Ezra Levant and Dr. James Lindsay dissect woke leftism’s Maoist roots, tracing its "people vs. enemies" framework to 1957 China and Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961). Lindsay argues this ideology—spread via DEI/ESG brainwashing—radicalizes youth into "Green," "Rainbow," or "Watermelon Guards," mirroring Mao’s Red Guard. Even Canada’s military leadership embraces divisive rhetoric, while figures like Keert Wilders and Javier Millé signal growing resistance. The key to countering it? Exposing identity-based shame manipulation before facts can take hold, suggesting a cultural shift may be possible despite systemic pushback. [Automatically generated summary]
Big interview with one of my favorite guys, one of the smartest guys.
I know I learned so much from him.
I try and talk less and listen more with him.
You know who I mean, Dr. James Lindsay.
He talks about cultural Marxism and really it unlocks what's going on in our universities and our institutions, a special full-length interview with him.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this talk show.
And it's eight bucks a month, which I know it's not a lot of dough to you, but I tell you, it adds up for us.
That's how we pay our bills because we don't get any money from Justin Trudeau.
We wouldn't take it if it was offered.
We've also been demonetized by YouTube, so we rely on you.
That's RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a feature interview with Dr. James Lindsay, America's leading critic of cultural Marxism.
It's December 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
One of my favorite guests is the guest that really makes me think.
One of the few guests where I listen more than I talk.
One of the guests that gives me a vocabulary that I need to understand what's going on.
Do you ever feel like something's wrong?
Do you ever have that gut feel that something fishy is going on?
You can't put your finger on it.
Sometimes it's because you actually just need the word.
And when you have the word or a concept that unlocks the understanding of so many things, and we are in dangerous days.
And you probably know I'm talking about Dr. James Lindsay, the creator of the website newdiscourses.com.
I had the pleasure of seeing him in person in Calgary a few weeks ago, where he gave a speech.
I think it was almost a 90-minute speech.
There were a thousand people in the room.
It was a populist gathering, and yet they hung on his every word.
It was quite an intellectual speech.
I felt like it was a professor giving a course in university, and yet he held the crowd raptured by what he was saying for that very reason.
He was explaining wokeness.
And I think the light switch went on for everyone in that room.
And that's how I feel when I follow him on Twitter.
You know, Twitter can be infuriating.
It can be a time-wasting thing.
It can be doom-scrolling, as the kids say, but it can actually, if you curate your sources correctly, it can be a tremendous source of learning.
And it is for me.
I like to follow my enemies.
I like to follow my friends, but I also like to follow people where I'm just going to slow down and read every word they say slowly.
And Dr. James Lindsay is one of them.
I'm delighted he's going to join us for the balance of the show.
Dr. Lindsay, welcome back.
Hey, great to see you again.
You know, it's good to see you.
And I know I'm heaping praise on you, but it is true.
You're one of the few people online.
I mean, you're so well read.
You say things and I don't understand them sometimes.
And so I look deeper.
I like that because you talk about the way the world is and you help give us ways to understand it.
I want to start with a tweet that you said just the other day.
And this really clarified things for me.
You said this just a couple of days ago.
Almost everything the left does only makes sense when you understand that there are broadly two classes of people with wholly different rules.
Two Classes of People00:04:31
The people and the enemies of the people who are not considered valid people.
This logic underlies all of their thinking.
The people are those who support leftist theory and practice, or who might still be trained to do so.
The enemies of the people are those who resist or reject leftism, have something leftists don't want them to have, break from leftism, or represent any opposing faction.
I'll just read one or two more.
Nothing the people do, so long as it is consistent with advancing leftism, is wrong.
In fact, it's necessary and right.
Violence, hate, and malice are, quote, resistance.
They are taught these are necessary moral goods and trained to believe it.
Actions don't matter.
Context does.
Boy, this is relevant to so many things.
Let me just get one more tweet out.
Nothing the enemies of the people do can be right.
Even if it is, it's for the wrong reasons.
So wrong.
Everything they do is bad and must be punished.
The only thing they can do is to confess over and over and start their journey to becoming a leftist too.
I think of so many things.
I think of anti-hate activists now being fountains of anti-Semitic hate.
I think of the recently revealed barbaric rape crimes committed by Hamas.
And I see the, you know, the woke feminists providing context for why it's justifiable.
Everything you said there is so useful.
Go ahead and tell me more about the two classes of people in the revolution.
Well, I got this idea from the source, really, from Mao Zedong, from reading and studying the original CCP dictator.
And he used this structure relentlessly.
He separated the people in China into those two categories.
There were the people.
And he says in this speech he gave in 1957 that who counts as the people, we have to understand that, he said, changes during time, during different contexts.
So during the war with the Japanese, the people were the people who supported the war against the Japanese, and the enemies of the people were Japanese sympathizers.
Then he says, when we were having this struggle internal to the party, the people who supported the direction the party was going to take, those were the people.
And the people who were against that, those were the enemies of the people.
Then he says that in the struggle with the nationalists, which was called the Guomingdong in China, the people who supported the CCP were the people, and the people who supported the Guomingdong were the enemies of the people.
If you supported the nationalists, you were the enemy.
And then he said, finally, and this was in 1957, at this stage, the people are the people who support the building of socialism.
