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