All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2021 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
52:23
Transsexuality and the Logic of Civil Rights

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What I see is this general tendency of conservatives to reject the latest innovation and outrage, you could say, but then want to go back 30 or 50 years and protect the foundation on which the outrage is laid.
So they want to go and protect the Civil Rights Act.
Everything that they oppose.
policy-wise when the rubber hits the road is built upon the 1964 civil rights act Hello, Ed.
How are you doing?
Hello.
Yes, I'm okay.
Yes, it's very hot here.
It was mid-summer yesterday.
It's this thing they celebrate here in Finland, the day before yesterday, which Cromwell abolished.
So we don't really have it.
It's almost like people celebrating, watching people celebrate Ramadan or Eid or something.
It's fairly meaningless to us, us English people.
Well, do they run around, maybe not the Maypole, but do they get all pagan and stuff?
No, they just drink.
It's really just an excuse to drink very, very, very heavily indeed.
So May Day, or summer solstice, midsummer is the equivalent to Tuesday in Finland.
Yeah, there are similarities, yes.
But drinking even more heavily than that, and also this tradition of going to the countryside and having a cabin and swimming in a lake.
So they've been doing things like that.
So I met up with a Scottish friend and an Italian friend.
And that was good enough.
We spoke exclusively in Finnish because the Italian doesn't speak any English.
Interesting.
So...
I thought we could talk about Laurel Hubbard, who has made history today.
And I don't want to just do the typical outrage session over, oh my god, I can't believe they're doing this, because basically we could do that every day, get outraged, the latest atrocity.
But I think I want to...
Really look, delve into what's happening with women's sports in general, with the implications of this.
What is the foundation of this stuff, at least in terms of policy?
I think that the...
This wokeness and transgender stuff, a kind of divine individual, I think that has a religious origin of sorts.
But when the rubber hits the road, it has to become policy.
And I think it's also very clear how this stuff is being built upon if we assume that it is coming from America, which I think is kind of correct.
But let's first talk about this amazing bravery and breakthrough of Laurel Hubbard.
She will be representing New Zealand in weightlifting and Laurel Hubbard.
used to be a man.
A male weightlifter.
A male weightlifter.
Right.
So taking all of that into account, I think she is going to Kick ass.
And if she doesn't win, in fact, that would be really embarrassing.
There was an episode of South Park about this concept of the strong woman where they had somebody that was meant to be the macho man, Randy Savage, who had decided to...
He decided last week to become a woman, and now he was competing as a woman, and of course he was just beating up all of the females.
And this is it.
This is a male weightlifter.
Okay, not a particularly successful male weightlifter, but nevertheless a male weightlifter, which is consistent with the study I did, which found that they tend to be higher in testosterone, these transgender women.
And who is now a stunning and brave and rather butch woman.
I wasn't a particularly successful baseball player.
However, if I went back and played middle schoolers, I think I could be pretty good.
I don't think they would be able to hit my 70-mile-per-hour heater.
I mean, it's just fundamentally a joke.
South Park did an episode where the little peewee American football team get to play a full-on male team, a full grown-up team, and the team just beat them up and destroy them.
And then it culminates in one of them being so proud that the dad says to him, I love you, son.
I love you too, dad.
And they're just so proud that they've done this.
Yeah, what response can there be other than just bemusement, more than bemusement, outrage?
And there is a backlash that's starting to become increasingly mainstream, and I just don't know at what point it will tip over into something changing, because everybody knows this is madness.
In England at the moment, there is a very, very nasty by-election.
And that issue was in which one of the people standing is someone called George Galloway, who's quite famous in England.
He's extreme left wing.
And he's a third of the constituency of Muslims.
And of course, they're completely opposed to this.
And there was this very not this transsexuality agenda and homosexuality agenda in schools.
And there was this very nasty debate.
And basically all of the Labour candidate who is going to lose, who should win normally, but she's going to lose, could say is, I think you're being very insensitive to transgender people.
That's all she could say back to him.
And she said under her breath, he's such a nasty man.
All George Galloway was saying is, look, men are men, women are women, that's that.
A man cannot become a woman.
That's it.
What party is George Galloway in now?
Well, he used to be in the Labour Party on the left of the Labour Party.
Maybe even 20 years ago, was it?
He broke away from the Labour Party and has established various far-left parties, which have involved basically extreme leftness in combination with Muslims.
So he basically, his coalition is basically Muslims.