And everyone who is against the building of socialism are the enemies of the people.
And so you see what this is, is this separating of the population into those who support the regime's cause get to be treated as people.
He said that they are citizens, that they have free speech, they have all these other privileges and rights.
Whereas on the other hand, the enemies of the people receive the dictatorship of the people.
And what they means by that, he says that they will have their freedom of speech, their right to vote taken away from them for a time.
They will be treated differently as enemies of the people.
And what he taught relentlessly across that line of division was that the people should hate the enemies of the people.
The enemies of the people are what are keeping us from succeeding in our socialist goals or our socialist country.
And so you should hate them.
We would be successful if only we could stop the enemies of the people.
And so that's the basic structure.
And you see this happen again and again and again in all these movements in the West, just repeatedly.
Like you said, it touches on so many different things.
You know, I'm 51.
So when I went to university, a lot of this wokeness had not yet calcified.
And one of my fondest memories is that there were debates, student debates.
And in Canada in the 90s, in my university, there were four main political parties.
And all the time, all four parties would show up to a debate, the student presidents of those clubs, and there would be a hundred or sometimes hundreds of people gathered.
And participating in the debate was considered your proof of being an active, valid citizen worth listening to.
And the idea that you hated the other person or that you would marginalize them or cancel them, that was not widespread back there.
Resistance Against Colonialism00:08:22
You debated them, you laughed at them, you mocked them, you tried to undermine them.
But this, I will not appear on the stage with you.
You are the enemy.
I swear that wasn't around when I was and the idea of censoring thoughts, which is part of this hatred.
You know, you must destroy the enemy.
Anything you do against them is excused and justified by the context.
And that's what we saw after the October 7th pogrom in southern Israel.
The most barbaric Stone Age torture ever captured on film.
It was like the Holocaust Museum came to life in full color.
And the reaction by the woke West in universities, from the fancy people, from the human rights people, was to contextualize this.
And sure, they may have been children and women, but they were colonists.
Or, I mean, I saw that in action.
I think I don't know.
I'm lacing together a bunch of things here, but do I understand it right?
That basically any violence, including murder, including rape, is justified if it's an oppressor.
That's the other.
You could sum up other people in one word: oppressor.
So you can do anything to the oppressor.
Anything is justified to the oppressor.
Is that right?
Yeah, their belief is that the oppressor, which is to say the avatars of Western civilization or members of Western civilization, or capitalists, or white people, or straight people, or men, it depends on whatever faction you want, or in this case, settler colonialists.
Those people that represent that side are constantly, by their very existence and by their activity, always doing violence to those that they oppress.
Oppression is a form of violence.
And so anything you do in response is actually a form of resisting that violence.
You are completely justified.
If you go back to the, he's from Martinique, but he's usually identified as a French psychoanalyst who's considered the father of post-colonial theory, where a lot of this specific branch of the thinking comes from.
His name was Frantz Fanon, and he wrote in the 50s and the early 60s.
He wrote a book in 1961 that was very famous called The Wretched of the Earth.
It has a very, very famous preface written by Jean-Paul Sartre, which is, in my opinion, the letter asking Europe to commit suicide to atone for its sin of colonialism.
But he says in the first sentence of the book, no matter what you want to call it, he says decolonization, the process of undoing this colonial violence, is always itself a violent process.
It is necessarily violent.
It is an act of actually rebirth of the man who has been colonized, who's no longer a man because he's now been colonized by colonial oppression.
He's reduced to something like an animal.
It's the rebirth of that man as a man to murder his colonizer.
And this is the logic.
And the woke left across the board endorses this logic.
This is why when you see people by the millions literally colonizing and settling in, say, Ireland, and the Irish people getting upset, it's the Irish people who are the ones who are wrong because they represent that same Western hegemonic, whether it's white or capitalist or whatever framing you want to throw on it.
They represent the colonists, the colonialism.
They represent the spreading of Western hegemony and the maintenance of Western hegemony.
And so, anything is justified against them, whether it's violence, whether it's taking the property that they live in, whether it's filling their country and bankrupting it.
All of these things are acts of resistance against an intrinsically violent enemy.
And that's ultimately the logic.
But underneath that is there are the good guys that are the people, and they are citizens, and there are the bad guys who are the enemies of the people who must be destroyed, which is the logic of Maoism.
You made me think of a man I met in the French port city of Marseille a few months ago.
There were riots, race riots.
It was Muslims who were about 40% of the population of Marseille, complete riot, burning things, stealing things, and the police force really felt more like an occupational army that knew it was on the way out.
I went there and I, in a lovely outdoor cafe, just a few blocks from the tourist center, I met a well-dressed, well-groomed man who looked very moderate, very assimilated.
And his French was better than mine.
He was from Algeria.
And I asked him the most basic questions, limited, of course, by my own rusty French.
And his answer was shocking to me.
He said, We will colonize France because you colonized Algeria for more than a century.
Here, take a look at the clip of what he said.
Don vautre queu and français a.
Vive la géri, jus qualamor.
Tariel jazéer.
Tariel jazaire, tariel jazé.
Toussa, it's the policy, it's the tenth.
Because there is another racism.
The racism is in the first degree here in France, that's what I have to say, that's all.
