Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video

Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. Please note: during tonight’s presentation, video, audio, and flash photography is prohibited and we have a strict zero tolerance policy for any heckling or disruptions And now, please welcome your host and moderator, President of Ralston College Dr. Stephen Blackwood. Thank you. A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the theater in Toronto and those following online. You know, it’s not very often that you see a country’s largest theater packed for an intellectual debate. But that’s what we’re all here for tonight. Please join me Please join me in welcoming to the stage Dr. Slavoj Žižek and Dr. Jordan Peterson. Just a few words of introduction. There can be few things I think now more urgent and necessary in an age of reactionary, partisan allegiance and degraded civil discourse, than real thinking about hard questions. The very premise of tonight’s event is that we all participate in the life of thought, not merely opinion or prejudice but the realm of truth, accessed through evidence and argument. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a commitment to thinking itself. They are both highly tuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power. And yet, they are not principally political thinkers. They are both concerned with more fundamental matters: meaning, truth, freedom. So it seems to me likely that we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. Dr. Slavoj Žižek is a philosopher. He has not one but two doctoral degrees, one in philosophy, one in philosophy from the University of Ljubljana, and a second in psychoanalysis from University — [crowd cheering] Let’s hear it for psychoanalysis! From the University of Paris VIII. He is now a professor at the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and the director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London. He has published more than three dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. He is a dazzling theorist with extraordinary range, a global figure for decades, he turns again and again with dialectical power to radical questions of emancipation, subjectivity, and art. [crowd cheering] [crowd laughing] Dr. Jordan Peterson is an academic and clinical — [crowd cheering] an academic and clinical psychologist. His doctorate was awarded by McGill University and he was subsequently [crowd cheering] [laughter] We’ve got some McGill graduates out here. He was subsequently professor of psychology at Harvard University and then the University of Toronto where he is today. [cheering] The author of two books and well over a hundred academic articles, Dr. Peterson’s intellectual roots likewise lie in the 19th and early 20th centuries, where his reading of Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and above all Carl Jung inform his interpretation of ancient myths, of 20th century totalitarianism, and especially his endeavor to counter contemporary nihilism. His “12 Rules for Life” is a global bestseller, and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. [cheering and applause] Both Dr. Žižek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy. Just as this debate, we hope, will transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame of happiness — of human flourishing itself. We’re in for quite a night. A quick word about format: each of our debaters will have 30 minutes to make a substantial opening statement, to lay out an argument. Dr. Peterson first followed by Dr. Žižek. Each will then have, in the same order, 10 minutes to reply. I will then moderate 45 minutes or so of questions, many of which will come from you, the audience, both here in Toronto and online. With that, let’s get underway. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Jordan Peterson for the first opening statement. [applause] Well, thank you for that insanely enthusiastic welcome, for the entire event and also for being here. I have to tell you first that this event, and I suppose my life in some sense, hit a new milestone that I was just made aware of by a stagehand today backstage who informed me that last week, the tickets for this event were being scalped online at a higher price than the tickets for the Leaf’s playoff games. [cheering] [Peterson laughing] So I dunno what to make of that. Alright. So. How did I prepare for this? Uhm. I went — I familiarized myself to the degree that it was possible with Slavoj Žižek’s work, and that wasn’t that possible because he has a lot of work and he’s a very original thinker and this debate was put together in relatively short order. And what I did instead was return to what I regarded as the original cause of all the trouble, let’s say, which was the Communist Manifesto, [audience laughing] — and what I attempted to do — because that’s Marx, and we’re here to talk about Marxism, let’s say, and, umm… What I tried to do was read it, and to read something you don’t just follow the words and follow the meaning, but you take apart the sentences and you ask yourself, at this level of phrase and at the level of sentence and at the level of paragraph, “Is this true? Are there counterarguments that can be put forward that are credible?” “Is this solid thinking?” And I have to tell you, and I’m not trying to be flippant here, that I have rarely read a tract — now I read it when I was 18, it was a long time ago. That’s 40 years ago. I’ve rarely read a tract that made as many errors per sentence — conceptual errors per sentence as the Communist Manifesto. It was quite a miraculous re-read. And it was interesting to think about it psychologically as well because I’ve read student papers that were of the same ilk, in some sense, although I’m not suggesting that they were of the same level of glittering literary brilliance and polemic quality. And I also understand that the Communist Manifesto was a call for revolution and not a standard logical argument. But that notwithstanding, I have some things to say about that author’s psychologically. The first thing is that it doesn’t seem to me that either Marx or Engels grappled with one fundamental — with this particular fundamental truth which is that almost all ideas are wrong. And so, if you — It doesn’t matter if they’re your ideas or someone else’s ideas, they’re probably wrong, and even if they strike you with the force of brilliance your job is to assume, first of all, that they’re probably wrong, and then to assault them with everything you have in your arsenal and see if they can survive. And what struck me about the Communist Manifesto was, it was akin to something Jung said about typical thinking, and this was the thinking of people who weren’t trained to think. He said that the typical thinker has a thought, it appears to them like an object might appear in a room, the thought appears, and then they just accept it as true. They don’t go the second step, which is to think about the thinking. And that’s the real essence of critical thinking, and so that’s what you try and teach people in university, is to read a text