Yeah, yeah.
No, I've known of him for at least a decade.
He's a colourful figure, and I will maybe, I don't know, half the time agree with him.
Kind of an interesting guy.
But the other half of the time, you know, vehemently disagree with him.
Yeah, so I'll just do...
I said that we're going to get past the kind of outrage of this and talk about bigger issues, but I would just mention this.
So the world record of strong woman deadlift was 290 kilograms, which is around 640 pounds.
So deadlift is a good indicator of just overall strength.
It works the hamstrings.
It's really a full body lift.
You're lifting a very heavy weight off the ground.
So again, the strongest strong woman on earth did 640.
The strongman, that guy, I can't even pronounce his name, Bjorn Halfersson or something, he did close to twice that weight in deadlift in strongman competitions.
So this is not...
In an Olympic sports or professional sports in general, they're battling over half a pound or a millimeter.
I mean, if you run the 100-meter dash to...
Milliseconds before your competitor, you've won in a runaway.
If you can throw a baseball two miles per hour faster, you're going to start dominating.
And we're not dealing with 1% or half of a percent.
We're dealing with a 100% increase.
It's just incredible.
I mean, I don't even know what to say.
This is just such an obvious violation of...
The argument they use is that the level of testosterone in Hubbard's system is within the bounds, the legal bounds that permit this person to compete as a woman.
And of course what they manifestly fail to understand is that this person has become a woman quite recently and therefore has developed.
Obviously, it has developed as a man and therefore will be much, much stronger.
It's as simple as that.
She went through puberty and that's it.
But I would say this.
I agree that we're seeing a backlash.
I think even this, I don't know if you've been paying attention to it, but this critical race theory obsession that's going on with conservatives.
I think this is part of this backlash.
And it's vehement.
It's sometimes shrill.
It is even sometimes violent.
I have no doubt that that's where we're going.
But I also see a just sort of inevitability to all of this.
And I can explain why.
I think that the animus that is pushing forward I do think it is going to win.
I think it is inevitably going to win because it is going with the flow of the entire logic of a society and it is going with the flow of policy logic.
Conservatives don't criticize either of those two things, and therefore they are going to lose as usual.
I can go into that more.
Why does it follow that they're going to?
I'm not sure that conservatives are going to lose.
I think what you're seeing is just more evidence of just polarization.
No question.
Neither group is going to give way.
It's not like at some point these people that are financially, emotionally, psychologically, self-esteem-ly invested in all of this woke nonsense are going to give in.
But similarly, I think increasingly one gets the impression that the people on the other side, whereas before, there would just be this incremental movement towards the left.
It's been going on since probably World War II, or at least since the 60s.
Always, always they would see ground.
And increasingly, what always happens when you get a far-left society like this is eventually the evolutionary mismatch becomes so extreme that there's enough people that won't cede ground.
They just won't.
And if it's those people that are breeding, which they are, and if it's things like social media as well.
There was a paper published recently which argued quite cogently that things like Twitter and Facebook have...
That contributed to polarization by creating incentives towards groupishness.
Right.
And so if you're in that kind of situation, then again, people won't...
I've experienced that, yeah.
...then people won't see ground.
And so you just end up basically what I can only see as a slow breaking apart of people.
You even see this in America in a very subtle way, in Idaho.
In counties, not states, wanting to break away from the Union, but counties wanting to change states so they can be part of a right-wing state.
And I see this as a subtle, slow reaction that is going to gradually occur.
I don't fully disagree, but I would emphasize the overall flow of this river.
That they're in.
That they are swimming upstream in a sense.
I remember one time at summer camp where I was swimming really hard upstream.
And then I stood up in the river and I realized that I had actually gone backwards about 50 yards.
So I felt like I had swum 100 yards that I had actually gone backwards as I was swimming upstream.
I was really working and furious about it, but I was still going backwards.
And I think that's the experience of conservatives.
I agree.
Polarization is more intense now than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
No question.
I mean, now the level of distrust among conservatives, they don't trust the election.
Anything the New York Times prints is a lie.
It's gone to extreme limits and almost to a kind of, I don't know where it can go from here.
That being said, we have seen very similar things like this, reactions by conservatives to things that they perceive as demoralizing, and they ultimately give way and lose.
There is extreme polarization to basically the kind of racial revolution in the 60s that ultimately led to riots and so on.
And going back to the 50s as well, there was major pushback.