Why millions of Muslims immigrate to France if France is racist?
Well, they have colonized us for 132 years, and it's our turn to come here, how do you explain it?
I can't find the words.
They have colonized us for 132 years.
and we will colonize a vision.
What was shocking about that is, of course, he was not colonized.
The French were not in Algeria during his lifetime.
He's in Marseille having a grand old time on a lovely outdoor cafe.
He's dressed, like he looks like he is an assimilated, integrated Westerner, but he's got hatred in his heart.
He's chosen to be in France.
He prefers it to Algeria.
And when I pressed him on, I said, How bad can it be in France for Muslims if you come from Algeria and other Muslim countries by the thousand, by the million?
And he flipped it, and there was a flash of anger.
And he basically said, I'm going to do to you what you did to us.
It was shocking.
I should tell you later on, about an hour later, he tracked us down about a mile away on the road and demanded that we delete that video clip.
And he stood there while we pretended to delete it.
We were in an Arabic neighborhood.
If he would have shouted something, we would have been attacked in a flash.
So we pretended to delete it.
He was so worried about that.
And I saw that in real life.
He said, I'm going to do to you what was done to my people.
And anything was justified.
That's real life.
This is not just a philosophical book on a shelf.
This is what's animating his life.
Well, it needs to be understood that the philosophical book on the shelf matters a lot here.
So I strongly encourage, and of course, Douglas Murray very famously wrote a great book called The Strange Death of Europe.
I really think that the title of Jean-Paul Sartre's foreword to the wretched of the earth should be titled The Strange Death of Europe, because that's what he asks Europeans to do.
He asks Europeans, he says, these barbarians that you've colonized are coming back.
They're coming for you, and they have every right to take over.
They have every right to murder you.
You might as well give it away and hope that they choose not to be violent, but they probably will anyway.
And that's actually his advice.
He writes this preface as a letter to Europe.
And it's astonishing to read this now and realize it's the roadmap that Europe adopted in the wake of colonialism.
They decided to, as they backed off from their colonial past, they decided to follow the advice of this Marxist existentialist fruit loop, Jean-Paul Sartre, who never saw something that he didn't want to destroy.
Europe's Roadmap Adopted00:09:08
But what you don't, what a lot of people don't understand is that Jean-Paul Sartre was very, very popular.
This book, these words, his ideas were brought to the Middle East, to the Arabic countries, and this idea, this sentiment was fomented there.
These post-colonial nations, these sentiments were intentionally brought there and fomented there to create this hatred, to nourish this hatred.
So while there's always that element of human tribalism that might motivate this, and you think, well, why can't they get over this?
The global left has been stoking this for decades, whether it was the Soviet Union creating the people or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which became the parent organization of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which became the parent organization of Hamas, or whether it's these other liberation fronts that took place.
The global left had a project of liberationism across what was called the third world.
That happened in the Middle East.
It happened in South America.
It happened in the Caribbean.
It happened in South Asia and in East Asia.
It happened throughout all of those islands.
It was a Vietnam and Korea are both examples where wars ended up as the result.
These are all projects of the global left that have been for a long time, not just happening, but fomented by bringing in activists, bringing in that literature, fomenting this attitude, making it a cultural norm within the radical, angry populations that they could agitate this way.
And it literally started with the Soviets and then continued with the European Marxists and neo-Marxists of the critical theorists of the middle part of the 20th century.
So when Judith Butler got caught on tape in the late 90s or early 2000s, which was an embarrassment for her a few weeks ago, saying that Palestine has always been a project of the global left.
That's why we support it, blah, blah, blah.
She wasn't kidding.
This is exactly what has been going on.
The global left has been fomenting this anger, fomenting this division, and supplying those philosophical pieces to the radicalizable populations to create a Maoist-style insurgency in those populations to wage war on Europe and North America.
You know, that's very interesting that the Soviet Union intellectually colonized the third world.
In some ways, they had some Cubans in Angola.
And there were some Soviet troops abroad, but mainly it was an intellectual colonization to destable the West.
I'm glad you reminded me about the Soviet work to radicalize Arabia.
Of course, Hitler, too, met with the grand mufti, as his title was of Jerusalem, to actually get the Arabs to attack the West and the Jews.
But what's so frustrating for me is not that the third world has been colonized intellectually and weaponized against the West, but the first part that you mentioned, that the West has invited this and welcomed this.
A couple days ago, I was at a large pro-Israel rally in Ottawa.
And a week before that, I was at a large pro-Israel rally in London, England, that was quite big.
And I was there with my cameraman in both cases, just asking Jews.
I said, look, Jews for historical reasons or ethnic reasons of memory of when the Jews couldn't find refuge.
I said, Jews have in the main been for open borders immigration.
And certainly, if that's not, you know, numerically, if I can't prove it numerically, most Jews are for open immigration.
Official Jewry has been, official Jewish groups.
And I asked the Jews of London, and I asked the Jews in Ottawa.
I said, the source of the anti-Semitic hate marches in London and the West is mainly immigration.
You do have woke intellectual types, but they're a small fraction of it, and they're more opportunistic.
I said, the mass of the hate marches are people who were brought in by open borders immigration.
Do you think we ought to reign that in?
