidence you show me for trans indifference in physical, trans women are women, they belong in women's sports.
Emma Vigeland.
Oh, you remember that, good, yeah.
So, the problem that I have with a lot of this stuff, and I think Connor's fantastic, I think Michael Sharma, who tweeted this stuff out, is fantastic, who's constantly trying to show, like, look, this is the evidence.
These people simply don't care about evidence.
Like, if they cared about evidence, that they wouldn't think a woman has a penis, right?
I mean, you can't get any more... That's a great quote.
If they cared about evidence, they wouldn't think a woman has a penis.
That sums all of this up!
I guess I can just stop talking now, yeah.
It's only a gotcha if someone buys into the system.
It would be like me pulling out the Koran and being upset with you that you ate bacon today.
But you don't buy into the Koran so that's not a gotcha for you.
So people hold the trans ideology or participate in the orbit of gender ideology Precisely because they believe it's a moral thing to do, and that morality is immune to any kind of... They don't formulate those beliefs in the basis of evidence, so there is no gotcha.
There's no amount of evidence that you're going to bring in to, for example, implicit bias training.
No matter what it is, equity, diversity, inclusion, belonging... And you know what the answer will always be from them.
We're not doing enough, and in fact we'll get to that in a minute.
Yeah, because that's part and parcel of woke-ism, is that the more woke you are, the more you realize you cannot be woke enough.
And it's any ideology, really.
You know, why is it failing?
Well, we're not doing it hard enough.
We need more of it, more of it.
It's always its own solution.
And that's also important to note, that that's the assumption of race of Robin DiAngelo and other... Ultra-mega-bestseller.
Ultra-mega-bestseller.
The assumption is, it's not, is racism present, but how did racism manifest itself?
So, that's your only lens through which you're looking at reality.
So, none of these things are going to move the needle.
They're not gotchas because people don't buy into the system.
And that's exactly it.
And also, like you're saying, any failures are insufficient amounts of adherence to orthodoxy.
The failure isn't with the orthodox.
Okay, so if I may give a brief example, this is not my example, this is Helen Pluckrose's example, a fellow person on your island here, lead author of Cynical Theories.
So there's a shopkeeper, and at the exact same time, through a single door, a white person comes into the shop, and a black person comes into the shop.
Who should the shopkeeper service first?
If the shopkeeper services the black guy, you say, well, you only service the black guy because you thought he was going to steal stuff from the store, so that's racist.
If the shopkeeper serves the white guy, you say, you only went to him first because he was white.
So the whole ideology is literally established with the assumption that there's racism, sexism, patriarchy, et cetera, embedded into the system.
And so, if you start with the assumption that racism is ever-present, just how did it manifest?
Well of course, I mean of course you're going to get to where we are.
There's no other place you're going to end up.
And, I mean, in this they just come to the conclusion, well, I think it's clear that the goal should be to reduce the salience of race in public debate and focus on direct objects of reducing poverty, making policing more accountable, improving schools, reducing air pollution, expanding health insurance coverage, and otherwise solving the big problems of American society.
Yeah, there is that.
But one of the problems that you have there is that you're going to have to put a burden of obligation on the people who you're trying to help.
As in, you want to improve public health?
Well, okay, one thing is stop filling your face with Big Macs.
That's part of... That was never mentioned during the pandemic, by the way.
No, of course not.
At least in the US.
No.
Well, do you not remember the governor of California sat there with chips?
Gavin Newsom?
Yeah.
No, no, no, I'm saying Newark, I meant.
The Newark governor was sat there with chips, eating them, saying, hmm, this burger, think of that when you're getting a vaccine.
It's like...
How is that responsible?
Promoting junk food.
It's crazy.
But that's the problem, you know, making, like, okay, we want to reduce police violence.
Okay, well, how about the, you have to have a conversation with those people who want to fight the police.
That's what you have to do.
So I'll give you a quick example.
In the city of Portland, I just, thank goodness, I just moved out of that cesspool.
The mayor, Ted Wheeler, he, him, by the way, in his 20s.
Oh yeah, we're well familiar with Ted Wheeler.
Yeah.