and to think about it critically — not to destroy the utility of the text, but to separate the wheat from the chaff. And so what I tried to do when I was reading the Communist Manifest was to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I’m afraid I’ve found some wheat, yes, but mostly chaff. And I’m going to explain why, umm, hopefully, uhh, in relatively short order. So I’m going to outline 10 of the fundamental axioms of the Communist Manifesto. And so these are truths that are basically held as self-evident by the authors. They’re truths that are presented in some sense as unquestioned, and I’m going to question them and tell you why I think they’re unreliable. Now, we should remember that this tract was actually written 170 years ago — that’s a long time ago! And we have learned a fair bit since then about human nature, about society, about politics, about economics. There’s lots of mysteries left to be solved, but we are slightly wiser, I presume, than we were at one point and so you can forgive the authors to some degree for what they didn’t know but that doesn’t matter given that the essence of this doctrine is still held as sacrosanct by a large proportion of academics. Probably. Are among the most — what would you call? — guilty of that particular sin. So, here’s proposition number one: 1. History is to be viewed primarily as an economic class struggle. Alright, so let’s think about that for a minute. First of all, the proposition there is that history is primarily to be viewed through an economic lens, and I think that’s a debatable proposition because there are many other motivations that drive human beings than economics and those have to be taken into account. Especially that drive people other than economic competition, like economic cooperation, for example. And so, that’s a problem. The other problem is that it’s not nearly a pessimistic enough description of the actual problem because history history, this is to give the devil his due, The idea that one of the driving forces between history is hierarchical struggle is absolutely true. But the idea that that’s actually history is not true, because it’s deeper than history, it’s biology itself because organisms of all sorts organize themselves into hierarchies. And one of the problems with hierarchies is that they tend to arrange themselves into a winner-take-all situation and so, and that is implicit in some sense in Marxist thinking because, of course, Marx believed that in a capitalist society capital would accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And that actually is in keeping with the nature of hierarchical organizations. Now, the problem with that isn’t so much the fact of so there’s accuracy in the accusation that that is a eternal form of motivation for struggle but it’s an underestimation of the seriousness of the problem because it attributes it to the structure of human societies rather than the deeper reality of the existence of hierarchical structures per se, which as they also characterize the animal kingdom to a large degree are clearly not only human constructions. And the idea that there’s hierarchical cometeition among human beings, there’s evidence for that that goes back at least to the Paleolithic times. And so that’s the next problem, it’s that, well, this ancient problem of hierarchical structure is clearly not attributable to capitalism because it existed long in human history before capitalism existed and then it predated human history itself. So the question then arises, why would you necessarily, at least implicitly, link the class struggle with capitalism given that it’s a far deeper problem? And now, it’s also, you’ve gotta understand that this is a deeper problem for people on the left, not just for people on the right. It is the case that hierarchical structures dispossess those people who are at the bottom those creatures who are at the bottom, speaking, say of animals. — but those people who are at the bottom, and that is a fundamental existential problem. But the other thing that Marx didn’t seem to take into account is that there are far more reasons that human beings struggle than their economic class struggle even if you build the hierarchical idea into that, which is a more comprehensive way of thinking about it. Human beings struggle with themselves, with the malevolence that’s inside themselves, with the evil that they’re capable of doing, with the spiritual and psychological warfare that goes on within them, and we’re also actually always at odds with nature, and this never seems to show up in Marx. And it doesn’t show up in Marxism in general. It’s as if nature doesn’t exist. The primary conflict, as far as I’m concerned, or a primary conflict that human beings engage in is the struggle for life in a cruel and harsh natural world. And it’s as if that doesn’t exist in the Marxist domain. “If human beings have a problem it’s because there’s a class struggle, it’s essentially economic” it’s like, no! Human beings have problems because we come into the life starving and lonesome and we have to solve that problem continually, and we make our social arrangements, at least in part, to ameliorate that. As well as to, well, upon occasion exacerbate it. And so there’s also very little understanding in the Communist Manifesto that any of the hierarchical organizations that human beings have put together might have a positive element. And that’s an absolute catastrophe because hierarchical structures are actually necessary to solve complicated social problems, we have to organize ourselves in some manner, and you have to give the devil his due, and so it is the case that hierarchies dispossess people and that’s a big problem. That’s the fundamental problem of inequality. But it’s also the case that hierarchies happen to be a very efficient way of distributing resources and it’s finally the case that human hierarchies are not fundamentally predicated on power. And I would say the biological/anthropological data on that are crystal clear. You don’t rise to a position of authority that’s reliable in a human society primarily by exploiting other people. It’s a very unstable means of obtaining power, so — [audience jeering] so that’s a problem. Well, the people who laugh might do it that way. [laughter, applause]

Global Wealth Inequality – What you never knew you never knew (See description for 2017 updates)

People are talking a lot about
inequality these days… about the fact that the richest 1% have so much more than everybody
else. But most of the focus seems to be on the United States and it strikes me
that the same story needs to be told about global inequality, too. So I did some research, and this is what I found from reliable sources
like the UN. It turns out, that while the US is totally out of whack, things are actually
way worse for the planet as a whole. Let’s start with this graph a perfectly
even distribution of wealth among all living people, with everyone divided into five equal
groups. Now, let’s show how much each group actually has Shocking, right? 80% percent of the world’s people barely have any wealth, it’s
