All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:01:59
3488 Why Political Correctness Must End | Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
I am here with the oft-requested and finally present Milo Yiannopoulos.
He is the senior editor for Breitbart News, host of the Milo Yiannopoulos show.
I'm not going to spell that out for you because it's a bit of a mouthful, but we'll have all the links below.
And the most fabulous, dare I say, supervillain on the internet.
Together, of course, you may have noticed we have a normal head of hair.
His Dangerous Faggot Tour returned to American campuses in the fall and is a date scheduled through February 2017.
You can get the latest tour dates at yiannopolis.net and follow his writing at brightbrot.com slash milo.
Welcome, welcome.
Great to finally have the chat.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for having me.
This is, I have to tell you, one of the, there are a couple of questions that people always ask me in the Q&A of my college talks.
And one of, I would say, the top three is, when are you going on Stefan's podcast?
So I'm very happy to be here.
Thank you.
All right.
So what is your view of the state of the American university?
Obviously, you're getting some pushback, to put it mildly.
You're getting some incredibly receptive audiences.
Is it polarized?
Is it kind of mixing in the middle?
How does it look from the podium side?
Well, as I thought would be the case, the bad guys aren't really the students.
I mean, you have the social justice warriors who are in the sort of student body, but for the most part, they're just damaged kids who have been very poorly educated.
They don't know what the hell they're talking about, and they're just regurgitating spiel they've heard from their professors.
You have also, much more interestingly and much more promisingly, a huge bubbling up free speech movement.
It sort of draws into its orbit various different worlds, all of whom have felt as though their First Amendment rights or their ability to express themselves has in some way been curtailed, whether it is gamers, the men's rights movement, libertarians and conservatives more generally.
All sorts of different bits of the universe that feel as though expressing perfectly reasonable, respectable opinions has become dangerous, has become socially risky on campus.
And that group is growing fast.
And I've done reporting and done work for most of those different universes at some point.
And the red thread that runs through them all, of course, is that they're...
The lack of access to free speech and free expression that they have.
The problem, as I imagined that it would be, I was right, of course, is the administration, not the kids.
It's the professors in some cases, and it's the administration in all the others.
And so you get colleges that, because they don't like people with conservative politics, try to throw on last-minute, crazy last-minute security fees.
So I was just at...
Where was I? I forget.
Oh, so many.
But, you know, these sort of last minute $2,500 fees four days from the event, that was University of Maryland, I think it was $2,800.
The college I just spoke at like two nights ago, they tried to do $800 like the day before.
Most of the time, these colleges, you can sort of bully them back to common sense, if that makes sense.
You can sort of make them see reason by sending them a nice request for comment from a Breitbart.com email address, which is the one email you never want to get in your life.
A request for comment from a Breitbart email is the one thing nobody ever wants to receive.
So, you know, that normally kind of jolts them into a bit of like common sense and seriousness.
But I have to say we're winning this argument with students.
We're winning this argument with the customers of these institutions.
And the way that I know that is a year ago when I started this, so a little less than a year ago, I was speaking to furtive, nervous, anxious sort of coalitions of mainly men in a little room.
Some of whom enjoyed the game itself.
Some of whom had been reading me on the sexist on men's rights.
And some of whom just liked, you know, the sort of general spectacle.
And they were kind of like a small room, you know, not a full room, kind of furtive, panicky, and a gigantic protest of crazies outside.
You know, like twice as many people outside as there were inside.
Now the numbers are inverting.
And in fact, the protests have been very, very small.
Um, the reason for that I think is that the wind has been knocked out of their sails.
They realize that they're losing the arguments.
They realize that they're not taking people with them and they're not persuading anybody.
So the worst you get is kind of three trannies or, you know, some crazy little, some crazy little, like, you know, lone guy.
There's a great video on my YouTube of this lone protester, you know?
But the energy is inverted.
People talk about the enthusiasm gap between Trump and Clinton.
You see the same thing on college campuses and you see the same thing with my talks.
There's been a sort of inversion of all the impetus and energy and enthusiasm where all of the excitement is now inside instead of outsizing.
So I do take some comfort from that, because at some point, the administration and the faculty have got to recognize that and have got to start moving, you know?
Well, I think you should take more than comfort.
You should take credit.
I mean, we only need to see one person acting with resolution and courage, and suddenly it becomes a big permission slip for lots of people.
And I did see some of those pictures of the early people.
And it's like, they look like they'd be more comfortable buying, like, bondage porn than coming to actually your speeches.
Like, you know...
I can do that openly, but here I need my cap and, you know, the fake mustache.
No, it's true.
It's true.
You know about this.
This is called a preference falsification and preference cascades, you know?
When you get somebody like me on stage who is like an idiot for a living and just sort of acts a clown or whatever, but says important, valuable things and doesn't mind What happens on stage and what anybody says about them, it emboldens others.
And you find there's this sort of massive instant cascade where people stop lying and pretending to hold positions they don't really hold for sort of ease of social fluidity or whatever it is.
And they suddenly start being, hey, you know what?
That guy's right.
I like Trump too.
And men get a raw deal and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know?
And you just find people – you suddenly activate this fire in people because they see – You on stage, and nothing bad happens, you know?
But you go up there, you say tranny, like I did a minute ago, you know, people get very upset about this, but you say tranny.
Nobody dies!
Nobody dies!
You know?
A few people laugh, a few people get upset, and the world keeps turning.
And that's really the challenge.
That's really the mission.
That's why I'm doing this tour, is just to sort of This is the thing that, of course, took so many hundreds of years to build.
And one of the heartbreaking things, I was in academia in the early 90s, and there was a lot of pushback if you were free market, if you were objective values, objective truth.
The relativism was kind of seeping in like some sort of carcinogenic smoke through the vent system, but you could still do it.
But since then, Milo, it really, really seems like the pushback has become really intense.
And now you're not just discouraged.
Like there's significant repercussions socially, sometimes even academically.
You might not be able to stay in the university if you upset enough people.
And this whole cathedral of let's let all the ideas loose in the great coliseum of human interactions and let's see who's standing at the end of the gladiatorial combat.
All of this seems to have fallen away in a matter of decades.
And it's astonishing.
How do you think this came about?
Well, that doesn't exist in America, the open free marketplace of ideas.
And you're not only in danger as a student, you're in danger as a member of the faculty, too.
As a guy at NYU has just been shoved out, you know, because he has the wrong opinions on things.
I mean, if you have the wrong opinions as a professor at these places, you're at risk.
The reason is, it used to be the case in American universities, as you will know, and some of your viewers will know, that the faculty kind of held all the power.
If the faculty wanted something operating as a sort of unit, they could get pretty much whatever they wanted through.
The balance of power has shifted in universities as they've become more commercial, as they've become larger organisms.