And the vast majority of Jews who were so terrified by this anti-Semitism that they would come to a march.
Like that's not just an ordinary Jew.
That's someone who's worried and thinking about things and is nervous.
And they're coming to a rally and they're talking to a reporter on camera.
So they got something to say.
And when you press them, do you think we should turn off the taps of unvetted, culturally misfit immigration?
They still won't give it up.
They still won't repudiate it.
Help me understand that.
That's not this guy in Marseille saying, I've come to colonize.
That's a Jew in London and a Jew in Ottawa saying, colonize me, baby.
Yeah, well, it would be shameful and racist and xenophobic to say anything else.
People might judge.
And so I did another thread since we started talking about one of my Twitter threads.
I did another Twitter thread talking about how with the woke or any of these kind of these movements broadly, they reach out far beyond the people who are genuinely like the woke activists.
Their mentality touches a lot of people.
A lot of people don't even realize they've picked up the mentality fully.
But what it's organized around isn't facts or truth or even fears.
It's organized around a sense of shame.
The thing that motivates them the most is that they can't possibly be found out to hold or believe a shameful thing.
And xenophobia, racism, and so on are shameful things.
And that, of course, has been exploited and taken advantage of using critical race theories, analysis of racism, post-colonial theories, various analyses of settlers and colonials and all of this.
But also the word Islamophobia is another term that gets thrown around.
This has been taken advantage of by malicious actors who have expanded the scope of those terms to apply to very reasonable positions.
And people are terrified that they'll be associated by their neighbors with a shameful thought.
I know that your country suffered the tyranny from not from just the government, but from neighbor to neighbor of COVID far worse than the United States did, because Canadians, by and large, would browbeat their neighbors into doing the right thing because nobody wants to be caught out having a doubt, having a shameful, embarrassing doubt.
And that really is the psychological driver behind this invitation.
People feel ashamed of the harms that colonialism caused, that the history of racism caused in the U.S. and Canada, particularly for CRT.
They feel shame about the history of homophobia to the point where they're so desperate to prove that they are now inclusive, that they're marching their children off to be transitioned, which is psychological and then chemical and then sometimes surgical, irreparable damage being done to their bodies.
They're so desperate not to be identified as connected to something that they view as shameful or that has been made to be viewed as shameful, sometimes on quite artificial or contrived terms, that they will bend over backwards to continue allowing the problem, almost wanting a magical solution.
Like there's this almost naivety when you were telling some of the story where I think of like when a child sees a bear for the first time and they think they want a pet bear, as if the bear wouldn't come and eat you eventually if you let it into your house.
Oh no, it's cuddly.
It's nice.
Look, it's a bear.
I would love a bear.
And a bear, you can't keep a bear as a pet.
It's a very dangerous animal.
And there's a certain kind of naivety thinking that I'm not saying that people like, you know, Arabs or anybody else or like animals, but they are expressly saying that they hate the West and want to destroy it.
And so if you let people in who have expressly hostile intentions to your country, and then you expect that they're just going to be nice, that's a similar kind of naivety to thinking that the bear, because it looks cuddly, wouldn't eat your children if you let it into the house.
Here where I live, we have bears and once every year or two, somebody from usually Ohio ends up getting their children get attacked by a bear because they think it's going to be a great idea to go pose for a picture with a wild bear out in the woods.
And it turns out that the bears don't like that.
And some bears have cubs and get quite defensive of it.
It's a childlike naivety combined with this fear of being identified as holding a shameful view, combined with this deep, persistent guilt for the harms of the past that they wish that they could somehow atone for.
Childlike Naivety and Shame00:12:09
Oh boy, you said so many things in there.
One of them that comes to mind about inviting the bear in.
That's the thing about Disney.
I have a friend who always talks about the Disnefation of nature.
And we think you can go and hug these characters and then you realize that Disney's not what it's like in the real world.
You remind me again of a video and forgive me for referring to things because we see these things anecdotally on the street.
And again, you help us unlock the meaning.
Let me show you a video that we recorded.
This is actually a few years ago before the pandemic.
This was at an Iran-sponsored fake holiday that they've created called Kuds Day, Al-Quds Day, which they have in Ottawa, sorry, in Toronto every year.
The government of Iran organizes this, and it's basically a Hate the Jews Day.
And our friend David Menzies went down there and talked to a man who basically said, we're going to outbreed you.
We are more dedicated to this than you.
And when I, and he's, the craziest part was he said, when it was time to say the citizenship oath, I didn't say the words.
I have not sworn an oath of allegiance to this country.
And it was on you to make sure I did.
You guys are the suckers.
I didn't swear the oath.
Take a look at him confessing all this at a government of Iran-sponsored hate fest.
This was a few years ago in Toronto.
Take a look.
I'm just curious if the vast majority of Muslims want to live under Sharia law.
I have met many Muslims who have left Muslim countries.
The thing is, what I'm saying is if by 2060, as Pew Research Institute says, not me, not you, not anybody else, if by 2060 Muslims reach a decisive majority all over the world, which year, sorry?
By 2060, you want me to show you that.
And three years ago.
2060.
Oh, 66.0.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
No, but I, like I said, I have met several Muslims who left Islamic nations and have horror and are horrified and are horrified to see those elements of those countries following them over to Canada and the United States.