From the right, if that's what you want to call it.
And it ultimately ceded ground.
And the question is, why is that?
There was major freakouts to gay marriage.
They have ceded that ground.
Totally.
I don't remember the last time a conservative questioned gay marriage.
They're now getting freaked out about transgenderism.
They're saying, oh, this is it.
They're questioning.
The integrity of the body at this point, where they were saying, using similar language 10 years ago, and they ceded ground.
And they will cede ground.
They always cede ground.
It's something I'm looking at in this book I'm working on.
The left doesn't cede ground.
No, no, they don't, because you have these five moral foundations.
The right have all five of them.
The left basically are low in three and high in two.
That means the right can sympathize, empathize with the left, and then not vice versa.
And so what that means is that right-wing people will always see ground.
Also, being left-wing does seem, I don't think it's a cultural, I think it's an inherent thing, does seem to be associated with mental instability and things like this.
Oh, this is just nonsense.
It's not nonsense.
It's not.
Ed, there are millions of people who are successful humans living in the suburbs.
Administering the government and major corporations.
I never said there weren't.
Democratic.
No, that's not the issue.
The issue is what does the large data indicate, and what it indicates is that mental instability is higher among people that are left-wing.
I don't mean to be like they're going around killing themselves.
I mean they're more neurotic, and that can act as an incentive to desire power.
Sorry?
Why are they...
Why are they so dominant if they're so...
Because it can be socially positive, and there's various studies on this, to be moderately high in neuroticism.
So, for example, there's evidence that people that are optimally high in neuroticism do better at university than those who don't.
Because they work harder and they worry and they're concerned, and so they act as an incentive.
And in much the same way, if you have a sense, even only a limited sense, that the world is fundamentally unfair and everyone's against you or whatever, and therefore you want to take control, you want power, you want to take control of everybody, because then you feel better.
And so you can see how, therefore, when I say mentally unstable, I don't mean they're all nutters.
I mean that it acts as something that makes you more Machiavellian.
And so anyway, I think that these two reasons, these two factors, are why there is a tendency for the right to see ground.
There were studies on this.
People that are conservative are literally less fervent.
So if you present a person that's conservative with evidence which counters their viewpoint, like logically and reasonably, they will be much more inclined to change their viewpoint than is the case among people who are more liberal.
They will more strongly hold on to their viewpoint in the face of counter evidence.
So all of these things would be consistent with the fact that it would be the conservatives that would see ground every time.
I mean, look, I think that's an interesting supplement.
It does strike me as promoting such things just strike me as self-serving.
For conservatives in the sense of they want to imagine the radical left is Antifa terrorist and they are all actually moral and upright and good.
I think that's...
I mean, it's interesting studies, but I mean, the fundamental...
What is the ideological trajectory of the United States and all of these Western societies that are, since 1945, are in the United States' wake?
In the sense that you can even find, I mean, Germany, for instance.
The defeated power doesn't have an actual constitution.
It has a kind of groundwork for a constitution, so to speak.
And you see them being maybe a decade or two behind, but in some ways a decade or two ahead in some directions, but a few years behind, but ultimately defining their sovereignty, the legitimacy of their state.
On American-like grounds.
There's actually never been a German people, and Germany's always been diverse.
You see this from actual politicians.
Everything's following in this ideological wake that's created by the United States that probably does go back to the core issue of its founding in the sense of...
Calvinist coming here to escape what they perceived as religious persecution, but I think ultimately also does derive from the kind of liberal mechanistic conception of the state in the Constitution, that you end up here.
Eventually.
It might take a few hundred years and there might be a lot of nationalism and racism in between, but this is where it ends up when you define yourself on the basis of natural rights, which the United States did.
At some point...
I don't know if it has to be...
I think because you have very similar processes that have occurred in other civilizations.
I agree.
So therefore, there's a deeper way of understanding it.
And I think that the idea that it's to do with the nature of philosophy or something that causes these things is, I think, it's too...
You can go beneath that.
You just always get the same process, that these things start off as an ethnostate.
America basically started off as an ethnostate.
It was Anglo-Saxon England.
Yes, they did.
That was their view.
They were very explicit about it.
It was an Anglo-Saxon state.
Yes and no.
It's very different.
It started off as an ethnostate, an Anglo-Saxon state, and they were clear on this.
They were clear on fighting for the rights of Englishmen, no question.
It was not an entirely Protestant country.