If I were more conspiracy, prone to conspiracies, I would believe that he were actually installed by an enemy state like North Korea, Iran, Russia.
Someone did a study that found that the Gang Reduction Task Force had a disproportionate number of young African-American men.
So he does away with the Gang Reduction Task Force.
One guess as to what happened.
I'm guessing gang violence went through the roof.
Yeah, and is it guys like me, middle-aged white guys?
No.
The consequence of him doing that is now we have more young dead black men.
That's literally everywhere, everywhere that the left has been operating.
And they don't care.
He him.
That's a good point.
Moving on, the question in October last year has been raised in this sort of, these spaces, you know, the HR newspapers.
Should we scrap it or not?
Well, I read through this article and there are only arguments in there to say no.
There's no argument as to why we should, which is interesting, isn't it?
Again, speaking about Hayek's totalitarian propaganda, if you've only got one argument, which is in one way, well, that's what you're going to believe.
And so one magazine came up with an idea.
We need to add something to DEI.
DEI isn't working because we don't have, quote, cultural intelligence.
Here's the next one, John.
As a certified cultural intelligence trainer, Make stuff up.
I love it.
We can just say, like, make stuff up now.
I am also a certified cultural intelligence trainer.
And because of your subjective experience and my subjective experience, my lived experience tells me that you are.
And I certify your certification.
So there's a multi-layer of credential.
There's a hierarchical credential.
I understand that you're actually a doctor of cultural intelligence.
Correct.
Which I certified at lunch earlier.
Correct.
It's such BS.
I see the unfortunate outcomes when cultural intelligence is not a part of diversity, equity and inclusion work.
When DI work solely focuses on race, gender and not broader dimensions of diversity, the majority group, white cisgender straight men, often feels left out.
Well, I wonder why they would.
I mean, they're being explicitly targeted by DEI training, and they're sort of like, hmm, this isn't working for them.
Well, no, it's not.
Of course it's not.
This perpetuates the problem which holds those with the majority of positional power and influence as not engaging in DEI work.
So attacking straight white men for being straight white men hasn't really resonated well with straight white men.
Yeah, that's why they have to redefine the definition of racism and include power in there.
So anyway, this didn't work.
They do give us a definition of cultural intelligence, right?
They say, it's an outsider's seemingly natural ability to interpret someone's unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures in a way that that person's compatriots would.
So you have to be Part of every culture to understand all of these cultures.
You know how I was saying about how we say thank you when we get off the bus in England?
Well, that's the cultural intelligence person would tell you that.
They'd know, you know.
You don't have cultural... I'm revoking your cultural intelligence degree.
Yeah, no, you should actually mention that because that's interesting.
So we went to the breakfast place and I thought I was being polite by saying yes ma'am.
Yeah.
And you said that in Britain you also have to say please and thank you with like... So I usually say thank you at the very end.
Yeah.
But so there were some interactions And you weren't saying thank you, and I could tell she thought it was rude.
Yeah, I know.
And I'm glad that you told me that.
But I would add that the correct response is, geez, I didn't know that.
Thanks for telling me.
And now I know.
And so when I do it in the future, then I can do that.
Like you also said to me that I didn't know.
So when I get on the bus, I do public transport everywhere.
I'm going to say this, and I'm probably going to get 800 hate emails.
But the public transportation in this country is freaking awesome.
No, I know.
It's just the public transportation in America is diabolical.
Okay, I'll give it to you, I'll give it to you.
But so you said to me, you said to me that when you get off the train you should say thank you.
Not on the train, because there's... No, no, the train, on the bus, on the bus.
Yeah, yeah, you walk past the conductor, it's polite to say thank you.
Yeah, yeah, so I didn't know that.
It's just polite to do.
Well, now that I know, I'm going to do that.
It's not like you're going to get evil stares if you don't.
It's just the right thing to do, right?
But anyway, DEI training is failing.
So they're going to try and save it.
This is from February 2023.
Of course, you can see Forbes.
Look, we need to improve this.
But we can see that we're getting tanked here.
This is not going our way.
People actually hate this.
It turns out that it doesn't work.
People hate being told that they're evil because of their race or gender or sex.