Now it's with the administrators.
Now it's with the guys that run The finance.
And those people are the people who employ the diversity office, the safe space drama, blah, blah, blah.
That all comes from the administration, not necessarily, or at least not only from the faculty.
But the way this happened initially was from the faculty.
They did invent this stuff.
They are ultimately responsible for it, even if now many of them are waking up and wondering what on earth it is they've created, what on earth it is that they've done.
Because I think a lot of professors write to me, actually.
They write to me privately, sometimes pseudonymously to begin with, and then eventually they'll out themselves to me once we build a bit of trust or whatever.
Whether it's medieval history professors, physics professors, English professors, just the whole spectrum of subjects.
And they all say the same thing.
We did this.
We did this.
In the last 30 years, we have been telling children lies.
We have been feeding them conspiracy theories and bogus visions of the universe that robbed them of agency, robbed them of critical thinking, robbed them of the ability to look at the world as it really is, to put facts together and come up with sensible conclusions, because instead we've been feeding them conspiracy theories about patriarchy and God knows what else.
We've encouraged our students to attack the system in a sort of left-wing rebellious way, but we didn't tell them where the sensible boundaries of that are.
So we told them, you know, be defiant and be mischievous and question everything.
But we didn't stop them when they started saying, well, I didn't study hard for my exams and I'm a girl and I didn't get a good mark.
So instead of studying harder next time, I'm going to say the marking criteria is sexist.
You know, like that kind of like, Bogus, garbage excuse-making has become the standard operating procedure on American college campuses.
It's like, if I didn't do well or I didn't succeed, it must be the system, you know?
That kind of throwing up of responsibility onto others and all of the other sort of bad habits of the intellectual left.
So the professors now, you know, some of them at least, the more intellectually honest ones, are freely admitting that they created this monster.
And now it's out of their control because now it is being not just shared and encouraged but enforced by By administrators who are much less smart than the professors, who aren't able to see the challenges and the threats to free speech coming over the horizon like a lot of professors in America now can and are now talking about privately.
The administrators are dumb.
The administrators are people who couldn't do anything else.
They couldn't be professors, so they went into work in the office instead.
And these people are fully sold on the social justice vision of the universe.
So there is a little hope here, I think, which is that You're seeing colleges be quite robust about safe spaces and free speech in little isolated pockets.
The University of Chicago has told students, if you're coming in 2017, 2018, do not expect trigger warnings, do not accept safe spaces.
This is a free speech zone.
The one good thing about the commoditization and commercialization of American higher learning institutions is that this is now going to become a free speech marketplace where colleges identify themselves either as Safe space social justice colleges or as free speech, you know, as defenders of free speech.
And students and alumni are going to start picking where they apply and where they donate accordingly.
And it's so frustrating because it seems to me that there was this elitism that used to be the place in college.
Like if you wanted to go to college, particularly if you wanted to go postgraduate, you had to be pretty good.
You had to have like Wolverine blade hands in debate and so on.
And therefore, you're not afraid of challenging ideas because you can take them on.
I mean, if you're a professional jiu-jitsu fighter, then some guy comes down the street, assuming he's not armed with a pantser or something, you're doing okay.
But I think what happened was people maybe in government looked and said, well, you know, college people, they make a lot of money and they're, you know, very productive in society.
So if we just jam more people into college, exactly the same stuff is going to come out of the other end, which as I've said before, it's like taking people who are short, putting them on the basketball team and expecting them to get taller because the tall people are on the basketball team.
And there's too many people without enough smarts in college.
I agree.
I mean, it's a finite resource.
It's a kind of like equal opportunity criterion intelligence, but it is also a finite resource.
You can't just put more people through college and expect more intelligence and wealth creation and value in the economy after.
Some people just shouldn't be there.
Basically, pretty much anybody enrolled or teaching gender studies, or in fact any subject ending in studies, Whether it's these bizarre Afrocentric history courses that just teach black kids lies, or whether it is gender studies or women's studies that just teach girls lies.
And with no worry about the consequences and no conscience whatsoever about this stuff.
Basically anything ending in studies and a lot of other social science and liberal arts departments as well are like this.
They're just dumb.
The kids are dumb and the professors are dumb.
Everything that is produced by that department is dumb.
None of these people should be funded by the federal government.
None of these people should be in higher education.
It just shouldn't exist.
I agree with your analysis.
There are way, way, way too many people in college.
I mean, derma is a very charitable way of putting it.
I mean, I think it's an environmental toxin because you are teaching this like Goldstein 1984 style two minutes hate, which actually just goes on and on forever, right?
We're going to talk a little bit about sort of the white male issue.
I would say.
Exactly.
And the way that you know that this is on purpose is the little things that the left is doing around the edges, like trying to muddy the distinction between action and language.
They're always trying to suggest that what they ultimately want to do is justify physical violence as a response to ideas.
That's what you see happening on college campuses in the protests.
That's what you see happening when they ship these violent thugs to Trump rallies.
This is people responding physically to ideas, to, you know, opinions they don't like.
And this is why the left contorts language like it does, saying that students need safe spaces and, you know, to protect students' safety, certain speakers shouldn't be on campus or whatever.
There's nothing threatening students' safety, but the reason they do it is when ordinary people hear the word safety, they're like, oh, well, that's probably reasonable.
You know, I mean, who would argue with that?
You know, people have got to be safe, right?
But it's actually got nothing to do with safety.
It's part of a project designed to break down the barriers between speech and action.
And that's a really fundamental distinction.
You know, the idea that you can say, do and think whatever you want, but as soon as you lay a hand on somebody else, then things change, is a pretty fundamental distinction.
You know, basis of how we all come to understand what's acceptable behavior and what isn't with others, right?
And the left wants to be able to hit you for having the wrong opinions, which is why it's trying to muddy those distinctions.
Saying that my opinions about whatever it is, you know, gays, lesbians, transgender, whatever, justify physical violence.
That's the holy grail for them.
That's what they want to do.
And those are the ways that you can tell that this is all being done on purpose, you know?
Well, dumb people are better at hitting than thinking, so less intelligent people do want a marketplace which is determined by this rather than this.
And they want just enough intelligence.
You know, it's like you know enough to be dangerous.
You know, they've got just enough intelligence that they can remember and regurgitate words like intersectionality, but not enough to realize that all it means is some people's lives are shit for multiple reasons.
You know, you can regurgitate slogans and you can, you know...
Repeat these maxims, and you can come across as almost relatively well-educated until the moment somebody smart starts to debate you or ask you questions or say, well, what are the theorists you've been looking into here?
What's the basis for this?
Isn't this just kind of a reworking of Marxism?
And they're like, blah, blah, blah.
You know, they just can't do it.
That is exactly how the American media operates.
Most journalists in America are intensely thick.