It was overwhelmingly, I think it was 90% Protestant in, I think it was at 1750 or something.
Yes.
This is in Eric Kaufman's book.
So the point is that they perceived themselves as an ethnostate, and then gradually you get this view, no, we're not an ethnostate, we're a hodgepodge of different peoples, but we're held together by religion.
And then gradually we're Protestant.
And I think FDR apparently said to some advisor of his, look, this is a Protestant country, and anyone that's not Protestant is here under sufferance.
And this is what he said to one of his advisors.
It was Catholic.
And then it becomes not about religion.
It just becomes, oh, we're just this melting pot.
You get the same thing in Rome eventually.
Anybody can be Roman.
And then eventually you get people who literally aren't Roman at all just taking over the society.
And then it starts to vulcanize and fall apart.
I don't fully disagree, but you ultimately, in terms of just the demography that you've set out, I obviously don't fully disagree.
But if you look at the way that they defined themselves explicitly, it is more complicated, and there actually is something unique.
I, in a way, believe in American exceptionalism.
I think it is a unique invention, this American experiment.
And it was fundamentally different.
John Winthrop did not define this new place as an ethnostate for Anglos or something like this.
It would have been surprising for him to say that it's a white state, but he should have or he could have defined it in other ways.
He defined it as a new Jerusalem, a shining city on the hill.
And that myth of a place where all people can come from around the world to experience God.
Yes, he wanted homogeneity in terms of religion, no question.
But that is the way that it was defined.
It was already, before he even set foot on North America, it was defined as a different type of entity.
Calvinist basis for a new conception of a country.
Well, I can see your point, but I'm not sure I 100% agree.
It's like these people that say, oh, there's some fundamental problem with the nature of Christianity because, look, you can point to this bit in the Bible and this means that you have to be left-wing and anti-nationalist.
I'm like, well, yeah, fine, but you can also point to this bit in the Bible and you can interpret that to mean you have to be extremely ethnocentric and whatever and you can make yourself...
Can you point to a single instance of Jesus being racist?
The new Jewish people.
Can you point to a single instance of Jesus being racist?
I think at some point he does say that he is a Judaizer at some point.
Salvation comes from the Jews.
There is some evidence for that.
But the thing is, the idea that Jesus, I mean, what the Jesus was that was built up was the Jesus in the Bible plus Constantine and Mithras and this hodgepodge of stuff.
And if you want to interpret it, find ways to interpret it in a sort of egalitarian way, then I suppose you can do that.
But if you want to find things that you can use to interpret it in a group-oriented way, you can do that as well.
And it's just a question of what the people, what stage of their development, That they're going to draw upon the religion to justify something that is...
This or is that?
I think you've got the same thing with America.
So you have elements of the American, whatever you want to call it, the American imagined community or something like that, which have been and were interpreted in this more ethno-nationalistic or whatever kind of way.
And then you've got elements of it, which if you want to, in this sort of enlightenment values kind of dimension and so on.
It's just a question of what the nature of the people is at the time and what...
They therefore choose to draw upon to sanctify themselves.
Because I don't want to just react to men beating women at weightlifting competitions.
I want to look at what the ultimate...
The ultimate basis of this is.
Unless you believe that all religions are the same and they all are just ethnocentric, which I don't agree with, Christianity is a unique religion.
There is a certain motive in Christianity towards something very different from the old law.
Otherwise, there would be no need for a New Testament.
It's the whole point of the religion.
It was the point of it.
At various points.
So if you're in the middle of society and you want to try and get to the top...
Then you traditionally signal these individualistic values, because you are individualistic, and so you're trying, that's what you are in that situation, you need to get to the top, people at the top that pass on their genes, whatever.
And that's what Christianity was about, was people in the middle signaling these individualistic values, because they are individualistic, to get to the top, which they did, and then it became a religion that was more group-oriented.
Same thing with Protestantism, exactly the same.
It was people in the middle who didn't have all the power, a lot of them using this as a means to signal their way to the top.
And it's what you get to some extent with, It's Protestantism.
Fascinatingly, one thing that I noted this week in the newspapers was that the Church of England, and therefore presumably eventually its equivalent in America, has declared that it wants to abolish its traditional formal titles of address, like the Reverend and the Venerable and things like this.
And I thought this was very, very interesting because the last time it did that, the last time it had a major change in its forms of address was the Reformation.