hard to even see them on the chart. Meanwhile, the richest 2%, they have more wealth than
half of the rest of the world. Let’s look at this chart another way. Let’s
take the whole world’s population all 7 billion of us and reduce it to
just a representative 100 individuals. Here they are, poorest people on the left, richest
people on the right. Now let’s show how the world’s total
wealth roughly 223 trillion dollars is distributed. The vast majority have practically nothing Nothing with which to educate their children, nothing with which to pay for basic
medicines. While the richest 1%… they’ve accumulated 43% of our world’s
wealth. The bottom 80%, meanwhile – that’s 8 out of every 10 people – have just 6% between
them. But even this doesn’t show how extreme things have
become. The richest 300 people on Earth have the same wealth as the poorest 3
billion So the number of people it takes to
fill a mid-size commercial aircraft have more wealth than the populations of India, China,
the US, and Brazil combined We can also see this inequality geographically,
with a huge and growing gap between a few rich places versus the majority of the
world. For most of history, things were much more equal. 200 years ago, rich countries were only 3 times richer than poor countries. By the
end of colonialism in the 1960s, they were 35 times richer. Today, they’re about 80 times richer. Rich countries try to compensate for this
by giving aid to poor countries – about 130 billion dollars each year. That’s a
lot of money. So then why does the wealth gap keep getting
bigger? One reason I found is that large corporations
are taking more than 900 billion dollars out of poor countries each year through a form of tax avoidance called trade mispricing. On top of this, each year poor countries are
paying about 600 billion dollars in debt service to rich countries, on loans that have already
been paid off many times over. And then there’s the money that poor countries
lose from trade rules imposed by rich countries to get access to more resources and cheaper
labor. Economists from the University of Massachusetts calculate that this costs poor countries about
500 billion dollars a year. All together, that’s more than 2 trillion
dollars that flows from some of the poorest parts of the world to the richest, every year.
Rich governments like to say they’re helping poor countries develop, but who’s developing
who here? This makes me think that there’s something
wrong with the basic rules of the global economy. It can’t be right that the wealth of our
planet is becoming so concentrated in the hands of such a tiny number of people.
The only reasonable response, it seems to me, and our only hope, is to change the rules.

Documentary: A Glitch in the Matrix (David Fuller production)

Sometimes there’s a glitch in the matrix where the limitations of the old operating system are laid bare and something new pokes through They’ve been dozens of responses to the jordan peterson channel for interview already. What makes this one different? Well, I have a pretty unique perspective in October last year I went to Toronto to interview Jordan Peterson at his home you came in from where I came in from London last night, I turned the interview into the first full-length documentary about Jordan Peterson’s ideas I Was pretty sure he’d soon become a lot more famous and be recognized as one of the most significant public thinkers but I couldn’t possibly have predicted how he’d break through to a mass audience a few weeks later Peterson did an interview with journalist Kathy Newman on Channel four News in the UK a Program I worked on as a reporter and producer for ten years It was a sensation Millions watched it online Tens of thousands commented an overwhelming majority felt Peterson had been unfairly represented And in the week since it hasn’t stopped Peterson has been asked about it constantly on the most high-profile online shows 12 rules for life so without reading this So what you’re saying is There’s only 12 things you need to do in life right, that’s it well yeah this This interview that you just did with this woman Kathy Newman shit was that in the UK it was Channel 4 UK so what does this glitch say about the state of mainstream media and the culture at large By diagnosis of what’s actually happening is that people are moving further and further away from? what is what thinking actually is I’m at or more into merely running a script and What does Jordan Peterson actually think that’s so controversial you are? misrepresented more than anyone I know in a weird way. You are villainized in a weird way where I can’t believe that these people are honestly looking at your opinions and Coming up with these conclusions. I believe this encounter struck such a nerve because it’s a cultural watershed moment But seen properly as Peterson would say it’s archetypal in that it contains layers and layers of meaning That go right to the heart of the biggest rift. We’re seeing playing out in the culture Over the next 50 minutes. I’m gonna do my best to unpack it From the clash between new and old media. There’s also why YouTube is gonna kill TV Because television by its nature all of these narrow broadcast technologies they rely on forcing the story all the way down to the mythological an Archetypal level I thought of ideologies as fragmentary mythologies That’s where they get their archetypal and psychological power, but in the postmodern world and this seems to be something that’s increasingly Seeping out into the culture at large you have nothing but the tyrannical father nothing But the destructive force of masculine consciousness and nothing, but the benevolent Benevolent great mother and it’s a it’s an appalling ideology, and it seems to me that it’s sucking the vitality Which is exactly what you’d expect symbolically It’s sucking the vitality of her culture and to ask how do we move forward constructively rather than just adding to the polarization? I’ve been a journalist for 16 years in the newsrooms of the BBC in channel 4 and then making documentaries I moved away from the frontline of news some time ago and started learning psychology Which is what first drew me to Jordan Peterson? from a distance I’ve started to see the blind spots of the establishment media much more clearly I Spent some of the best years of my working life at Channel 4 News and have a huge amount of respect And gratitude to the program But I’m making this film because I feel so strongly that if we can’t have open conversations about the kind of topics Peterson is raising We’re in serious trouble My book went up to number two and on in the US the next day right it’s number one in Canada it’s number three in the UK all on Amazon I Couldn’t have asked for more publicity right and so I could also be sitting back and saying well. You know she tried to My a person who regarded herself as my ideological opponent Tried to go after my philosophy and my reputation on national TV Failed brutally and has been taken apart for it. It’s like This is a good day, but I don’t regard it as a good day. I don’t think it’s a good day I think