People also don't like being patronized because of their race, gender, and sex.
What can we do to improve them?
Notice how class isn't in this at all.
Just things with identity level salience, right?
Yeah, very, very, very interesting.
But they don't really have any good answers in this, but they do note that literally, you know, most workers don't really approve of all of this, and would like something else, if not, you know, if just nothing, frankly.
So we'll move on from that, just because we're running out of time a bit.
Because in mid-February, it turns out that Lodz Place was just abandoning it.
Just, nah.
But they weren't abandoning it for moral reasons.
It's because there's an economic downturn.
And it turns out that diversity and inclusion is a luxury belief.
And if you're coming into hard times, the first thing that gets cut are the luxuries.
Yeah, that's Rob Henderson's idea.
It's a very, very, very cool idea.
He's associated with the University of Austin, too.
It's totally true, though.
It is.
It's a luxury belief.
But what about all of us who started talking about this and lost friends and everyone freaked out that we're on the wrong side of history and now it's happening?
I can't believe the workshops on microaggressions have been cut from Amazon.
Oh my goodness, what's going to happen?
Tens of thousands of workers got laid off, which meant most of the DI teams... I mean, one of my favourite things was when Elon Musk took over Twitter.
Oh, God.
And he just fired them all!
It was heaven.
Yeah, I know!
I mean, it truly was heaven.
I know!
I remember going to sleep with a very big smile on my face that evening.
Just beautiful.
Just beautiful.
Anyway, yeah, so lots of people got laid off.
Dailymail.com spoke with one of the laid-off DEI workers, a Californian woman, whose views on social issues had made her outspoken in meetings, and they were targeted.
Get rid of the annoying whiny feminists now.
Love it.
Anyway, moving on to May 2023, which is really why this caught my attention.
Texas and other places in America are moving simply ban it because it's racist and sexist and all of these other ists that are things that are undesirable in institutions and public life.
Legislators in both chambers in Texas has approved the Senate Bill 17, which is going to be signed by Governor Greg Abbott, which will dismantle DEI offices, programs, and training in the next six months.
The bill also bans institutions from mandating any DEI as a condition of employment or admission to a university and orders all hiring practices to be colorblind and sex-neutral.
I just want to take a step back from this and say, when this first started to creep into society, you know, it was like a blitzkrieg without a war and then the next thing you know, boom.
And when you questioned this and you said, well, wait a second, this didn't even exist last year.
Now it's ubiquitous.
It's literally every year.
Shouldn't the response to that be to give a reason why, as opposed to attack the person who questions it?
And now we're seeing that people are realizing that this is an ill-conceived trend or a fad or what have you, but instead of saying, you know what, we were hoodwinked by this ideology, we made a mistake, mistakes happened, I predict you'll see gaslighting.
We never believed it, we never wanted to… And they've gaslit the whole way.
It's not happening, it's not happening, it's a good thing it's happening.
That's gender-affirming care, that's what they do, gender-affirming care.
Exactly, they've gaslit us the whole way, and then they'll be like, we were never in favour of that.
Like people now, I was never in favour of lockdowns, I was never in favour of mask mandates.
You're starting to see it now, just a little bit, I don't know if it hit here, but with defunding the police.
Yeah, I was never in favour of that.
Oh, come on.
We've got video.
It was literally like five years ago.
In this time period, the videos are all still on Twitter.
We can find you saying these things.
You lied.
And I think those are the two of the stupidest ideas in my 56 years of life I have ever heard.
Not just stupid, but ghastly.
The gender-affirming care for minors and the defunding the police are two of the most demonstrably idiotic false ideas I've ever come across.
See, I don't think that goes hard enough, right?
Because idiotic implies mistake.
That's wrong.
I think it's evil.
And I hate to agree with the Christians on this.
Oh, with the gender-affirming care stuff?
Yeah, I'll give that to you.
I think there's malintent.
Yeah, I'll give that to you.
It's genuinely, you are malevolent and you're trying to hurt people and you are enjoying that you're hurting people.
You want to bring them into your cult of hurt people, fellow wounded people, you know, people who have got something wrong with them and you want more.