And before that, if you were a junior priest, you would know it's like Sir John Smith, like a knight.
You were Sir John Smith, priest.
And if you were a vicar or something, you were Master John Smith, like that.
And this whole reverend thing didn't exist.
And then gradually, the late 1600s, gradually those titles die out among priests and income, the system we have now.
So it's almost like the Church of England is going through a new reformation as society goes through.
This is a reformation.
I agree.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Yeah, no, no, I totally agree.
And I think that it is a mere formality on one level, but it actually bespeaks something much deeper.
Okay, let me take this from a different angle.
Christy Noem, who is a...
Whenever I say her name, I always think of garden gnomes.
Anyway, she is a governor of South Dakota, I believe.
The Republican-led legislature put up a...
A bill that was going to ban trans athletes, effectively.
And she had trouble signing it because she got some pressure from the NCAA.
She was worried about her universities not being able to compete.
She was just kind of playing both sides of this thing.
She wants to present herself, in fact, as a presidential candidate.
But at the same time, she realizes that she's got to play along with the big boys.
The NCAA, wherever that's located in Washington.
She also defined her stance against trans athletes as defending Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
So, Title IX was not in the original 64 Act.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act...
Did not mention women whatsoever.
It certainly didn't mention homosexuals.
It didn't mention transsexuals at all.
It was about public accommodations that might be privately owned and public funds and positions and so on.
And it was obviously directed towards blacks, although it did not, you know, used more general language.
So racial discrimination cannot be a factor in accommodations and public monies, public positions, public schools, etc.
et cetera.
Some seven years after that, in the early 70s, 1972 or 1973, the feminists basically jumped on that bandwagon and they built upon the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add in Title IX.
Now, they never mentioned sports.
When they were promoting this, but it was basically against sexual discrimination that was added to the Civil Rights Bill.
They never mentioned sports.
I think one person did, and he offered to exempt college athletics from the logic of this title, but they didn't take him seriously.
Well, what happened with Title IX in college athletics when the rubber hit the road is that...
Universities will certainly spend more money on, say, the football team than they spend on the girls' volleyball team.
But when it comes to distributing goods, that is, a scholarship, which is like money in a way, it's a good.
You don't have to pay $50,000 a year or whatever.
They have to do that equally.
So Title IX led to a huge boon for women's sports.
In the sense that if you have 100 scholarships for the football team, you have to have another 100 for the softball team.
Despite the fact that 100,000 people want to go see the football team and maybe 100 people want to go see the softball team.
But you have to equally distribute it.
So it has been a massive boon for women's athletics.
And it's created something that I think some...
I don't think anyone would dispute girls playing sports in general.
I think it's a great thing.
But just this kind of hyper-competitive, man-ish, let's say, female athletics would not exist, at least to the extent that it is now, without Title IX.
Kristi Noem, when she was discussing trans athletes, she declared that she wants to protect Title IX.
What I see is this general tendency of conservatives to reject the latest innovation and outrage, you could say, but then want to go back 30 or 50 years and protect the foundation on which the outrage...
Is laid.
So they want to go and protect the Civil Rights Act.
Everything that they oppose, policy-wise, when the rubber hits the road, is built upon the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whether through Supreme Court decisions.
The 64 Act applies to sexual orientation, whether upon sexism and hiring or sports or whatever, and ultimately about race.
So everything they oppose has been built on this act.
This is the paradigm for policy that is controversial over certainly my lifetime and well before that.
And yet they want to protect that.
And it just, it creates, this is why they're going to lose, in the sense that, yes, it's polarized, they're reacting, they're mad.
But there's a dynamic where they want to ultimately protect what the left did 30 years ago, going forward.
That is a dynamic that will lead to endless leftward drift.
I don't know where they're going to go after transsexuality.
Five years from now.
We talked about pedophilia.
It's going to be that.
I think it'll be childhood adulthood.
There's already some hints of this, and I think that if they carry on, and that's when people have a natural repulsion, pedophilia and so on.
Even in the 70s, they tried that in Britain, and then they had to roll it back in because people were so horrified.
And so it's as if they've waited.
They've played the long game.
And eventually, you've already got these societies, you know, men attracted to...
Nambla?
They call themselves, and they're trying, with the success of transsexuality, to try and argue that they are a persecuted minority and they should have rights and whatever.
Let's do the logic.
I mean, it's so disgusting that it's going to have more...
But that ultimately has the same logic to it.