What would you say to them?
You know, Muslims that want to live a secular lifestyle.
You should go to your queen and tell her to change the laws.
Change the laws to what, sir?
To Sharia law?
No, change the laws to not allow any more Muslims to come to Canada.
Like if you are bothered by Muslims, because we owe our allegiance and our loyalty first and foremost to our religion, not to the queen, to be honest.
When I went for my so-called oat, I was silent.
I didn't say anything.
It was your responsibility to make sure you got it out of me.
So when I didn't say anything, I'm not liable to any.
So, you know, these liberal Jews who I met in Ottawa and London, seeing that would say, oh, well, maybe we can convince him he's wrong.
I think shame is an incredibly powerful thing.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the city of Rotherham in the United Kingdom, city of a quarter million people where 1,400 girls were raped on a repeated industrial scale.
And there was a commission of inquiry.
And again and again, the word racism pops up.
People were asked, why didn't you say anything?
But because the vast majority of perpetrators were Pakistani Muslim men, the nurses, the social workers, the politicians, everyone was afraid of being called racist.
So they would rather have an entire generation of women raped repeatedly.
Night after night after night, these women were extorted and exploited and trafficked.
But these officials whose job it was to help them were more afraid of, like you say, the shame of being called racist than protecting a girl from rape.
That's a powerful psychological weapon against the West.
They don't have this shame in other countries.
It's showing that commitment to the people.
The people in this case are the people who are outside of the enemies of the people way of thinking.
In other words, Western hegemony.
So these immigrants, whether legal or otherwise, are part of the people.
And you are showing by covering up the rape, by downplaying it, by trying to avoid the shame, the stigma of being labeled a racist and allowing that to have power over you, even in a situation like that.
What you're doing is you're showing your commitment that, no, I'm on the side of the people.
This is what Mao Zedong called seeing from the people's standpoint in his brainwashing centers, which they sometimes get called thought reform or re-education, but the actual words in Chinese translate as wash brain.
So his brainwashing centers were designed to get you to start to confess to various crimes on contrived terms so that you would understand from what was called the people's standpoint.
I would say the Mandarin, but I can't pronounce Mandarin words very well.
It's something close to Renmi Li Chong or something like this.
And it literally means the people's standpoint, the way that the people view things.
And so these people have committed to the people's standpoint.
And it would be shameful not to have that enlightened perspective.
And so they will cover up rapes.
They will try to contextualize the brutality and the rapes and the destruction on October 7th and since in the Middle East.
And they will allow all manners of absolutely unacceptable behavior, war being brought to their own country from within in order to avoid looking like they don't have this propped up, contrived, virtuous position, which is called the people's standpoint, which understands the view from the position of the people.
And we see it play out in real time over and over and over again.
It's a horrifying situation, frankly.
We're talking with Dr. James Lindsay of newdiscourses.com.
I want to read another tweet thread about shame.
You say, discussion, information, and facts rarely work on people trapped in totalitarian ideologies like woke, because they're mainly afraid it'll be found out that they believe shameful things as determined by the cult.
The information you give them is a shameful thing to believe.
And I'm just going to read your next couple.
When you're dealing with a totalitarian puritanical cult, most of the people involved are in an outer school who barely know any of the doctrine.
They just know it's shameful to believe certain things and so either won't suppression or hide them.
I'll just read a couple more.
The inner school of the cult, which understands the doctrine, has already fully internalized the cult's shame structure and also has a profound intellectual commitment to it.
They have to admit they were wrong about a lot with consequences in addition to facing the shame.
When you provide puritanical cultists with facts and information, you're putting them into a bind that they're likely to find intolerable.
They might believe or be exposed for believing shameful things.
Even the environment has to be purged of anything or anyone that might cause it.
The psychological and social dynamics here are exquisite and crucial to understand.
It's the hermetic sealing of social identity.
Thus, it treats life as politics and politics as the friend or enemy of distinction.
Politics intrinsically is group conflict.
You aren't fighting error.
When working with a puritanical cultist, you aren't fighting error, as in they believe incorrect things.
You're fighting social identity, as in they aren't an estimable person.
Before it is possible to get people out of such a cult mentality, they must realize they have permission to believe against cult doctrine and have no reason to be ashamed for believing those things, that they're under a shaming manipulation and can emerge intact.
The challenge is that facts and accurate information still matter, but they won't matter until after the social identity spell is broken.
You have to have truths and ways to communicate them, but you have to realize that that's step two, not step one in deprogramming.
Another challenge is that social identity thinking begets social identity thinking.
Reaction is your real action, friend.
Anyhow, it goes on, but I think you're right.
And that's another thing.
I asked in Ottawa, I asked these Jews, and they said, oh, they just have some false facts.
And I asked one of them, I said, what, do you think just showing these Hamas supporters the movie Schindler's List is going to absolutely flip them and they're going to stop calling for a global intifada and they're going to the scales will fall from their eyes and they're going to suddenly be Zionists?
Like you're not going to win a debate.
First of all, they don't participate in debates.
Second of all, they're not interested in debate.
Third of all, like you say, this is about who they are.
And even if you say something correct, they refuse to accept it because you are the oppressor and everything you do is a lie.
I just, I don't think our side is equipped for these zombies.