British journalists are way, way smarter, which is why we have so much of a more deadly and entertaining press.
Our tabloid press is brilliant.
Our broadsheet press is so smart and so formidable.
American journalists are not clever, and there is no reason why people should have any reverence for the American media whatsoever.
Fortunately, they don't.
Was it 39% of people now still clinging on to the delusion that you can trust the press?
And that number goes down every year.
Well, American journalists just aren't clever.
They're not clever.
And the really tragic thing is they are now the product of 20, 30, 40 years of education that taught them to view the whole world through one prism.
When I was, you know, I briefly attended a very good university at Cambridge in England.
And, you know, there still, they taught you that when you look at a text or a theory or some way of looking at the world, you can attack it from multiple angles.
You can do a feminist reading.
You can do a post-structuralist reading.
You can do a whatever, you know.
There are multiple different prisms through which you can look at the same fact, the same language, the same text, and see what meaning you can tease out of it.
See how different readings and different sort of understandings of it can help you to...
You know, work out how that might teach you more about humanity or whatever.
The vast majority of the American media have just one prism through which to see the whole world, and it is social justice.
They cannot interpret anything that happens without reference to sexism, racism, homophobia or transphobia or something like that.
In everything they do, they're seeking to find the bigot.
Here are two warring parties.
Which of them is the bigot?
That is the starting position of almost every piece of journalism published in America today.
And it is so fatuous and so stupid and so reductionist and so depressing.
That's why I go in hard against the media.
And that is a direct product of the American higher education, like social science, English, and X studies departments in American universities.
That's what they created.
They polluted the fourth estate.
Well, I think it's a category or a property of smart people that they've driven mad by repetition, whereas less intelligent people cling to repetition as a way of gaining security.
And I do think that one of the things that's happened in this enormous demasculinization of society that has occurred with the breakup and the smashing of the family that's come about because of law courts and feminism and the media as a whole, you know, men are bad, men are unnecessary, men are dumb, men are bigoted, men are patriotic, all this sort of stuff.
And I think a lot of people, like when I was a kid, we'd have sort of robust debates with my friends and there'd be a lot of this sort of rough and tumble stuff where you, you know, you develop more of a thick hide, a little bit of sort of armor plating of ego strength.
And it feels to me, which is not an argument, I know, but it sort of feels to me like people are coming very thin skin, very raw, very sensitive because they've been shielded, you know.
You know, they've had a lot of daycare teachers who are women.
They've had a lot of teachers when they're younger who are women who are just like, it's okay, we'll pass along.
And then they simply get out into the real world naked and unprepared for the natural rough and tumble of the back and forth of how society progresses.
I think so.
I like to say in my college talks that people graduate from gender studies dumber than when they started.
And I mean it.
They might know a few more words, but they are less well equipped to deal with the real world.
They believe fewer things that are true than they did when they started, and they believe more things that are untrue.
They are less well equipped to have healthy functional relationships.
I think that...
It's funny you say repetition is a fallback position for stupid people.
I think it can be.
I think it is.
Even when you look at philosophy, like left-wing philosophers, you know, sort of, you know, Lacan, Derrida, repetition, structuring, all that kind of stuff.
It is a left-wing kind of mediocre intelligence thing to value dogmatic repetition of the same thing and to give it some sort of sense of value or meaning it doesn't have.
My real objection to what's happened to American higher education is that it has replaced intellectual humility with dogma.
No longer do these people graduate realizing that they know even less than they thought when they started college and that their whole life, everything that happens to them in the next 70 years or however long they're alive is going to be a process of learning even more stuff and they just try to go through life consuming as much as possible.
They instead graduate now Thinking they know how the world works.
And that's an incredibly dangerous thing to do.
To educate what is now two, almost three generations of kids that they know how the world works.
Like, they've got it down, you know?
And what this produces is this generation of angry, embittered victims that believe in grievance and We're good to go.
Because they think they've got it all figured out.
This is what's given rise to this generation of Vox, Mike, BuzzFeed, Gawker.
Well, not Gawker anymore.
And now even MTV, places that used to be about fun and creativity and expression in the 90s.
Now MTV is turning itself into a social justice news website.
And to say nothing of what they put on TV. This is what created that generation.
It's the lack of intellectual humility because so many of these soft-subject graduates Come out of college having been inculcated in this social justice cult, and they believe that there's nothing left to learn.
And all that they have to do to live a good life and to make a difference is to go out and spot the bigot.
And that's what the majority of American journalism is now, spot the bigot.
If you open the newspaper, you can drill up, what is this story seeking to achieve?
What is the New York Times trying to tell you by revealing this fact?
And in the way that it's written, the headline, what is the function of this?
What is the endgame of this piece of reporting?
And almost every single thing on every single page is spot the bigot.
And they almost always get it wrong.
They almost always pick the wrong person.
And I think also one of the things that's tragic is this incredible hostility towards the free market that is among college kids.
And this is true even in the economics department where they damn well should know better.
I mean, I got my first job when I was 10.
I've been paying my own bills since I was 15.
So by the time I vaulted out into the free marketplace, I'm like, yeah, this place is pretty great.
I know how to provide value.
I know how to, you know, deliver a good service or good to my employer and so on.
So for me, the free market was a very friendly, positive place to be.
But I think these kids, they don't have the free play out in nature, which helps them learn how to negotiate with other people.
They don't have jobs usually when they're younger.
And then they go through these terrible degrees that are like these brain-dissolving acids that just turn them into proselytized goofballs.
And they come out with a huge chip on their shoulder about the free market.
And lo and behold, Milo, what happens?
Well, they end up not succeeding in the free market.
Yeah, that's because I'm oppressed.
It's like, no, it's because you don't have skills and value to offer.
So you teach kids badly.
Of course they're going to end up hating it.
No, it's true.
It's so true.
And, you know, it's just amazing to me.
When I say this, I try to weave this into every college talk I can.
And just to see the jaws drop, even among conservative and libertarian students, which tells me they've just never heard this before and it's never even occurred to them before.
Hey, guys, capitalism, democracy, property rights, and freedom of expression, all of those great Western values, that's why America is a nice place to be born black, or a woman, or gay.
Those are the reasons.
Like, capitalist democracies, you know, liberal Western capitalist democracies, are the places you would want to be born in if you were a minority.
Right?
And they were like...
You're right.
Could this fact be connected?
Could it be?
Follow the footprints.
Who wants to go where?
It's not like everyone in England is like, how do I get to Saudi Arabia to live?
Could there be any connection?
Could there be any reason?
Is there a pattern here?
All the countries we want to get to, all the countries where pay is equal, all the countries where you're okay if you're black, gay, or a woman, all just magically happen to be Western liberal capitalist democracies.
Let us meditate on this for a second.