They're a persecuted minority.
I mean, they kind of are in the sense that everyone fucking hates them.
It's partly genetic, it's partly their upbringing, whatever.
It's not their fault.
And then also just, I think, the blurring of the line between adult and child.
Once you start problematising things, asking them, what do you mean by race?
What do you mean by sex?
What do you mean by gender?
Then what do you mean by childhood?
I mean, it is the logic of this tactical nihilism that they engage in, in the same way that they don't like it.
The reason why they react so strongly against Rachel...
Dolds yell on such people is because it's taking their logic to a place which then undermines their power base, which is to make white people feel terrible about being white.
And so that has to be stamped down on.
That can't be allowed.
But somehow men, who surely have more power than women, being allowed to become women, somehow gradually that's okay.
So yes, I do think the next step would be people identifying as children and all of this kind of stuff.
And at some point, I just, I don't, history tells us that at some point, you can talk about American exceptionalism, okay, fine, but also it seems to be quite striking the way that these parallel, these patterns, these cycles happen again and again and again.
And history tells us that this kind of nonsense, whether it's Gnosticism or whatever, happens in the winter when things come apart.
And that's what is increasingly at increasing speed.
Yeah, look, we're not in total disagreement.
I would just stress this, that the conservatives, the way that they understand their resistance to this is so flawed that I don't think that we're just going to have a kind of breaking apart.
And even if we broke apart, I think they would recreate the same society.
Take a look at this.
So you might be aware of this.
There's an obsession with CRT, which is I guess mostly a kind of legal...
philosophy, critical race theory that I think is just in a general paradigm in academia.
It's in a paradigm bigger than itself of seeing race everywhere, looking at oppression and the persistence of wealth within races and all of this stuff and undermining the fairy tale of American history that I learned even in the 80s.
Conservatives understandably perceive this.
I get it.
They perceive that they're being demoralized and that their stories and icons are being smashed.
And so I get why they're reacting to it.
I don't like it either.
But look at the way they're reacting.
So there was a bill in Florida that has, I think it might have been signed this week.
I'll have to go look at it.
Stick with the broad strokes here.
There's a bill in Florida that effectively banned critical race theory, and it went further.
It banned all sorts of racism and sexism in general.
So you cannot display racist media in any form in public.
Education.
So that would include, I don't know, reading Mein Kampf when you're studying the Second World War or inviting Richard Spencer to your campus.
All of those things, according to this bill, would be...
Illegal.
You cannot demoralize a student on the basis of sex or race.
And they're calling all this stuff sexism.
So we're against racism and sexism.
That is now illegal in public universities.
And they want to bring in this like patriot education about learning about anti-communism.
Well, this is obviously a violation of free speech.
So I don't think this will last.
Beyond that, I think it's even more fundamentally flawed in the sense that they are speaking in the language of the 64 Civil Rights Act.
All of those acts were based on removing racial discrimination from accommodations and public institutions.
Five to seven years later, we need to remove sexism from this.
Then 30 years later, we need to remove homophobia from any accommodations or public institutions.
Then it's we need to remove transphobia.
It just keeps going.
They are speaking the same language as the 64 Act.
Everything that they hate, that I understand why they hate it, is built upon that act.
Yet they want to reaffirm the very foundation of this stuff.
Therefore, they will lose.
That is the distinction between the everyday conservative and the more profound conservative, isn't it?
The conservative just doesn't like change.
We like change.
If the conservative is brought up in a communist society, you could argue that those people that were rebelling against Mikhail Gorbachev and there was a coup and they took him out of power for a few days, those people in a sense were kind of conservatives.
They weren't left-wing, they were conservatives, and they just didn't want change.
And so you've got this Charles Murray type, I just don't like change.
I've got used to this post-60s America, and I quite like it, and now there's a radical change happening, and I want to go back to how it was.
And I loved the 64 Act when I was 20 years old.
It was awesome.
So how could it be a problem?
It's just getting...
You're left-wing when you're young.
You get more conservative with age, and then you're conservative for the things that were radical when you're young.
Those things are the established things.
So it's like going to Rolling Stones concerts now when you're in your 60s or 70s.
It's the same sort of attitude.
Oh, when you were young, Rolling Stones was radical and cool and new and breaking.
So it's just that, as distinct from the more sort of profound conservative, who is basically low in these individualizing values, low in them.
Margaret Thatcher, to some extent, was a bit like this.