that it’s evidence of the Instability of the times that we’re in it would have been much better For me and for everyone else if what we would have had was a real conversation You said that it’s actually a sign of the times where things could go really wrong for all of us really soon Yeah, we’re playing with fire. Yeah, what do you mean by this? Can you can you elaborate? Well things go wrong in cultures all the time right you get you get the polarization Increases until people start to act it out Peterson is one of a new breed of thinkers made famous almost completely by the internet not the broadcast media Part of a powerful new informal network being called the intellectual dark web The mainstream media is based on an old dying model that is being replaced by new media And new technology so quickly that its faults are becoming glaringly obvious Fortunately, thanks to YouTube podcasting and however else you get shows like this one the mainstream media’s stranglehold on information Which really is a stranglehold on your ability to think clearly about the issues of the day is crumbling at an incredible rate? Now the question is who and what will replace it a few months ago one of my favorite people to sit across this table from Eric Weinstein came up with the phrase Intellectual dark web to describe this eclectic mix of people from Sam Harris to Ben Shapiro to his brother Brett Weinstein to jordan Peterson all of whom are figuring out ways to have the important and often dangerous Conversations that are completely ignored by the mainstream It’s why I would argue that this collection of people are actually more influential at this point than whatever collection of cable news pundits you can come up with If you think I’m being hyperbolic about the growing influence of this group just check the traction that these people get on Twitter or Facebook Compared to our mainstream competitors twitter may not be real life as I say in my Twitter bio But it is some barometer of what the zeitgeist is right now what unites this group of thinkers is a sense that the set of ideas that have run Western culture for years are breaking down and That the chaos of the moment is the attempt to find new ones It’s nearly all happening online part of the problem that we have right now in our culture is Trying to diagnose the level at which the discussion should be taking place And I think the reason that this is a tumultuous time is because it actually is a time for discussion of first principles and it’s that first principles are Virtually at the level of theology because the first principles are the things that you assume and then move forwards like well What should we assume well the dignity of the human soul let’s start with that you can’t treat yourself properly without assuming that you Have a relationship with another person you can’t stabilize your family You can’t have a functional society, so what does it mean for this human soul to have dignity? well The part of the idea is that you’re participating in Creation itself and you do that with your actions in your language And you get to decide whether you’re tilting the world a bit more towards heaven or a bit more towards hell And that’s actually what you’re doing so that’s a place where the literal and the metaphorical truth comes together and people are very They’re terrified of that idea as they should be because it’s a massive responsibility They also argue that the central problem is polarization boosted by social media Peterson’s work looks at how people are hard-wired to see the world differently a lot of what determines your political orientation is Biological temperament far more than people realize so for example left-leaning people liberals, let’s say although that’s kind of MIS misnomer, but We’ll keep with the terminology liberals are high in a trait called openness, which is one of the big five personality traits And it’s associated with interest in abstraction and interest in aesthetics it’s the best predictor of liberal political leaning and they’re low in trait conscientiousness, which is dutifulness and and Orderliness in particular whereas the Conservatives are the opposite? They’re high in conscientiousness They’re dutiful and orderly and they’re low in openness and that makes them really good managers and administers ministers and often businessman But not very good entrepreneurs Because the entrepreneurs are almost all drawn from the liberal types and so These are really fundamental fundamentally biologically predicated differences, and they’re you might think about them as different sets of Opportunities and limitations, and and certainly different ways of screening the world and Each of those different temperamental types needs the other type Let’s call this a diversity issue if you start understanding that the person that you’re talking to who doesn’t share your political views isn’t Stupid that’s the first thing necessarily. They might be but so might you be no stupid. He isn’t the Differences in intelligence are not the prime determinant of differences in political belief All right so you might be talking to someone who’s More conscientious and less creative than you if you’re if you happen to be a liberal But that doesn’t mean that that person’s perspective is not valid And it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t outperform you in some domains because they would so one thing to remember is People actually do see the world differently. It’s not merely that they that they’re possessed of love ilie informed opinions the whole point of the dava democracy is to Continue the dialogue between people of different Temperamental types so that we don’t move so far to the right that everything becomes encapsulated and stone and doesn’t move or so far to the left and everything dissolves in a kind of Mealy-mouthed chaos and the only way that you can you can navigate between those two Shoals is by is through discussion, which is why free speech is such an important value It’s the thing that keeps the temperamental types from being at each other’s throats in The aftermath of the Trump election that came as such a shock to most of the media One of the most widely shared analysis pieces was from deep code It describes how the establishment mainstream media perspective based around liberal values of openness and inclusivity He calls the blue church is being challenged by a new web-based insurgency a red religion based on the values of tribalism The culture were the the 20th century was a decisive success for blue any effectively a route for red So what we see first is that red was forced to move into a deeply exploratory phase Second that it did this in a context Where as it turns out? things were changing meaningfully quite significantly in fact it from my perspective in a world historical level the emergence of entirely new forms of communication and therefore entirely new sense-making and coherence He concludes that the blue church is in the process of collapse as its dominant ideology Can’t adapt to changing reality But that a combination of the two sets of values of blue and