Well, that's, it's very, very difficult to deal with the people who are, as I phrased it in the inner school.
The people who know what they're doing and that are doing it are very difficult to reach.
They may not be reachable.
We may have to deal with them in other ways, which is to put quite a fine point on it.
If they commit crimes, following through appropriately by putting them in prison or deporting them and making sure that it's very difficult for them to act out their intolerant beliefs.
And that requires a lot more spine than we've seen and a lot more willingness to be called names associated to shameful ideas than we've had.
The outer school people, though, the people that you're talking to, for example, the people I think you're referring to as kind of sleepy zombies are much more reachable.
As a matter of fact, I think you probably know, a lot of people know that I'm not Christian, so I'm not shilling for a religion here.
But the Christian program has been extraordinarily successful at this.
It begins by telling people, it's really got a three-part program that works wonders for getting people to hear them.
The first step is that they tell the truth or they proclaim the gospel as they have it, which they believe fully to be the truth.
So they tell people the truth, which maybe the person is not ready to hear.
It's not really going to sink in.
And then they tell them that you're welcome to come to it in your own time.
And then as they start to explain, they say, look, the idea that people are going to have a hard time changing their mind, the Christians say, look, everybody's a sinner.
Everybody has impure thoughts or bad actions.
Everybody does this.
This is a piece of the human condition as a result of the fall of man.
This is just part of what it means to be human: sometimes you get sucked into this stuff.
And sometimes you act badly, and sometimes you believe wrong.
And then step three is, but guess what?
You can leave it behind you.
You can repent and find forgiveness.
You can actually, you know, change course.
You don't have to feel locked into a pattern of shame and disgrace for the past mistakes that you've had and then adopt those as who you are.
But the pathway is very simple: that you tell people the truth, then you tell them it's not a huge deal that you were mistaken about this.
There is a way out.
And then that you have to actually own the mistake and decide to change course to do it, which is proclaim the truth, remind everybody that everybody makes mistakes, or in this case, is a sinner, and that repentance is the path to a better life.
And this model actually works.
This is actually a model in a sense of cult deprogramming because you can very easily get people past that wall of vulnerability where they have to confess that they have these shameful thoughts and get them to realize it's not necessarily shameful.
Everybody gets pulled into the, you know, you just wanted to be a good person.
Everybody wants to be a good person.
We all want to try to do our best most of the time.
Guarding Diversity, Promoting Equity00:07:42
And so, you know what?
It's not bad that you fell for it, but you fell for it.
And we've got to move forward more productively.
So go ahead and, you know, take all the time you want, but when you're ready, we're here for you.
And you can join us in trying to solve this problem.
That model can actually help with the so-called outer school or the zombies or whatever else.
Maybe there's a reason why Poland, which I think is still a fairly Christian country, is resisting both mass immigration and wokeness ideologically in Hungary, too.
I'm not sure how Christian Hungary is, but I think certainly according to Victor Orban, Christianity is an essential part of their national identity.
I was talking to Xi Van Fleet a few weeks ago, who grew up in communist China and experienced firsthand some of Mao's thinking.
And, you know, the youth, the Red Guard, in your speech in Calgary, you talked about the Green Guard, the environmentalist led by Greta Tunberg, who is now remaking herself as an anti-Zionist.
It's quite shocking.
You talked about the rainbow guard, getting young kids to be on the trans agenda.
That's obviously what's happening on the Hamas anti-Israel mission as well.
I think a lot of that is coming from universities in particular, a little bit from high schools, but not as much.
I think we've got to pull out by the roots the entire equity, diversity, DEI.
There's a lot of acronyms, diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI, ESG on the corporate side, environmental social governance.
All these are woke ideas fused to important institutions, investment funds like BlackRock, universities from Harvard all the way down.
I think they've been shown to be false.
They've been shown that, as per your analysis, they will denounce anyone who they regard as an oppressor, even if it violates liberal values.
They're not liberal.
They're radical leftists.
There's a difference.
I don't see any ripping out of the DEI, ESG wokeness, other than a few attempts by Texas and Florida in a small state capacity.
I don't see a broad cultural rejection of this wokeness in the institutions.
And I think if you don't pull it out, if the funders of universities don't pull it out, if the governments don't say we're going to cut your funding to zero unless you fire all these DEI, if you don't pull the woke out, it's going to survive and continue and thrive.
And this wave of young radicals in their 20s is soon become that wave will continue.
They'll be in their 30s, 40s, 50s.
They'll be judges and lawyers and senators and presidents soon.
And I don't know what's going on.
I don't see the pushback.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
No, the pushback's necessary because a lot of the reason that we're in the mess that we're in now, and the historians of Marxist education write this down, is that the 60s radicals, which is the last time this really flared up, after their radicalism did not bear the fruit, did not give them the revolution they wanted, they went into education and they became the teachers and the professors that have now infected the youth.
So you end up Mao had his Red Guard, which he built by taking over the schools starting in 1949 so that he could unleash them in 1966.
A lot of people don't know that history of China.
I talked about it in Calgary, so you heard it.
Well, you mentioned the environmental side of it with Greta Thunberg, the green guard, when you can talk about the LGBT, especially the queer theory trans side of it, and that's the rainbow guard.