I think she just didn't care about the feeling, not interested, and was interested in the group-oriented stuff.
And that's the difference.
And so, yeah, they will always frame things in those ways.
The argument you could put in their favour is that the whole society has been so indoctrinated with the idea, the post-64 idea, perhaps, that you have to treat people as individuals.
And to a certain degree, I quite like that idea.
But anyway, so indoctrinated with it that you have to put it in those terms.
The idea that you can say there shouldn't have been the Civil Rights Act is just such anathema to almost everybody.
I agree.
So in a sense, as a sort of realpolitik, it has to be expressed to get support in those kinds of terms.
And so that's kind of what they're doing.
And it then allows them to draw in quite a lot of conservatives who...
Let's face it.
They're high in the group-oriented values, but they're equally high in the individualizing values as well, you know, therefore don't discriminate against people or whatever.
So that's the tactic that they're using.
But it is true that eventually, or it is seemingly accurate, that eventually what seems to happen is that society gets pushed so far, and this is the danger that Charles Murray highlights.
He highlights it as being a very bad thing.
He says it's a very bad thing, but the reaction will be that you get...
People will rise into positions of influence, well, like Trump perhaps, who are just low in individualising values, who just don't care.
And they will be permitted to not care because it will be such chaos by then that people will regard these individualising as just decadent and you just need to sort out the problem, the rise of the Caesar.
And the Rubicon needs to be crossed and the problem needs to be sorted out.
And I think that's what they're...
Is the path down which they're going.
And I suspect that it's over the next 10 or 20 years, you're already seeing evidence of a reaction.
And I don't think that is superficial.
I don't either.
It's going to get worse.
But Trump was about making America great again.
It was about going back and it was about uniting one country.
And I think the Rubicon Ultimately, let's be honest, that whole project failed to a very large degree due to Trump's own limitations and the absence of a real movement behind him.
Trump had a lot of grifters and fanboys and sycophants.
He didn't have a real movement.
Doing pageants in Ohio and Speaking to the crowd and getting them riled up, that's something, but that's not what you ultimately need.
I think the Rubicon is crossed when they start saying things like, we don't want to be part of this country, or we don't want this, maybe even we want to repeal the 64 Civil Rights Act.
I doubt they'll say that.
But we don't want to be a part of this anymore.
I think that will be a major change.
And I think Trump will kind of be seen as this, like, last attempt to bring it all together.
Yes, I think that possibly is the case.
Yes.
Yeah.
All right.
Oh, go ahead.
Go ahead.
No, no.
Okay.
I have one more thing that I wanted to mention about.
So, as usual, we talk about girls' sports, but then we go off in totally different, you know.
Interesting directions.
So I just want to raise this issue of the cuckoo in the nest.
And so four or five years ago on alt-right Twitter, cuck was the word du jour.
It was everywhere.
Everyone was responding to it.
There were dozens, hundreds, maybe even articles or blog posts about cuck.
And it was basically an insult directed at conservatives who were not supporting Trump.
So they're a bunch of cucks.
And it goes back to a kind of 18th century joke.
It actually includes the bunny ears, I guess, not that.
The bunny ears about getting cuckolded.
And basically, and I think it also resonates with a very 21st century thing of cuck porn and all that kind of stuff, which I won't mention for the delicate ears of our audience, but I won't delve into for the delicate, because this is a family program.
But the term cuck is actually kind of more interesting than just saying that someone...
Oh, your wife is having sex with a bunch of men.
It's actually a more interesting phrase.
It goes back to the cuckoo bird.
You can think of the cuckoo clock.
The cuckoo bird evolved to have a reproductive strategy of deception and insinuation and subversion.
It is evolved.
That is its strategy.
The cuckoo bird will lay its eggs in another bird's nest.
And not only will that other bird invest in raising the cuckoo's young, but the cuckoo's young will be even more demonic and it will actually kick the other birds out of the nest so that that foreign mother puts all of its...
Investment into another species or breed.
So it's a kind of fascinating thing, and they've evolved to this.
These are instincts.
But it does raise the issue of certain humans that...
Maybe aren't that instinctive about it, but kind of operate according to that own strategy.
I mean, we were joking about if I wanted to go, if I wanted to identify as a 12-year-old, you know, I'm now a 12, this is my identity.
I could go and dominate.
The football team among 12-year-olds.
It's ridiculous to even say it, but yes.