red is essential we are conscious and Effective in the world in groups, not as individuals and the ingredients of those groups Include aspects that are currently showing up as both red and blue I Propose somewhat strongly that Neither red nor blue as pure Elements contain the ingredients necessary to actually be adaptive to reality This is a disaster in fact It’s a little bit like Separating the hand and the eye Now you’re the eye can see if the eye takes itself as being the essence of virtue it separates itself from the ability to do The same thing with the hand for most of human history these groups have actually always commingled They’re necessary that they actually relate to each other in a deeply healthy and direct fashion their separations into armed camps is Extinction area actually you know the values of red that you think blue needs to integrate you also may also reintegrate. Oh well That’s actually pretty easy Responsibility I mean we’ve actually even seen it The ability to Make a commitment and keep it Which which by the way ideologically shows up is either duty or loyalty, but those are both ideologies the the deeper sense is that ability Responsibility both of the individual in the group level the ability to actually really make a Personal sacrifice on the part of the group that’s actually a deeply read value and I don’t mean that by the way as Politically ideological certainly there are people who? Are currently part of blue who feel that deeply what I’m saying is that that shows up much much more intensely in Read and when you’re feeling it in blue. You’re actually feeling a red value, and that’s good mixing is crucial Because that’s very Jordan Peterson esque – How would you how do you define Jordan Peterson? Or do you think the fact the issue is that he is is not definable within one of those two camps Yeah, I think that’s the point I think that he grasps directly the fact that human beings can only actually make sense of the world by virtue of communication with other human beings and this is all about the notion of admixture that one must have a mixture of of What I mean he uses the mythopoetic to make sense the order order and chaos The way right the taoist way is the alchemical admixture of order and chaos And that’s it like that’s how you do it, and so if you bias towards orderliness You find yourself in a rigid non adaptive non creative non exploratory framework Which will die because the world changes if you bias towards chaos You you eat your young and evaporate Which also ties for obvious reasons? And the key is to actually enable these things to be in relationship with each other and vital healthy relationship with each other, and I think that’s in some sense the essence of what he’s Focusing on and instead of the core what he’s asking about Peterson is hard for the broadcast media to get a handle on Because the depth of his thought means he doesn’t fit easily into any of their categories The clash with Kathy Newman was his breakthrough a moment where the new world met the old To give the context from Kathy Newman side she has to do dozens of interviews each month Peterson is hard to get a grip on and he sure as hell looks controversial She’s also focused on getting sound bites for a five minute cut down of the interview for TV. Not a long conversation for online The interview was ridiculous. It was a ridiculous interviewing. I listen to it or watched it several times I was like this is so strange It’s like her determination to turn into a conflict – it’s one of the issues that I have with Television shows yeah, because they have a very limited amount of time, and they’re trying to make things as salacious as possible They wouldn’t have these sound bites these clickbait sound bites And she just went into it incredibly confrontational not trying to find your actual perspective But trying to force you to defend a non non realistic perspective. Yes well I was that I was the hypothetical villain of her imagination essentially. No this is also. Why YouTube is gonna kill TV Because television by its nature all of these narrow broadcast technologies they rely on forcing the story right because It has to happen now It has to happen in like often in five minutes because they only broadcast five minutes of that in interview They did put the whole thing up on YouTube to their credit It it it hasn’t ceased to amaze me yet. I think that they thought that the interview went fine after the interview Channel four News found themselves at the center of an online storm Which included some nasty personal and misogynistic attacks? It’s understandable that they just wanted it to go away But online is forever and as the center of gravity continues to shift away from traditional media this interview is I would argue a slow-motion and Continuing car crash for Channel 4’s credibility, so why did it happen? Partly the limitations of the medium of TV, but also because of the institutional political blindness of the mainstream media I’ve always considered myself of the liberal left, but especially since the election of Trump I’ve been trying to understand what happened and I’m convinced that the polarization We’re seeing is mainly driven by the shadow side of liberalism in particular where supposedly Inclusive social justice liberalism stops being inclusive and secretly judges and despises people that don’t think the same way the rebellion of Trump and brexit was a direct response as Yuri Harris argues in this article in Colet the new gatekeepers of the media have become a new bourgeoisie Enforcing a rigid etiquette and using the rights of the oppressed as an excuse to put forward a vision of the kind of society they personally want to live in on the surface level it’s about how a narrow social justice worldview embodied by Kathy Newman in the interview became the new status quo and How this institutional bias of much of the mainstream media? Means it can’t see or understand the forces that are challenging this new consensus The counterculture used to be on the left, but once it won. The culture war it left space for a new counterculture The biggest manifestation is the red pill phenomena which the mainstream media? Mistakenly assumes is the same thing as the OLT right? I was surprised to just discover the overlap between What I minute II particularly like Greek philosophy and stoicism and The alt-right who I’ve always thought of you know if I come across on the tour. I thought the most kind Swivel-eyed bogeymen you know completely unpalatable extremists in their in their basements and then to discover that You know a lot of them were a lot of people in stoicism were also really into the alt-right Made me wonder. What was going on and why? People like me were getting radicalized I’m drawn into if you explain. What stoicism is for Stoicism is basically an ancient Greek philosophy, which was became very popular in the Roman Empire You know with like the Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a stoic for example? And it’s in some ways like a Western form of Buddhism It’s like a therapy for the emotions it teaches you to take