Misery is loving the company.
It is really heartbreaking when you think about those kids, isn't it?
I genuinely try not to, but every now and again I'll post something I've come across on Reddit or wherever, on Twitter, and it'll be someone like...
Nobody told me how difficult this was, how I would feel, what it would be like.
I'd be a lifelong medical patient.
But also, like, I woke up every day, like, there was one where there was this obviously young woman where she's like 20 or something.
She's like, I miss my breasts.
I just, I don't know what I was thinking.
I was 16 or whatever.
And now they're gone forever.
And I just wish.
And I just want to say, if somebody is listening to this and they think to themselves, oh, these guys, I mean, come on, just, just think about this.
We've got kids, man.
We're worried about this.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, would you let your kid get a tattoo?
No!
Okay.
I wouldn't let him get a bloody tattoo.
I wouldn't let him get a piercing.
At 15, so I'd like to see a... and that's nothing.
A tattoo is nothing compared to what we're talking about here.
Yeah, it's not going to ruin your life, unless it's a cross all over your face or something.
But like, yeah, it's not going to ruin your life.
And this is genuinely going to just destroy the capacity you have for relationships.
It's so bad.
So bad.
Child rearing, your ability to raise children, your ability to have a family.
It's literally sterilization.
It's insane.
Insane how bad this is.
So anyway, one of the Democrat Texas lawmakers, what do you think they had to say?
They're against it?
Yeah, but why?
The exact words.
What are the exact words they use?
You probably do know.
On the wrong side of history?
Exactly.
Ron Reynolds warned his colleagues, don't be on the wrong side of history.
Don't let Texas be the next state to get a travel advisory, referring to the NAACP's recent warning against travel to Florida.
Yeah.
Laughable.
Yeah, and the head of the NAACP, by the way, lives in Miami.
Oh, really?
And I think six members are on the border in Florida.
Incredible.
But yeah, he literally said, don't be on the wrong side of history.
I mean, like a parrot, like a literal robot, like a button that you press.
Anyway, and finally for this one, the university is, of course, not happy.
Ron DeSantis had signed similar legislation earlier this month.
Yeah, we can talk about this.
There's a lot to talk about if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
Sure, go on.
So Chris, he's working with Chris Rufo to get this insanity out.
Go and save Chris Rufo, by the way.
Done the Lord's work on this, Chris Rufo.
Yeah.
Chris has become a friend.
He's really taking the fight to him, to them.
And there are two schools of thought on this.
One is, so this is Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, 1945 piece.
One part of this is that it's just so dastardly and so sinister that you have to take a step back and think about what these offices are trying to do.
As I've said repeatedly, you cannot have free speech in offices of DEI.
You get to choose.
You can have one or the other, and you need to be honest about what your choice is for your students and their parents who go there.
And before we go on, just to be clear, I've read Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.
He would be on our side, because the entire thing is essentially an expressly anti-communist screed, saying no, the communists and the Nazis are not willing to have a debate within defined parameters.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And so they have to just be kept out of this debate.
And this is why Karl Popper would be with us on this.
It's always misrepresented that it's all he would oppose the right wing.
No, the right wing is very democratic actually.
They all want to have a conversation about these things.
In its current manifestation, I agree 100%.
So going back to what Rufo wants to do is, he wants to kick the people out of universities who are against intellectual homogeneity and who are, they're basically offices of DEI.
That has been framed as wanting to put in your own ideologues.
I don't think that.
It could certainly be the case.
I don't think that's going to be the case.
That's an empirical question.
But the fact that these people are overtly and explicitly weaponizing offices of diversity, equity, inclusion against anyone who does not total line like Charles Nagy at CFI in Florida, the fact that they're doing that and wanting to stop that is only a good thing.
And it would be very easy to tell as well.
Is there a homogenous ideological movement?
Yeah, I think it was Sowell who said, I'll believe that you want diversity when you put Republicans in the sociology department.
If I misquoted Sowell, I'm sorry.
It's going to be something like that.
But the point is, we can see there's essentially a coalition of people.
There are the hardcore Christian nationalists.
There are the sort of Jeffersonian Republicans.