Yes, precisely those things that the left hates most.
And when you get down to it, it's all about communism, socialism, Marxism, you know, whether it's Black Lives Matter or feminism or whatever.
All the things they hate the most, all the institutions they want to tear down in America are precisely the things that give them the rights they want and that they already have, you know?
It is so bonkers to me.
It's so mad.
This is what I find so frustrating about the left as well.
It definitely is a kind of religion insofar as they can just reject facts.
Like, how many times do you have to debunk the wage gap myth?
How many times do you have to debunk various criminal statistics?
The same thing over it.
Facts don't matter.
And to me, that's when you're in the realm.
I wouldn't actually – it's dishonoring religion to say it's superstitious.
It's mystical.
What bothers me so much about it is that it's a religion without responsibility.
It's a religion without sacrifice.
It's a religion without moral standards.
It's a religion without dedication to something higher than yourself.
It's a very self-indulgent kind of me-ism.
I can reject facts, but I don't have to get up early to go to church on Sunday.
And to me, having those two things together is extremely toxic.
Yes, it is.
Because it's through discipline and sacrifice that we learn how to responsibly behave to others.
And to take a sort of Feuerbachian approach to this, you don't have to believe in the tenets of religion to understand that that religion tells you something about the society that created it.
So the ultimate highest virtues of Christianity, self-sacrifice, Christ on the cross.
You don't have to believe that he was the Son of God or even that he existed to appreciate that this civilization has created a religion in which love and self-sacrifice and giving are the highest possible virtues.
You know, being generous and altruistic, that is the goal of the good life, according to the Christian vision, right?
That's a good thing.
That's a reasonably good path through life.
If that's your core principles, that I should...
Be a disciplined, good person who gives to others, who loves and who sacrifices for themselves.
Well, yeah, they're the sorts of virtues we admire in the armed forces, in people who work in charity, all the rest of it.
Self-evidently good things.
But when you remove discipline and sacrifice from religion, you get a cult.
And you're right, it isn't a religion.
It's a cult.
It is a cultic set of fatuous, empty values.
That gives people a sort of brief rush of satisfaction and self-righteousness, but has no substance behind it.
And, you know, as I say, you don't have to believe in any religion to at least appreciate what virtues it's pointing at, you know?
What is this vast in the Vatican, all this vast structure, and it's so easily criticized from billions of angles, but what is the core, central, simple message that this religion is telling you that the society that created it values the most?
Like, what is it telling you?
And Christianity sends very good messages about what the West is about, you know?
And if you look a little further and you go, you know, the second tier down, you know, the Protestant work ethic, without which capitalism wouldn't have been possible.
You know, capitalism couldn't have grown like it did without Christianity.
Why?
Well, not because they were all, like, peace, love and understanding social justice warriors, but because they had a Protestant work ethic, which was, you know, get up in the morning, you know, there's something bigger than yourself, obligation and duty to your family and to God, right?
Without that, you know, get up in the morning and get it done, like the Germans still have, you know, capitalism couldn't have functioned.
So these are all really good values, and it speaks highly of the West.
If you read a little theology, you know, the understanding of God and man's relationship to God, whether it's work ethic, whatever— The central values of Christianity speak very highly of the West and are very compatible and they've shown themselves to be very adaptable to modernity and to capitalism and all the rest of it.
Look to the East, for instance, and the situation is not the same.
Islam, submission to the will of God, that highly prescriptive...
It's a very abusive relationship that the Muslims have with God.
It is like a classic abusive relationship, abusive scenario, and you see that in the way that they construct their societies, which are internally abusive, whether it's between men and women or minority, whatever.
That speaks, in my view, not very highly of many of these Eastern cultures that are able to survive with Islam.
These values are just different.
It mystifies me that something so empty and vacuous as social justice can have taken root, taken hold of the popular consciousness and imagination, taken hold of people's, the bits of their brain that would normally be reserved for religion.
And we all have that, whether we want to admit it or not.
I know a lot of your viewers are going to be atheists and are going to be like, I'm desperate for us to change the subject at this point, but tough shit.
No, too bad, too bad.
I mean, I have been coming more and more friendly towards Christianity over the years, just without a doubt recognizing particularly the synthesis between Christian theology and the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition.
You know, one of the fascinating things is when the Christian priests and the monks came across their Greco-Roman writings, they didn't just like, burn them!
Burn them!
Turn them all up, you know, set them on fire.
They were like, wow, this is a real challenge.
How would Socrates get to heaven?
He clearly was a good man, but he was born before Christ.
How are we going to work with this?
And this capacity to blend, to integrate, to be curious about non-Christian thought is what gives such richness, I think, to the Christian tradition.
Versus Islam that just burned libraries when they came over.
And this whole thing about the golden age of Islam is such a myth.
And I gave a talk about this at Orlando, actually.
This great myth about how we've got the Arabs to thank for our numbers.
While we were in the dark ages, Islam was tending the flame of intellectual community.
There isn't a single world-class university anywhere in the Muslim world for good reason.
But anyway, that's the subject for another day, another podcast.
I believe that everybody has a bit of their brain reserved for this kind of stuff, whether we like it or not.
That's why atheists get so mad.
That's why they have such hair triggers, because they know it and they don't want to admit it.
Within all of us, there's that instinct...
To seek out the ineffable, you know?
And you might not call it divine if you're not a religious person, but you might appreciate it in a Beyoncé song, or you might read...
No, I mean, I'm serious.
Or you might read...
You know, that's how some people get, you know, kind of that...
You know, like Halo.
Like, you know, that song has two moments where, like, you know, you're like...
You know?
No, but music can do that for people, you know?
I mean, personally, I do it with Wagner, but some people get that from R&B, some people get whatever.
Yeah.
It might be a Larkin poem.
You know, Philip Larkin is a very sort of...
Actually, I think very underrated English poet.
And he has these moments of this great sweeping ineffability right at the end where he just takes you up and just drops you in this infinite landscape at the end of a poem that was all about little things.
Anyway...
I think anything you compare yourself to that makes you feel small but not humiliated is a wonderful place for growth.
Because we all need to feel relatively small so we have some place to grow.
So we have something to explore and we never want to feel like we have the final answers.
I want us to have good methodology, philosophical reason and evidence and so on.
But I love that feeling of being dwarfed but not humiliated because I find that very inspiring as some place to grow.
And it comes from humility.
And that's a great Christian virtue.
It is also characteristic of all of the smartest people I know.
They're acutely aware of how much they have yet to learn.
Social justice seems to me to play on a lot of the reward circuits that that religious bit of our brain normally uses up.
It has all of the classic signs of religion.
Like, you know, the dogmatic adherence, the, you know, casting out of apostates, the ritualized nature of religion, you know, the chanting, the clicking that they do instead of, you know, it looks very much like a religion.