And then you got this Hamas.
It's a watermelon guard, I guess, green on the outside, red on the inside.
And what these are is it is the radicalized youth that is taking up idealism and is taking up a very propagandized version of history and getting fed this.
What Mao taught is what they're teaching today is that there are the people and then they're the enemies of the people.
And what you teach is hate across that dividing line.
The people are the people who have a righteous claim.
The enemies of the people are people who want to stop them.
And you are to hate the enemies of the people.
And anything going up against them is resistance and is justified.
And this is exactly what you are putting your finger on when you talk about the DEI apparatus.
ESG, of course, the S in ESG is social.
And DEI, the diversity, equity, inclusion stuff is the S and ESG.
So they're part and parcel of the same.
But with DEI, what you have to understand, the words don't mean what they sound like they mean.
Equity has a definition.
It means socialism.
It literally is an administered economy that redistributes shares in order to make citizens more equal.
That's socialism by definition.
As far as diversity and inclusion, what is it diverse, diversity according to what?
Well, if you have the existing society, the Western hegemony, diverse to that.
So what's outside of the Western hegemony?
Well, communists and Islamists.
So you bring those people in.
They're the ones that count as diverse.
Inclusion means including people who are not part of the Western hegemony, the Western hegemony, Canadian values, American values, European values.
Those things have been keeping the outsiders out.
So inclusion means including views from the margins.
It means including the communists and the Islamists who want to destroy your society.
So if we don't get rid of these perverted values going by nice names like diversity and inclusion and equity, if we don't get rid of those, we have no chance for stopping this.
Those are excuses to set up the apparatuses to brainwash the youth, just like Mao brainwashed the youth.
Mao created a Red Guard and we have this kind of group of interlocking or intersecting is their word for it, different radicalized youth movements that are, like I said, you can think of the Green Guard, the Rainbow Guard, the Watermelon Guard, whatever cute names we want to give them.
They're all just Western reinventions of Mao's Red Guard using intersectionality instead of Mao's kind of contrived Marxist identity politics he unleashed on the Chinese people.
It's incredible.
And I see it even in the military.
Just the other day, Canada's chief of defense staff did a multi-part tweet about how much he enjoyed a book about the global far right.
That's what the head of the Canadian military is thinking about and talking about in the United States.
They're talking about, you know, having photo features with the transgender generals.
And it's just incredible how deep in every institution it's gone.
You know that the far right was one of Mao's categories of enemies of the people, right?
It was just right wing.
He had these five different categories of enemies of the people.
And one of them, the last one, was just right wing.
Some of the others were bad element, which means anybody that Mao didn't like.
I think we call them domestic extremists or something like that today.
You know, these categories are being reinvigorated.
And what it actually means when you hear the far right, what that means is enemies of the people.
That's all it means.
And so holding a value that they say, oh, that's a far right view, that is something shameful.
And they're trying to activate that shame so that people won't hold a far right view and they won't end up in the enemies of the people class or be associated with the enemies of the people class.
Mao's Enemies Revisited00:08:28
It's the exact same psychology that Mao used to conquer the CCP and then used his consolidated CCP to conquer China in the 1940s and again in the 1960s.
You know, you've been very generous with your time.
I don't want to keep you too long, but I look for hope because you've got to, because there's bad news everywhere.
I had the pleasure recently of sitting down with Keert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, who got a very large vote in the parliamentary elections there.
I mean, it's a multi-party system.
There's 20 parties in parliament.
So hearing that he got a quarter of the votes might not sound impressive to you in a country where there's basically two parties or to us, where there's basically two and a half parties in Canada.
But in Holland, that was amazing.
It was a thunderclap.
It was shocking and startling.
And even since then, he's risen in the polls.
And he is expressly against mass migration.
And he's not ashamed to say it.
And then I see in Argentina, which I hadn't thought much about, until I see this wild man, also with a fantastic head of hair, Javier Millé.
And I see all these clips.
And I don't think he speaks English well.
At least I haven't seen him speak English online, but I've seen a lot of translated clips.
Tucker Carlson did a big sit-down with him.
And he is not just a cliche speaker.
He seems to have a deep intellect.
Sometimes he's quite theatrical, like he's got a chainsaw and he does some dramatic things.
And in some ways, he's very Trumpy, like he loves Twitter.
But I think he has an intellectual depth that actually Trump does not have.
Trump has an instinct, an excellent instinct.
Yeah, I perceive that.
But Millay, he'll quote philosophers at great length.
He'll quote economists.
I saw him quoting John Locke, Milton Freeman, like, and with understanding and meaning.
He's not just name-dropping.
And I think that's a bit of a miracle.
I mean, Argentina is a serious country.
What do you make of these little green shoots?
I'm hoping that there's, and by the way, just a couple of days before the election, he waved an Israeli flag, which, you know, put aside, you know, this, should a man wave another country's flag?
That's a good question.
But to put that aside for a second, the reason I mention is he obviously wasn't afraid of the pro-Hamas lobby in his own country.
Like, that's a very provocative thing.
You're telling a whole swath of people you're not with them.
And he won.
So, what do you make of these two guys, Kirt Vilders and Javier Millé?
Well, what I'll tell you is that tyranny always has within it the seed of its own destruction.