There are the more moderate center right Republicans or sitting.
So then you've got the center left people, classical liberals, the classical liberals.
Right.
And then you've got the sort of center left people.
Do it was at Marianne Williamson.
Yeah.
I'm having dinner with her Friday.
It was like the Republicans are nice to me.
It's like, yeah, you've got those people who oppose you.
Then you have, like, the TERFs, who are the radical feminists who believe in, like, so you don't have intellectual homogeneity in the people who want to get rid of the work, but you do have intellectual homogeneity in there.
So you can see they're not telling the truth.
Yeah, they're not telling the truth.
And I think it's really important that if somebody says something that's true and right, you stand by what they say.
Regardless of who they are and what they believe.
So if someone's a Democrat or Republican and you're the opposite or a Tory or Labour or whatever, it doesn't matter.
And they want to pull plastic out of the ocean and they have a plan to do that and that's a great idea.
You should say, you don't have to be in complete lockstep with everyone's belief.
And if you're not willing to cross the aisle on something that's clearly wrong, like mutilating the genitals of children, then the problem is with you.
Then you're the ideologue.
And it's awful as well, because I don't like making Nazi comparisons, but I bet there are a lot of people in Germany who are like, look, I don't like this persecution of Jews, but I'm afraid of opposing this now.
And I think a lot of these people are afraid of opposing all of this.
I would argue that those people are cowards.
Well, they are.
I mean, that's exactly what they are.
They're cowards.
But anyway, right, just a quick thing on this, which I thought was funny, right?
So they were very upset by this, right?
But one academic said, the implementation of DEI offices and practices may be banned from college campuses, but the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion can never be removed from us, the people.
And what they're saying there is you can't stop us being racist.
We're going to be racist even if you legislate against it.
We're going to hate white people, we're going to condescend to black people, and we're going to do everything we can to screw everything up.
Yeah, we're going to do everything we can to institute the principles of equity.
Well, it means trying to readjust shares to jerry-rig outcomes.
Yes.
Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
And they literally just say it.
And they may as well be saying, look, you might kick me out, but I'm going to be a Nazi the whole time and I don't care.
That's what they're saying.
So just get rid of them.
Literally just let them go.
Sorry, we're banning this thing if you can't accept that.
And you're like, no, I stand on it.
Okay, fine, bye.
So I'm not a big fan of prognostication.
I'm going to make a prediction, and I hope I'm wrong, but the older I get, the more important I realize it is to become.
Don't tell everybody you're smart and make predictions.
I'm going to make a prediction.
I think this is going to fail.
I do.
I don't think... I like Rufo.
I support Rufo's effort.
I do not think he will succeed.
And even if he does succeed, you're talking about limited schools in one state.
And how long for?
That's the question.
Because in 20 years time, It could be.
Oh, 20 years time, there'll be none of this, Matt.
We will look back at this and we'll say, oh my God, what were we thinking?
This is completely crazy.
Or it could be completely worse, that they captured the entire Zoomer generation.
They grew up not being able to think outside of the frame.
Well, they've already done that.
Well, exactly.
And so it could be that it's just so cemented.
we end up literally like the Soviets in Chernobyl where they're just like, well, I don't know how to process this.
You know, I can't process the reality, not being the same as what I'm being told from the authority.
And so, you know, you're just wrong.
There's no graphite on the roof.
Right.
And so, so, so I don't, I don't think that that effort is going to succeed.
I laud people who want to try to fix the K-12 system or try to fix the university system.
If that's what you want to do, if that's really how you want to spend your time, great.
That is absolutely, unequivocally not what I'm going to do.
I'm going to build new things.
I mentioned University of Austin twice.
I'm not going to wait around and hope, cross my fingers, that Chris Rufo succeeds.
I mean, Godspeed to him, you know.
No, I'm 100%, 100%.
I mean, like, seriously, 100%.
You've got to take a clear-eyed view on these things.
But I'm not waiting around to see if Chris Rufo succeeds.
I'm going to do my own thing, and I hope Chris succeeds, for sure.
And I think Chris Rufo's a good friend of mine, and I hope he succeeds.