Responsibility for your thoughts to take and thereby to take some control over your emotions so in some ways it’s putting forward a model of strength and integrity and kind of resilience Amid adversity and rapid change so for that reason it’s become very popular in the last 10 years I Think this is also. Why from my perspective at least someone like Jordan Pederson Is often looked from the outside as being aligned with the alt-right because he has a similar message But it’s but there are crucial differences. I think between what we would consider I mean certainly white nationalism would be an essential part of the alt-right I would say of any useful definition, and yeah, that’s that’s certainly not characteristic of of Jordan Peterson from my experience No, there’s a crucial difference at least between stoicism and the alt-right Even though a lot of alt writers into stoicism in that stoicism, and and maybe Jordan Peterson as well I don’t know. I’m not an expert on him talk about the way to gain strength and maturity and power is Internal it’s to take responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings Whilst I think people sometimes men might look for that sense of power and control externally by suppressing or Segregating anyone who they feel threatened by whether that’s other colours or other sexualities or Gender so there’s a crucial difference there one is about kind of inner Integrity and and and just kind of being strong within yourself and the other is about trying to take control through the kind of exterior I Mean every public appearance that I’ve made that’s related to the sort of topics that were discussing is overwhelmingly men It’s like it’s like eighty-five to ninety percent And so I thought wow that’s weird like what the hell’s going on here exactly, and then the other thing. I’ve noticed is that? I’ve been talking a lot to the crowds that I’ve been talking to not about rights But about responsibility right because you can’t have the bloody converse. What are you doing? You can’t have the conversation about rights without the conversation about responsibility because your rights are my Responsibility that’s what they are Technically, so you just can’t have only half of that discussion, and we’re only having half that discussion the question is well What the hell are you leaving out if you only have that half of the discussion and the answer is what you’re leaving out Responsibility and then the question is well What are you leaving out if you’re leaving out responsibility and the answer might be well, maybe you’re leaving out the meaning of life That’s what it looks like to me. It’s like here you are Suffering away, what makes it worthwhile, right? You know you’re completely. Oh, you’re completely you have no idea what you’re You it’s almost impossible to describe how bad an idea that is responsibility That’s what gives life meaning It’s like lift a load Then you can tolerate yourself right because look at your useless Easily hurt easily killed. Why should you have any self-respect? That’s the story of the fall Pick something up and carry it pick make it heavy enough so that you can think yeah well Useless as I am at least I could move that from there to there well What’s really cool about that is that when I talk to these crowds about this the man’s eyes light and that’s very good I’ve seen that phenomena because I’ve been talking about this Mythological material for a long time and I can see when I’m watching crowds people you know their eyebrows lift their eyes let light up Because I put something together for them. That’s what mythological stories. Do so I’m not taking responsibility for that That’s what the stories do so I say the story and people go click click click You know in their eyes light up, but this responsibility thing That’s a whole new order of this is that young men are so hungry for that. It is unbelievable. It just blows me away It’s like really that’s what’s that’s the counterculture? Grow the hell up and do something useful really I could do that oh I’m so excited by that idea no one ever mentioned that before it’s like rights rights rights rights Jesus It’s it’s it’s appalling. It’s and and I feel that that’s deeply felt by the people who are who are coming out to To listen to these sorts of things to they’re they’ve had enough of that So and they better have because it’s it’s a non-productive mode of being responsibility man Peterson is part of the counterculture that he describes himself as a classic liberal and yet he’s frequently Described as right-wing by the media This is not limited to Peterson James d’amours infamous Google memo was described everywhere as an anti diversity screed Despite him specifically stating he wanted to encourage more diversity in the workplace Many believe that the Channel 4 interview was a significant moment in exposing this mindset as dogmatic reactionary and fixed so during the interview we see an example of a Delusional framework that is what appears to be largely incapable of perceiving and reacting to reality in real time but much more interesting is what happened afterwards which was the sort of the self-healing and policing mechanism of the larger social consensus of how when how the blue church Reactively goes about maintaining the integrity of its frame And so what ended up happened was there was a break in the frame there was a glitch in the matrix the Mechanisms of the blue church reacted to endeavor to control the frame and to convert it into a way of sense of Making sense of the what occurred that still maintained the integrity of its frame? Do you mean when they tried to characterize it as sort of? abusive trolls and you’re right hero, and all of that exactly exactly it’s sort of a to use of a military language it was a fallback position that was a Reactive almost instinctual and not almost in fact precisely instinct was that pure habit there was no Thoughtfulness or even strategic Action there it was if if X then Y and in this case Y is. Here’s a set of things that one does to re-establish the dominant frame and Now we’re now were two levels deep you know the first. Level was a sort of self-evident disaster, but then the second level was also a relatively self-evident disaster and There isn’t really a third level In this approach so it ends up happening, and this is again. You can kind of just think about this from ordinary psychology This is how? delusions fall apart As try as we might our desire to interpret reality to mean what we wanted to mean at the end of the day. We’ll always Be checked against what reality actually is It may be some time. You know we’re pretty good at making things up and pretending, but eventually Reality is reality this isn’t to say that Peterson is not controversial He’s saying things that challenge the most deeply held assumptions of the new establishment narrative I guess the other reason that people are on My case to some degree is because I have made a strong case which I think is fully documented by the scientific literature that there Are intrinsic differences say between men and women and I think the evidence