Do you think that there's a certain type of human that uses that disguise, that wears masks instinctively, that lies like the rest of us talk?
And that these people are...
This isn't just...
Because I think for some transgendered people, I think it's...
I mean, we might disagree with it, but I do think it's real.
They don't feel...
At home in their own skin.
And they're screwed up.
And whether they're actually women or actually men, I don't think so.
But they're clearly psychologically damaged people and deserve at least some sympathy.
But there are some people that don't seem to deserve sympathy at all.
And that is the one willing to wear a mask.
So is this kind of also where we're going?
We're developing...
A kind of race of cuckoo birds who lie like the normal people speak.
So the evidence is that you have different kinds of transsexual.
You have those who are...
Just homosexual transsexuals, that is to say, and they really do, from a very young age, feel like they are in the wrong body.
And there's some evidence that their physical and mental brain features are those of the sex which they think they are.
So those people, in a small minority, that's just an anomaly of nature.
Then you have the autogynophilist transsexuals.
They develop transsexuality in adolescence, early adulthood.
Those people tend to...
It's gender dysphoria, and they tend to be high in autism, high in certain personality disorders, borderline personality and things like this, don't know who they are, create a sense of self, whatever.
There's those people.
There is a weak correlation, however, between transsexuality and things like psychopathic personality disorder and things like this.
So it's perfectly conceivable that you would get some people that were Machiavellian about it, in the same way that you've got these people like...
These transracials who just decide they're of a different race, and they're basically lying, and they know they're lying.
I'm not sure that's true with this Dolezal woman, but I think it is true with some of the more recent one, I forget her name, who was an academic, and I think that is true.
She was just lying about being Native American or whatever, Mexican, whatever it was, Shekino, wasn't it?
In order to attain...
It's funny, they're Ashkenazi Jews with frizzy hair.
And they claim to be Afro-Latinics.
Whatever they are.
But I think that was what was going on.
And I do think you could get that with some people.
For example, males, you're sentenced to prison.
You're going to go to prison for male prison.
It's nasty.
It's a nasty place full of psychopathic, dangerous people.
So you suddenly identify as a woman.
And you get to serve.
And you can do that without having any surgery.
That seems kind of understandable, to be honest.
It does, but that's a Machiavellian thing to do.
And you serve your time in a female prison, then you come out, oh, I'm a man again.
Yeah, yeah.
And things like that happen.
And that would be exactly the kind of thing.
It would be people taking advantage of this for what they can get out of it.
And I strongly suspect that there would be some people that would be of that ilk.
Yes.
Well...
I have to say, when they send me to prison one day, I'll probably do that.
Well, yeah.
But it's certainly, I don't say that they're a significant minority or whatever, but certainly you can see there would be among, where there's advantages to it, you would get people who would take advantage.
And I think you're going to get that.
All right.
Dog is chewing up the mic cable.
That would be a disaster.
All right.
Let's put a bookmark in it.
Thank you, Ed.
This is a good discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, another thing we could talk about maybe next week would be this Miami collapse, this building.
Yeah, it seems symbolic.
I was going to suggest it this week, because it's clearly just at our wit's end.
A report was made saying, if you do not do something about this, there will be exponential damage to the concrete.
But because the person didn't put it, that report would have been read by some average IQ person who just didn't understand what he meant.
What he was saying was, if you don't do something about it, the building will fall down.
But he put it in these technical terms, and the guy was like, X-Men have damaged the concrete, you know, whatever.
And now people have died.
And so that could be a new problem as we get stupider, which is the inability of cleverer people to communicate with average people.
Yeah.
As they're understood, resulting in this happening.
Because that guy was that...
Guy, that structural engineer was very clear.
If you don't do something about this, the building will fall down.
But he didn't put it in the language of a child like that.
He put it in this technical way.
It is fascinating that we're building...
Because building technology has improved.
We obviously have all these huge marvels in terms of server systems and so on.
And whether...
There is this kind of mismatch between IQ and the maintenance of this technology, I think, is kind of fascinating.
It's horrifying.
And again, the horrifying thing for me is it was what I was writing about three years ago at our wit's end.
And I was thinking this kind of thing would be something that maybe my kids' generation or their kids' generation will have to deal with.
No, it's happening now, clearly.
Buildings are falling down.
Because people are too stupid to maintain the things which were done by people that were a bit cleverer in the past or just were done by cleverer people.
▲
Export Selection