I don't think he will succeed, ultimately, because I think that the entrenched... I mean, at the end of the day, we are going to...
Realize that we have made some pretty horrific mistakes in profound mistakes in our judgment But while that process is going underway, I'm gonna build new things good idea.
All right, let's go to some comments So base tape says great to see on the show Peter.
I was just watching you last night I'm on the train Scotland right now with terrible Wi-Fi, but we look forward to catching up on this episode later.
Keep up doing the Lord's work JC says I've been binge watching Peter's Street epistemology of the past few days great work.
Thank you.
I've been going It's great.
I go all around the world and I set up tape on sidewalks.
Strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, and then on the other side.
And then I ask people questions, put them on the neutral line.
Should trans women be allowed in women's sports?
They go to a line.
I question them or interrogate them depending on the way you look at it.
I facilitate conversations and I see if the line they're on Is the line they should be on based upon the evidence they have.
And astonishing number of times people recalibrate their confidence.
And you can see it physically.
You can see a move.
It's pretty cool.
Really?
And so what sort of response?
Do you ever get angry responses?
Oh yeah, infuriated.
Yeah, the top two videos on my channel, if you go to views and then popular, people are just utterly losing their mind at me.
But you know, that's almost a uniquely American phenomenon.
I don't know.
We have it here too.
I'm going to do street epistemology here so I can't tell you yet, but from the places I've been in the world, Australia, Hungary, Romania, all over the United States and other places in the world, from those experiences I found that Americans on college campuses are looking for a reason to be offended.
I don't doubt.
I don't doubt.
Someone online says, referring to the first segment, another myth that drives me up the wall is they use smallpox as a weapon.
It's a great point.
Germ theory didn't exist at that time.
It was mid-19th century.
Germ theory.
They couldn't have known.
They couldn't have known.
And so yeah, that's another great point.
You know, just again, more lies.
Lies upon lies upon lies.
And it's just genuinely embarrassing actually.
Kevin says, all Western establishments, educational establishments, no longer teach students how to think, they focus on what to think.
Correct.
The main reason for this is, seems to be they have no good arguments for their beliefs and positions, and therefore must ensure future generations never feel the need to argue.
That could be.
I think it's a complicated set of factors.
Look, if we want to know how many of those scented home candlesticks in there or whatever those things are, incense, and you say there are 15 and I say there are 18, there's no reason to get upset with each other, we just present the evidence.
So, usually if someone doesn't have sufficient evidence for something but has a high confidence, they have to make up that slack somehow.
I'm offended, mean word, blasphemy laws on a macro level, walk away.
So, if people had any evidence for any of this stuff, they would just present the evidence instead of platitudes or just, you know, you're on the wrong side of history, they would just present the evidence.
But there is no evidence.
In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly against these deranged ideas.
And that then, it makes me vaguely synthetic.
So I always think, man, if that were me, I'd be like, how have I arrived at this position?
Where I have no evidence of what I'm saying.
Well, that's because you have intellectual integrity.
Well, I try to, anyway.
I mean, yeah, I'm not perfect.
Omar says, it's surprising how many people can simultaneously think half the population is black and also believe that they should be given reparations.
Then again, if socialists were capable of extrapolating the cost of their policies, they probably wouldn't be socialists.
Good point, frankly.
The letter M is for magnifying glass.
Strange username.
Says, if that's how many people answer the question like that in America, I'd hate to see the results in Australia for the proportions of the country.
It'll be even worse than that, I think.
George says, the Dye Initiative is the natural evolution of feminist academia, one of the best examples of oikophobia.
Seeing homogeneity as a problem in the workplace is irrational.
I don't know that word.
Right, so, oikophobia, and it's counterpoint to oikophilia, it wasn't coined by Sir Roger Scruton, a conservative British philosopher, but it was popularised by him.
And it just comes from the Greek oikos, which means home.
And this means fear of home, or a love of home.
And it doesn't mean just the place, but also the community that occupies the home, right?
So, the local community.
A fear of home.
Yeah, a fear of the local community.
Or oikophobia.
It's funny, I've read Scruton, I don't remember that, but yeah.