And in this case, not only are people much more fed up, and I think that what these two guys are showing is that they are emblems of a growing dissatisfaction with the corrupt regimes around the world, around the West.
And I think that we're seeing that.
But more importantly than that, since we've talked primarily about this culture of shame, this people versus enemies of the people, I think what we're seeing is, and we can harken back to when Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters.
She said half of them are a basket of deplorables, to quote her pretty closely to what she actually said.
And of course, that became a rallying cry that ended up, I think, getting Trump elected or helping getting Trump elected, I should say.
The deplorable identity, this is the seed of its own destruction.
Because when you have, and the dynamics of that election in 2016, I think are very important to look back at.
Because if you remember, the polls were not very suggestive.
They were very heavily tipped toward Hillary Clinton.
And then all of a sudden, there's not just this win, but this very significant win for Donald Trump.
And even the New York Times was taken utterly by surprise, and the nation and the world was taken by surprise.
And there's when you're in a heavy culture of shame where you're not allowed to hold shameful thoughts publicly, but you finally pass your breaking point and you know you hold them and you know you know you hold them and you don't mind that you hold them, you enter into a state that's called preference falsification.
You pretend, you pretend that you're going along with the system.
You pretend that DEI is okay.
You pretend all of these things.
And in reality, you don't feel that way at all.
And so when somebody like these two gentlemen speak up, you show up in very large numbers and you vote for them.
There's a, of course, peril here.
I don't think these two guys represent that, but this is always the invitation for a strongman or a tyrant to take advantage of that.
But in the characters of those two and in the character of Donald Trump, I think what you see is that there is more of a groundswell that is awake and aware, even if they're not saying as much out loud as we think there is.
And that that is the hope, I think, of liberty and the future.
I mean, Millais is expressly a libertarian.
Every other word that he talks about is for liberty when he's not calling the left some horrifically funny name.
And so there, I think, is a tremendous amount of hope.
I think that these are signals saying that there is a quiet mass of people that is very large in number.
They have had enough.
They have had enough of all of this, even if they're not saying so out loud, even if they wouldn't say so in an interview, even if they wouldn't tell a pollster.
And we may be in a, and for seeing quite a number of electoral surprises in the near future.
You know, you make me think of how it was at the end of the Soviet Union when about your, you know, people outwardly showing that they support the regime, but inwardly fed up.
And they were living two lives.
What they said in public to people they didn't know and what they said to their trusted family in private.
And Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher captured that moment and I really think planted the seed of freedom.
I remember when the Pope went to Poland and said, be not afraid.
That was his message.
Don't be afraid anymore.
And they said, okay, we won't be.
And that's what it took.
And my worry is that we're much more controlled now.
We're controlled by our phones and by the internet.
And frankly, I think Elon Musk pulled back the curtain and showed us how much we were controlled.
I'm worried for him, frankly.
I'm worried that he will suffer an untimely death or some false.
I mean, I think it's only a matter of time before the Department of Justice does to him what they're trying to do to Donald Trump.
I mean, why wouldn't they?
No, it's very predictable.
All you really have to do if you want to start making shrewd guesses about how they'll go after their enemies is read the articles they write about their enemies and say what kinds of things that they're doing and what the dangers and risks are associated.
So, for example, for the last two years or last year, since Elon bought Twitter, rebranded it as Z, there have been a large number of articles suggesting that what he's done is somehow made the internet less secure and less safe and so that it opens up the possibility for cyber attacks.
So the cyber, I put this on Twitter the other day.
The cyber attacks are probably going to come from inside the house and we're going to blame them on Elon Musk and some gigantic internet outage next year that gets blamed on Elon Musk somehow breaking internet security by owning Twitter is a very likely vector for how all of this next step will go down.
I mean, you can, all you have to do is read the stories because they're trying to plant ideas to get people familiar with them so that when the narrative drop or when the action drops, they can pin it to the narrative that they've already built.
This is a repeating pattern, not to go off on some tangent, but I would say that that is a reliable bet as to what they're going to do to go after Elon.
Yeah, I think he's the most valuable man right now.
I think I look around the G7.
I see the seven dwarfs.
I don't know what's happening going to happen in the U.S. election next year.
Maybe Trump will win.
Even if he's in a jail cell, maybe he'll win.
But until then, I think the person who makes the most difference, not just with his ownership of Twitter, but with his intellectual statements, which are often short and quippy, but quite pithy.
I think Elon Musk is the leading man, and hopefully others will join him.
Educator's Impact00:00:52
But listen, you are, as always, a great educator on these matters.
And I appreciate you.
An hour goes by too quickly.
I appreciate you being so generous with your time.
And I'm sorry I've talked too much.
I just want to react to everything you say.
I want to show you videos we've encountered along the way that illustrate your points because I see these things in the wild and I'm trying to understand it.
And the shame thing is a big thing I've learned from you today.
Why would Jews who are so terrified about Hamas hate rallies in the West, that they go to a rally?
Why would they still not bring themselves to say, yeah, maybe we should reduce immigration?
What is going on there psychologically?
And I think your answer of shame is a big part of it.
Dr. James Lindsay, great to see you.
The website's newdiscourses.com.
Keep it up.
We'll follow you on Twitter and we hope to talk again soon.