and that this is the thing that staggered me is that? No serious scientists have debated that for like four decades It’s that argument was done by the time. I went to graduate school everyone knew that human beings were not a blank slate that biological forces not Parameterised the way that we thought and and felt and acted and and and valued everyone knew that the fact that this has become somehow debatable again is just Especially because it’s being done by legislative Fiat. They’re forcing it Part of Peterson’s argument based on years of psychological research is that much of the political? Conflicts are due to try to integrate the different political temperaments of men and women we were talking about the relatively the relative evolutionary roles of men and women this is speculative obviously and and Because our research did indicate. It’s tentative research so far that that the the the SG is SJW sort of equality above all else philosophy is more prevalent among women It’s predicted by the personality factors that are more common among women so agreeable this and high negative emotion Primarily agreeableness, but in addition. It’s also predicted by being female and so I’ve been thinking about that a lot because well men are bailing out of the humanities like mad and Pretty much out of the university is except for stem the women are moving in like mad And they’re also moving into the political sphere like mad, and this is new right we’ve never had this happen before and we do know know do not know what the Significance of it is it’s only 50 years old and so we were thinking about this and so I don’t know what you think about this proposition, but imagine that that that historically speaking, it’s something like Women were responsible for distribution and men were responsible for production Something like that and maybe maybe that’s only the case really in the tight confines of the immediate family But that doesn’t matter because that’s most of the evolutionary landscape for human beings anyways what the women does did was make sure that everybody Got enough okay, and that seems to me to be one of the things that’s driving at least in part the SJW demand for for equity and Equality it’s like let’s make sure everybody has enough. It’s like look fair enough You know I mean you can’t you can’t argue with that but there’s there’s an antipathy between that and The the reality of differential productivity you know because people really do differ in their productivity I think that the SJW phenomena is different and I think it is associated at least in part with the rise of women to political power and and We don’t know what women are like when they have political power because they’ve never had it I mean there’s been queens obviously and that sort of thing there’s been female authority figures and females have Wielded far more power historically than feminists generally like to admit, but this is a different thing And we don’t know what what a truly female political philosophy would be like, but it might be Especially if it’s not been well examined And it isn’t very sophisticated conceptually it could easily be let’s make sure things you’ve distributed equally. Well, yeah Why One of Peterson’s main influences is the psychologist Carl Jung Young psychology was built around the concept of the shadow all the things about ourselves. We don’t want to accept our anger negativity Unconscious judgments, and how we need to integrate all those disowned parts to grow I’m convinced. That’s what’s happening on a vast cultural level since leaving channel 4 news I’ve retrained as a counselor and started leading personal growth workshops for men And thought a lot about how these unconscious gender dynamics are playing out in the culture One of the central concepts is Jung’s idea of animus and anima possession How each have both an inner masculine and feminine essence in? A man when he’s unconsciously possessed by his feminine side his anima he becomes withdrawn Moody and reactive and when a woman is possessed by her male side the animus she becomes aggressive and dominating and How many women are pushed into that by the nature of the modern workplace? The Kathy Newman I know is warm compassionate a successful and talented journalist none of this is criticism of her Just the role she was playing in the interview I would say technically and this is might be interesting for people who are interested in union psychology If you want to understand what Carl Jung meant by animus possession which is a very difficult concept? Then that that interview was a textbook case of having a discussion with someone who is animus possessed life has been moving forward for three and a half billion years and It moves forward in these pattered and manners like the dominance hierarchy for example, so that’s that let’s call that the masculine archetype It’s part of the masculine archetype in fact the onus Proclamation was that the female representation of the male so that’s the animus is the Dominance hierarchy it’s the patriarchy So that’s that that’s the unconscious archetype, which I think is extremely interesting given what’s happened say in the women’s movement because that’s what’s projected onto men and and It can be projected in a very negative way it doesn’t have to be but it can be and so an animus possessed woman treats a man as if he’s the Manifestation of the tyrannical patriarchy he’s a group he’s that group of men Yeah, the group of bad men actually you watched the Jordan Peterson Kathy Newman entity. What did he what did he think I? My whole body contracted, and I I felt so sad for womanhood I felt disappointed and I Could see how the shadow part of womanhood was acting out I could see how the collective rage was acting through Kathy Newman and This is what happens is that when that’s unknown its projected blindly on to Whatever stick wherever it sticks and it was very clear that she already had an agenda and she already had a projection that she was just Looking to state she was she was just looking to have that confirmed so I felt on behalf of women I felt sad and disappointed because we need to have intelligent conversations, and I also want to say that this isn’t even though the the specific example is the Kathy Newman Jordan Peterson interview, it’s not specific to – Kathy Newman I think the fact that that interview has resonated with so many people that it’s been so popular shows that actually something archetypal was going on in that in that interaction And I think as well why it’s gone viral is a lot of people watching it Recognize those dynamics. They’re like I’ve been in conversations like that I’ve been in this conversation where nothing I say works where nothing I say gets through So there’s something sort of fundamental about about the masculine feminine dynamic. That’s going on in there What do you think that is I think Jordan Peterson? He’s everyman Kathy Newman She’s every woman I can tap into that rage like this I know it in myself and women that say they don’t they’re just denying it because it is in the collective So in that sense it just highlighted