If you know anything about religion, you study any theology at all, you know, one of these feminist conferences with their weird rituals and stuff looks very much like religion, like an Oprah show, you know.
It's almost like some sort of weird...
You know when I watch those feminist conferences and they have the kind of you go girlfriend and the clicking instead of clapping.
It's like a sort of really messed up riff on the Eucharist.
But it's occupying that bit of your brain that ought to be reserved for that sort of humble kneeling in front of something greater and asking what else is out there.
It basically, social justice is this brilliant concoction where it gives you the reward circuits, it gives you the dopamine hit, it lets you feel self-righteous, and it lets you feel like you made a difference without actually having to learn anything, do anything, be anything useful.
All you've really done actually is bully someone else.
Right.
So let's dip a little bit into feminism here because it's a topic that you and I have both talked about quite a little bit.
And I've always sort of wanted to feel like it's really important to get the feminists and peel them away from the women because people think that feminism is something to do with women and it doesn't.
I've sort of made the argument for years that it's just pear-shaped socialism in comfortable shoes because they don't actually care about women.
Nice way of saying lesbians.
Right.
But if they cared about women, then they would be appalled at, say, Ann Coulter being called the See You Next Tuesday word 17 times at a Rob Lowe roast.
They'd be shocked at what Bill Maher said about Sarah Palin.
They'd be appalled at what's said about Margaret Thatcher, the first female leader of a Western country.
And they don't.
They don't care about...
If you're on the right, you are an un...
You are an ungender, you are an object to be attacked, but they're women, and they're very accomplished women, and they're very intelligent women, but they're on the other side of the political spectrum, and that's really important for people to understand.
It is Marxism in granny panties.
It's nothing to do with actually focusing on what is good for women.
They're being used as a tool to advance central planning and collectivism, and I think people have a really, really tough time seeing that because we all like and want to protect women.
Absolutely true.
And one of the things that annoys me the most about modern feminism is the way that it takes advantage of our natural instinct towards chivalry and kindness and decency.
So on the one hand, they're like, oh, it's just about equality and the protection of women's rights.
Don't you care about those things?
But the way that it behaves is very different.
It describes itself one way, it behaves very differently and uses this carapace, this ridiculous marketing spiel.
Which is all it is.
That it's about women's equality when actually it's about collectivism, as you say, and all that stuff.
And the way that they sort of dare men to disagree, the way they put men on notice, it's like, you know, agree with this lie that I know is a lie and you know is a lie and you know that I know that it's a lie.
Agree with it in public or I'll get you.
Or your life is over.
And also the way that it plays on a man's natural instinct to come to the aid of a damsel in distress.
To, you know, a natural chivalric instinct, you know, the way that it abuses and manipulates and takes advantage of that, for me, is so ugly and sociopathic, it could only be the work of lesbians.
You know, it is the worst, no, it is the worst thing about it.
Worse than the fact they lie, worse than the fact they're stupid, worse than the fact they spread things that are not true.
It's the fact that they take advantage of the highest, most noble aspects of manhood.
The things that make men the best, you know, not make men the best, but, you know, the best things about men is what I mean to say.
The best things about men, you know, the sacrifice, the selflessness, you know, as embodied in chivalry and generosity and self-sacrifice, you know, those things are the best things about good men.
And feminism fucks with men by abusing those things.
And that is really the thing that I don't get angry about very much because, you know, why would I? My life is wonderful.
But that's the thing that actually makes me mad.
That's the thing that makes me think, you bitches need to be put out.
Put out to pasture.
Because what you have done by systematically distorting the way the society is organized, taking control of the culture, the media, academia, spreading these lies, you know, ritually humiliating and abusing men, lying to and about half the population every day on the page of newspapers, every day in movies, every day in academia.
That is just wrong.
It's morally wrong.
It's repugnant.
And it is particularly disgusting because you are taking what ought to be the very best things about men and using it against them as a way of ritually humiliating them.
I hate it.
Oh, and I agree.
And especially this concept of rape culture, which is such a massive, libelous, horrendous smear against the vast majority of men who would, you know, and often have laid down their lives to protect the women of the tribe and the women of the circle.
If you combine sort of this rape culture and these constant claims of rape and assault, a lot of which, of course, end up being completely hollowed out and disproven, as we can sort of see going on with the...
It's probably a fake.
What it's done, Milo, is I sort of feel the end result has been that women have almost been weaponized against men.
That men now look at women as extremely dangerous because you don't know.
You might have an encounter.
The next day, she runs into a feminist friend who convinces her, and then you're in a situation with no lawyers and no defense and no burden of proof and no presumption of innocence.
And this weaponizing of women against men, where the hell do people think this is going to end?
Well, it ends actually, and some men don't like it when I say this, but it ends with women suffering even more than men do.
You know, we're tough, basically.
You know, even the facts.
You know, we're basically tough.
And we can, you know, we won't be happy, but we won't be, you know, abjectly miserable.
On the whole, now that's You know, there is a male suicide epidemic no one else wants to talk about and all the rest of it.
And some men obviously are very vulnerable and very miserable as a result of some of this stuff.
And I don't want to downplay that at all.
But on the whole, men are pretty resilient, pretty tough.
They can retreat.
And I wrote this big feature that everybody read, you know, a year and a half ago, this exodus.
You know, people sort of retreating into porn and video games and stuff like that.
And by and large, that's the male response to this kind of like schism between the genders fueled by feminism between the sexes, I should say, you know, fueled by feminism.
Women, on the other hand, do not deal well with being alone in their 30s.
They are not happy.
And you will know from reading the same things that I do that, you know, women have been getting progressively more miserable for 50 years or more.
You know, every 10 years, they report themselves getting miserable at the same time as on paper, they're getting more equal.
Well, there are only two there are two explanations here.
Either women are being lied to and fed, you know, conspiracy theories and being told that they're not as equal as they are.
Or they're just ungrateful bitches and men should stop trying because they're not going to be happy no matter what you do.
Neither of them.
Look, if I'm going to give you equal pay and let you vote and do all this stuff and you're going to be even unhappier than you were 70 years ago, why did I do it?
Why bother?
Why bother?
Just keep you in the fucking kitchen.
I mean, I'm joking, of course, but I I understand that going through a man's head being like, you know, you can ruin my reputation with these ridiculous rape claims, there's listen and believe culture, more women are now going to college, more women are graduating, two to one advantage, you know, going for STEM, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all the ways in which you and I know that the pendulum has swung toward, you know, toward women.
And you're still not happy.
What do I do?
I mean, it's almost like on a societal level, what every man knows happens in a marriage, which is, you know, you give her more of what she wants, the more unhappy she gets.
But you're far better off, you know, just giving her a little bit, just a little bit, a little bit, a little bit.