Yeah, well, it's in plenty of his works, and it's a great way of framing things, because that is kind of what it is, because you see a lot of out-group preference, especially, you know, white liberals are the only group that have an out-group preference, right?
And that, Scruton would call them oikophobes, right?
And whereas most people are oikophiles, of course they love that, of course they love the people like that, of course they care about it, but all of these, you know, the international globalist types, who are like, every other culture is good apart from ours, our culture needs to lash itself in order to somehow you know redeem itself or something like that like this is what he describes as orcophobia and i think it's totally fair i think it's a totally good uh use of the totally good term to use so um useful
um henry says the what is a woman question is so baffin for joe splinson it changed her accent from glaswegian to west country Yeah, she was apparently from Scotland, so you couldn't tell, could you?
No.
LaFrenchDogWalker, he changes his name every time, from LaFrench something, now he's a dog walker, probably because of your dog walking thing.
Transgender surgeries are man-made horrors beyond our comprehension.
I mean, Tesla did actually call it.
You'll live to see man-made horrors.
And man, I tell you, you can just Google.
Google the surgery and Google the results of the surgery and it's just...
I mean, it's just beyond.
I can't imagine that these women are looking in the mirror and being like, I'm a man.
I just want to comment on that quickly.
I often wonder to myself, so just to be clear, I do not think that the parents should be punished for this, legally or otherwise.
I think that they are caught up.
They're going by what the doctors tell them.
They're going by what, you know, the woke left is obsessed with.
The culture around them.
Yeah, the culture, the system is telling them.
But that's an entirely other question of to what extent physicians who perform these activities and hospital administrators that have allowed the machinery for these people to be... Because they recognize it as an industry.
Yeah, there has to be some punishment for this.
And I would argue to you losing one's medical license is not sufficient.
Yeah, I agree.
Totally.
I mean, the problem is like, as we've seen from the example of lobotomies, actually, None of these people will be punished because in the time it takes for people to, the winds of change to make their effect in the industry, like it's 30 or 40 years.
And so by that time, they're not around to punish anymore, you know?
And so it's not going to happen.
No one's going to get punished for this.
I hope you're wrong.
I sincerely hope you're wrong.
I'm just looking at previous medical scandals, and we've had plenty, loads of medical scandals in the 20th and 19th centuries.
I mean, I'm hoping wrong, but I'm sure that by the time it's just universally recognised that this was crazy, and it would be immoral and illegal to do to people, all of the people involved are dead.
And so it won't, nothing will happen.
But I totally agree.
I mean, Jordan Peterson's incredibly strong on this recently.
He's just on Twitter.
No, all these people should be in jail.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, it's Matt.
You probably haven't had time to see it, but I've done something with Billboard Chris, the guy who wears the billboard around him.
He was just on Andrew Doyle's show recently.
And we run around to two universities, and it was pretty crazy.
Like, a transgender activist who was a professor at Portland State University, who is still not fired as far as I know, he stole Chris's phone.
The people were blaring bullhorns at our, you know, music players.
I think I've seen this, actually.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy.
And it was really funny, this is like really, really funny.
Instead of teaching people, this is what happens when the institution isn't focused on truth, but focused on forwarding an ideology.
Instead of saying, okay, this is how you listen to an argument, this is how you weigh evidence, this is how you ask a good question, they provided, and I'm not kidding you, Please Google this and look it up yourself.
Cotton candy and coloring books for people who were traumatized.
Adults.
Adults, students, adult college students.
This is what we have become.
This is what Portland State has become.
Amazing.
And University of Oregon, we went down there too, and boy, it was really quite an experience.
You can find those videos online.
So, I hate to say it, but we're out of time there.
So, Peter, if people want to find more of you, where can they go?
Twitter at Peter Boghossian, B-O-G-H-O-S-S-I-A-N is my Twitter feed, and YouTube, Dr. Peter Boghossian, and all the videos are there, and you can watch people change their belief to Socratic questions or not.
Well, thank you so much for joining me.
Thank you, everyone, for tuning in.
This has been great.
I've really enjoyed it, man.
And we'll see you tomorrow.
Take care.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anytime, man.
▲
Export Selection