You know, she says, I want a car, you give her a car.
She's not happy.
You say, I want a car, and you say no, and you maybe give her a cheaper car than she wants it.
She keeps coming back for more, and she's happy.
You know, this is how the sexes work.
But this is now being played out on a sort of grand societal scale.
Where women are getting thrown benefits, even above and beyond equality, and women being women, they're still not happy.
So I kind of understand men when they're like, why did we bother with this?
Why did we do this?
The key thing, though, as I say, that upsets me is the ritual humiliation and the lying and the bullying.
But...
I have to say, this is really important.
Feminism hurts women the most.
It does hurt men.
And it does horrible things to men.
And it's awful for men.
And I don't want to downplay that or, you know, whatever.
Because I know you have lots of listeners who are really, you know, angry about this stuff.
And they're right to be.
Totally, justifiably angry.
But, feminism hurts women the most.
Because women in their 30s, you know, are a mess.
Like, you know, single women in their 30s are really, really unhappy.
Most men, by and large, on the whole, from what I've read and my experience and whatever, Most men kind of get through it, get over it.
They'll find other things to pour their sexual energy in, that creative urge, the destructive urge, all the stuff that makes men great.
They'll find other things to pour it into.
Women can't.
Women end up with a job they don't like, with a cat, friends they hate, no boyfriend, and it's awful and it's miserable and they're so unhappy.
So, you know, it's just bad all round, but it is, in a way that most people don't even realize, particularly bad for women.
Feminism is a disaster for women.
And let me sort of throw a little theory at you and tell me what you think, because I've sort of been working on this idea, and I was struck by this with regards to what happened with you at Twitter and what's happened to Twitter since that, partly as a result of what happened to you and partly as a result of other factors, of course.
And I had people call in from the army recently talking about social justice warriors in the US army and how much they had destroyed morale by changing all the standards and now they all get the sensitivity training, which seems kind of weird for the military people.
I mean, I don't want my military people being overly sensitive.
In fact, I don't want them being sensitive at all.
I want them to be completely armor-plated.
Of course!
You know, there's a study, sorry to interrupt you, there's studies like female soldiers, like, you know, I just always think about this, like, you know, what if some woman kind of catches some dreamy-looking Iraqi in the scope, she's not going to be able to shoot him, and women have all, no, it's serious, and, you know, women are, women, they do studies on this stuff, like, after terrorist attacks, women are, like, ten times more likely to kind of, like, forgive the terrorists, like, find an excuse why they might have done it, because they want to kind of empathize with the guys who, like, you know, blew themselves up and killed a bunch of people than men are, right?
These people on the front lines?
Give me a break.
Anyway, carry on.
Oh, yeah.
So, you know, and in other areas, like in the universities, they're destroying freedom of speech, which is the essence of universities.
With Twitter, they're destroying freedom of speech, which really was the whole point and promise of Twitter at the beginning.
In the army, they're destroying combat readiness and so on.
And I'm sort of working with this theory now.
It's kind of grim, but I think there's some good evidence for it, Milo, which is that they don't go into these institutions to reform them, but to destroy them.
And Twitter was a threat to the left.
The army, of course, threatens the general cockishness of the left.
Universities of free speech harm the left because the left's ideas are so bad.
And fundamentally, weaponizing women against men, the left has promoted all of these massive income transfers from men to women and from the young to the old in the form of social security and pensions.
And then if you can convince a society to not have children, you've created massive unfunded obligations without the next generation to pay for them.
That is going to trigger the social and economic collapse of that society.
How are they not just a bunch of termites like eating away at the floorboards of everything we hold dear?
I couldn't agree more.
I mean, that's exactly what is happening.
And you know, this is not a mystery, I don't think.
To anyone who sees the left in action, it's quite clear.
They don't want to fix things.
They want to tear them up.
Now, I have some sympathy with genuine radicals who think that systems need to be broken up and reimagined.
But there's a difference, I think, between, let's say, for instance, Donald Trump, who represents an existential threat to a Republican party that is no longer fit for purpose.
And people, you know, the Republican Party, which I don't think is a particularly effective engine for democracy or good values or anything like that.
It's just a sort of, you know, coalition of people advocating for the interests of the rich, powerful and the globalists.
But there's a difference between that and people who want to tear down all the institutions of civil society that keep people free and keep society strong, you know?
And that's universities, it's academia, it's the media, it's the entertainment industry.
You know, like all of the stuff that keeps people free, strong, and keeps us moving forward and keeps us innovating and growing.
Those are the things the left has been attacking.
Culture, not politics, you know?
And those are the things the left wants to tear down.
And it's with great success.
I mean, look at the...
Look at the mess the media is in financially.
Look at the mess academia is in.
Yeah, good, good, good.
Look at the mess that universities are now in with this Title IX nonsense.
Look at the mess that the entertainment industry is in now with Britney pulling videos because they're too sexy, with Hollywood now just riffing on comic books because they're safe rather than telling real stories.
Well, ask yourself one question.
What would the left do differently if its stated purpose was to destroy all of these institutions?
I can't really imagine what it would be.
It would be doing exactly what it is doing.
So yeah, no, I think so too.
The risk is, of course, and this is what everybody with any sense knows, The stated objectives of the left, which is to protect women and minorities and fight for equality and all the rest of it, the one way you don't do that is undermining capitalism.
The one way you don't do that is undermining democracy, freedom, and liberalism in the classical sense.
That's the way that you create societies where accidents of birth Can fix your destiny and your promise, you know?
What you can do in your life, your potential, right?
Whether it is skin colour, sexuality or gender or whatever, when you undermine capitalism, freedom, democracy, property rights, all of those universal values that make the West so great, when you undermine those things and replace them, for instance, with identity politics, you create a society where accidents of birth can determine your potential.
And that's like cancer.
That's the absolute antithesis of the American dream.
That is the East.
That was never the West.
That wasn't what we were about in Europe.
That wasn't what America was supposed to be about.
That's how the East works.
And that's horrifying.
And that's why the left sucks up to radical Islam, because they have the same analysis of capitalism and they want the world to look the same.
They're identitarian authoritarians.
That's why feminism and Islam have this unholy alliance, because when you drill down to what they're really after, what they're really trying to accomplish, it's all the same stuff.
Right.
And the appeal that it has to people who want to abandon the great moral challenge of free will is not to be underestimated.
So let's turn a little bit to the Trump phenomenon, because I have taken an enjoyable number of slings and arrows for getting involved in politics after for many years arguing that it was not particularly valuable.
Sure.
And also for people saying, well, you live in Canada.
What do you care about US politics?
It's like, you know, if my house is this close to my neighbor's house, and my neighbor's house is currently on fire, and I know that there are a lot of bombs in the basement, hey, you know what, I'm going out there with a volunteer fire engine squad and throwing some hose of water on it.
So, what is new with Trump for politics?
I mean, I've sort of articulated it for my audience, but I know you've got a great, great take on this.
Why is this so interesting to people more interested in maintaining Western traditions?
Why has Trump hit such a spark among not just the American population, but the worldwide population?
Well, Donald Trump represents, as Michael Moore inadvertently said, in what was accidentally the best ad of the entire election season, which I think it was me that kind of pulled that out and put it on my Facebook page and everybody was like, you're pulling this ad?
I'm just an audio clip.
Take from it what you want.
So, no, I mean, inadvertently the best ad of the election season.
And he said, you know, Donald Trump would be the biggest FU to, you know, to the political class, the establishment ever.
Look, in the West, globalization, which has been driven by sort of leftist, you know, leftist elites, hasn't worked for everyone.
It hasn't worked really for even half the population.
If you believe in nation states, you believe, you know, that a country with borders based on values is the best way to organize a society, like a unit of people.
This is not how global government now operates.
This is not the direction in which the elites are pushing.
And if you believe, as I think the majority of Americans do, that you should be able to say, do and be anything, that the First Amendment matters, and that it should be backed up by the Second in the case of the tyranny of the government.
If you believe any of those three things, particularly if you believe all of those three things, you have no option but to vote for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump represents in what you know, you might think he's a blustery idiot and all the rest of it.
And, you know, he can be clownish and all the rest of it.
And I might even secretly privately agree with you on some of some of those things now and again.
You know, everyone's embarrassed by their dad now and again.
Nonetheless, the effect of Donald Trump, which is, you know, an existential threat to political correctness and political correctness really, you know, people like to dismiss it.
Oh, so someone's, you know, someone on the right or some libertarian is moaning about free speech and PC again.
Yeah, well, it kills.
It kills people.
You know, it's a sort of organized lying to save people's feelings that takes us further away from the truth and facts and logic and reason.
That's what it is.
Like, that's what it is.
That's big deal.
That's really important.
That matters, you know, and representing an existential threat to that.
I could forgive Donald Trump everything else just because he is the person who says, screw you to the, you know, the lies we must say in public life to stay alive.
And when he does that, he is demonstrating by doing, not just by saying that nothing bad happens.
When you tell social justice warriors to go screw themselves, nothing bad happens.
You know, when you question the dogma of, you know, globalism or, you know, open borders, nothing bad happens.
And actually, people's lives might even get better in a way.
So, I... We're good to go.
She believes it's all that policy.
People are voting for him for policy, and they want the wall, and they want a fixed trade.
And for many of his voters, undoubtedly that is true.
For me, and I think a lot of his younger supporters and people who appreciate him, maybe with more of a sense of detachment and irony than just straight up kind of like build the wall guys.
There's a sense that this sort of great theatrical moment in American political history was overdue and necessary.
And that the people who run this country really, really deserve it.
They had this coming.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats had this coming.
And frankly, given what the left has done to people over the last 30 years, Donald Trump is the most reasonable candidate they deserve.
No, I'm not kidding.
Well, and if it's not going to be Donald Trump, the next manifestation of the backlash against the left is going to be a lot different.
And as much as Donald Trump is a positive figure, the next reaction is going to be polar opposite, I believe.
Oh, no, no, no.
If Donald Trump doesn't get in on Tuesday, whenever this show goes out, you probably already know by then, but if Donald Trump is not president by the time he listens to this show, it's going to be way worse the next time.
The Republican Party is going to try and say, well, you see, that didn't work, so we're going to go back to this kind of old establishment, whatever.
That won't work for the voters.
60% of the Republican Party will just leave.
The party will never win another election.
But what rises out of the ashes of Trumpism won't be Like Trump, which is, you know, from the left's point of view, the kindest, safest, most manageable, and least dangerous result of a product of what they have been doing for 30 years.
They created Trump, and they should be thanking their lucky stars that what they created, what they're directly responsible for, after the nannying and the language policing, the globalism, and all the awful things they've been doing without people's consent, you know, sort of the school-mom-ish...
Idiocy of the progressive left for the last 30 years, right?
They directly created Trump and they should be thanking their lucky stars they didn't create something worse.
Because, you know, Trump basically is, you know, a Trump presidency would almost get them off the hook for all the stuff they've done, reset the clock and let them retreat, regroup and come back.
And it wouldn't be difficult after, you know, three or four years of Trump to be like, okay, this is clownish garbage and we're the real responsible party of government.
The left could be in power for decades after that, you know, if he screws up or whatever.
But he's really the best product.
He is the most, the kindest, the safest, the most manageable product I can think of.
Of the abuses visited on people in the West by the progressive left.
I'm amazed it's not David Duke, frankly.
I'm amazed it's not somebody more like, maybe not him, but somebody more like that.
Somebody malevolent.
Trump is not malevolent.
Trump loves America.
Trump wants to fix things.
He has a vision of how America ought to be, how it should be, how it could be again.
He's not malevolent.
He's not a bigot.
He's not a hateful person.
And he's not malevolent.
They call him all those things, of course, because that's what the left does.
You know, and it's interesting, by the way, Bill Maher came out and said, oh, you know, we really messed up when we, you know, went after John McCain and went after all these other people and called them these terrible names because now Trump's around.
We don't have anywhere to go.
You know, we've got no terrible names.
Well, they're making the same mistake with Trump.
They're still doing it.
You know, they're no more...
It's reasonable.
These names were not applied to Trump than they were applied to McCain or to Romney.
It is going to be something, I've got to tell you.
If she's in the White House and what comes after Trump, how they even...
They have no weapons left.
They have spent every last bit of capital they had trying to stop Trump getting to the White House.
If they succeed stopping Trump getting to the White House, whatever comes next, however bad it is, will win.
Because they will have completely burned all their social capital with the public, burned every last bit of trust, burned every last bit of credibility in a desperate attempt to stop Trump from getting to the White House.
You know, the legitimacy of the press has been nuked by the Trump candidacy.
And if they don't win and they don't get Hillary in, or even if they do, frankly, either way, the press is done for them.
The press is just screwed in this country forever now.
And as a result, when somebody that really is bad comes along, which they will if Hillary is an ex-president, the press will not be able to save us from that person.
And that's scary.
That's terrifying.
Let's – I wanted to sort of close off, Myla, by talking about the complex virtue of compassion because one of the things that the left has claimed a monopoly on is kindness and compassion and helping people and so on.
And I think pandering and enabling and shielding people from the consequences of their actions, while it may give them a short-term dopamine rush of escaping consequences – Really weakens people in the long run.
And I was struck in a—I've listened to a lot of your speeches and really recommend your podcast as well.
We'll put a link to that below.
But you were talking about your compassion for the people who are currently ground under by the system and also your compassion for the people who've been shielded from consequences and lied to and misled and propagandized to the point where they're largely short-circuiting upstairs and It is tragic.
It is like somebody trying to run repeatedly being hit by a cattle prod.
Your heart goes out for them because they're being injured even if they can't feel it.
And this complex...
Virtue of compassion, which has been monopolized and I think turned kind of saccharine and diabetic by the left.
I think the right and the alt-right have a lot of compassion in terms of reality and consequences for people that is very different.
I don't know if it's a masculine kind of compassion or versus the sort of feminine kind of compassion, but let's talk a bit about that because I know you embody that in your speeches quite a bit.
It's a tough love thing.
I would probably be more of a classical Republican than a lot of the people who like me.
I don't have a full set of politics that complement exactly the people who like me.
I differ from my own audiences on a lot of stuff.
I would say the alt-right, more than compassion, probably is more like noblesse oblige.
You know, I think it's probably a better characterization of how the alt-right kind of quote-unquote compassion works.
For the right, yeah, certainly.
And it's real compassion.
You know, for me, the worst thing you can...
Okay, so for the left, the worst thing you can do to somebody is call them...
I don't know what the language requirements are on your podcast, so I'll try and keep it clean.
No, you don't have to keep it clean.
Go ahead.
Okay, fine.
Well...
The worst thing that you can do to somebody from the left is call them a faggot or a kike or an n-word or whatever.
It's the worst thing you can do.
It's the ultimate expression of bigotry or drawing a swastika in a bathroom, which by the way is always them because it always hoaxes.
This is the worst thing you could ever do to somebody.
For me, the worst thing you could do to somebody is rob them of their potential.
You know, of the ability to not just to aspire, but also to take away the tools they need to achieve their goals.
Now, the reason I say this, when you tell someone that everything bad that happens to them is the fault of a system outside themselves, particularly when it's a conspiracy theory like the patriarchy, you rob that person the ability to get better.
When a woman doesn't pass, you know, we were talking earlier, when a woman doesn't pass an exam and she's like, oh, the marking criteria is biased towards straight white males.
No, you just didn't fucking study, you know?
And that's 99.9% of the real situation.
You know, okay, once in a blue moon, maybe there's something, you know?
But that's normally what's going on.
And you're robbing that person of the moment of tough love that she needs to go back, reevaluate, say, well, maybe actually I didn't study as hard as everybody else.
Maybe I didn't deserve to get, you know, to get an A. Maybe I deserve a B, and that's a problem, and I can come back and do better next time.
And you're instilling that discipline, aspiration, hard work, you know, maybe the Protestant work ethic that is such an anathema to the left.
You know, I mean, it's not a religious thing, but, you know, you're trying to do that, trying to take away We're good to go.
And pointing that out, for me, is compassion.
The universalization of bigotry means that there's no escape.
To get to your life goals, you've got to be like a giant scat of water at the top of a mountain.
You find your way down.
You hit a rock, go around it.
Find some way to get what you want.
And of course, there are bigoted and sexist and racist people in the world who are so Avoid them and find people who aren't.
But the moment they say it's everyone, it's not like you can climb your way up by just avoiding some boulders.
There's like a roof of cave above you and you can never get to the sunlight.
It makes people paralyzed and limp and takes away their will.
And boy, I don't know how much you have to hate someone to take away their autonomy and potential by saying everything is going to block everything you want to do.
That's the sociopathy of the left.
And it's this highly vindictive, mean, spiteful, lesbianic sociopathy of the progressive left.
It's exactly that, taking away people's autonomy.
That's why I hate the phrase the glass ceiling so much.
Because if I heard that and I were a woman and I was not as intelligent as I am, I would be like, well, fuck it.
Why bother trying then?
I'll just go be a mom.
I should say go be a mom because it's actually about the most wonderful thing you But why go work in Walmart?
Rather than trying to be a banker or trying to make it as a partner in a law firm, whatever, I'd just be like, well, fuck it.
I'll just be a secretary and have a nice life.
I mean, maybe I would.
Who knows?
But that is cruelty and that is awful.
And for me, being compassionate is...
Sometimes it looks a little bit more like what you might call tough love than just telling people what they want to hear, providing them with ready-made excuses for their own failure, and covering them in cotton wool and protecting them from opinions that they've never heard before that they don't like with the safe-spacing and trigger-warning stuff.
None of those three things, to me, is compassion.
It's actually the opposite of compassion.
It's actually a very...
Yeah, people who are going to come along and try and sell you limitations, they just want to control you.
They want you to be small so that they can manage you.
They want to put the puppet strings of ideology under your hands.
And I want to sort of try and embed this reaction to people, like an allergy to people who want to tell them that they're hopeless and they can't get ahead and the system is stacked against them and nobody's going to let them through and so on.
It is absolutely destructive.
The amount of human potential out there that's untapped to me is nuclear.
And I want people to just freak out and push back When they get people up there who tell them how small they are and how limited they are and how everything is stacked against them.
Right.
And you know, it's like...
It's like...
The Mariah Carey song, Butterfly.
The kindest thing you can do for somebody is to let them go and to let them fly.
That's how they flourish.
Rather than controlling them, keeping them in a cage.
The best thing you can do is let people be free.
For me, real compassion, real love, real generosity of spirit, real altruism, real stuff is about giving people what they need to flourish and letting them go.
rather than the school mom ish petty controlling like language policing authoritarianism of progressive left which for me is the opposite of kindness kindness is giving people what they need to succeed and letting them go do it and see and let them let them let them succeed or let them fail you know letting them do it on their own letting them flourish that you know that the fulfillment of human potential which is the most satisfying thing in life is to you know it's like I haven't experienced this yet but maybe over one day but you
Giving your kid a good education and watching them succeed and flourish because you worked hard, you gave them the tools they needed, and then you pushed them out of the nest and just watched them soar.
That has got to be, as I think most parents would tell you, that's one of the most satisfying things I mean, I have had experiences like that in relationships and with friends and stuff like that, even with employees and things.
That's one of the most gratifying, satisfying, real moments in human life.
And people in progressive life will never experience that, and I feel very sorry for them.
Well, I'm going to wrap it up here.
I just wanted to thank you enormously for a great conversation.
I think people will really, really be excited by it and want to remind people, if you haven't had the live Milo experience, for heaven's sakes, track him down and try and get.
He's going to be going through February 2017, and you can, of course, get his true dates at yannapolis.net.
Follow his writing, of course, at brightbird.com slash Milo.
Thanks again so much, my friend.
It was a great, great pleasure, and I look forward to hearing your next speech.
Wonderful.
I can't wait to have another conversation.
I've had so much fun.
Thank you so much for having me.
▲
Export Selection