what what’s that? It’s wonderful because here we really get to look at why is this so? Important why is it so important to listen to? To a thinker like Jordan Peterson and take it seriously and say what can we do with it? It’s just so obvious that it’s needed Because if this is where we are if this is where society and cultures is if this is the ability to have an intelligent conversations Conversation then we are in trouble, I really feel that there is this collective subconscious rage that is just boiling in women and it’s coming up in so many ways we see we see in the media and What’s going on is this? unknown Rage that comes up in in many different ways um And on one hand it needs to come out we need to clear it it needs to be expressed it needs to Be acknowledged on the other hand it’s not enough. This is only like this is breaking the ice So that the next step of evolution, can you know? Consciousness can start coming through and that’s what I’m lacking in women. It’s really to take responsibility for what we do as women in our Manipulation in our seduction in our control, and and it’s so easy for women to say but that’s just because we angry and men did this and patriarchy, but it’s It’s such a lack of responsibility and this Women really need to know I mean, that’s the the kind of shadow work is The acceptance that we all have shadows that men certainly have a shadow. There is a shadow around masculinity but there’s also a shadow around femininity and while part of the cultural conversation now is toxic masculinity and everyone knows what you mean by toxic toxic masculinity if You talk about toxic femininity Everyone still knows what you mean, but you can’t have that conversation Which is it’s it’s interesting? What is allowed to be said and what is not allowed to be said at the moment and that that I think is? is very Dangerous that certain topics certain conversations are off are off-limits And this is where we see where we see the victim persecutor dynamics activates it because women become the become the victims, and we make ourselves the victims and we Persecute men but in that aggression in that rage and when we are the victims. We are in perfect control we become the persecutors because we say It’s all about blame Men did this and men need to take responsibility But in that we become the persecutors, and it’s also very difficult as well because one imagines that that Combative attitude is something that has served her well in the past and it’s something that She’s maybe felt forced into because of the nature of the society that she’s operating in so it’s a kind of catch-22 situation for the many successful women because they feel that they’re pushed to be more masculine and Then when they’re more masculine they get judged for being more masculine It’s it’s very sad and and and I can see that dynamics being played out absolutely But I think the only thing we can do is to take responsibility okay? I’m doing that do I really want to compromise my femininity do I want to compromise my integrity? Do I want to compromise my gender and? Play that or is there another way that I can be powerful without being aggressive without playing a power game But resting in my natural power resting in my natural dignity Resting in that deep rootedness that we both have in our genders that When we are peace with it and when we acknowledge it in ourselves It’s there as a natural thing and and this is the thing I don’t want to make this personal about Kathy Newman Because it’s it’s in that potential is in every woman, but it’s because we are persecuting our own femininity What’s being played out that we’re doing it to ourselves because we don’t trust that it’s good enough to be a woman We don’t trust that we can have conversations that come from a felt embodied perspective. We don’t trust that we’re connected to truth because these these Masculine ways have been have been very strong and women have been denying their own power In my work over many years of working with this I find that very few women Grew up in households which really? Loved admired respected honored cherished the feminine and So there is intrinsically for so many women who’ve grown up in the I don’t know the last hundred years that say A kind of devaluation of the feminine that gets taken on and of course and as well as abuse aggression all sorts of things so very Many women out of an intelligent strategy to survive Develop their masculine side as a defense against that devaluation for the feminine and over time they become very Identified with that masculine side the male equivalent is animal possession in anima possession it’s the loss of relaxed confidence in the Groundedness in the masculine and is overwhelmed by his own inner feminine side a passive withdrawn moody bitchy Complaining not showing up kind of guy, which I think is really so much what feminists are angry about I Don’t see them as really angry about the masculine per se but it the way that Males behave, and you know I have got a lot of compassion for that Because for myself and most men that I know we weren’t really shown how to be as men We didn’t really get initiated into it and so and then this strong thing comes from feminism And we feel like it’s it’s maleness. That’s wrong, and it’s not it’s not maleness. That’s wrong. I don’t even think feminism feminists hate The masculine it’s like what the call is really for men is to develop their masculine strength presence courage be relaxed and confident be protective and be strong and Under this kind of assault which has come from a lot of animus possessed women a lot of men have retreated And I think gone into feeling guilty about being men and have become passive Indecisive and in that way a kind of feminized man has emerged Those who followed Peterson’s thought recognize his analysis goes all the way down to the bedrock to the Archetypal structures of consciousness itself the thing that I really see happening and you can tell me what you think about this in annoyance book Consciousness which is masculine symbolically masculine for a variety of reasons is is viewed as rising up? against the countervailing force of tragedy from an underlying Feminine symbolically feminine unconsciousness right and it’s something that can always be pulled back into that unconsciousness That would be the microcosm of that would be the Freudian eatable mother Familial dynamic where the mother is so over Protective and all-encompassing that she interferes with the development of the competence not only of her sons But also of her daughter of her children in general, and it seems to me that that’s the dynamic That’s being played out in our Society right now is that there’s this and it’s it’s related in some way that I don’t understand to this to this Insistence that all forms of masculine Authority are nothing, but tyrannical power so the symbolic representation is tyrannical father with no appreciation for the benevolent father and benevolent mother with no appreciation whatsoever for the tyrannical mother right and that’s that and Because I thought of ideologies as fragmentary mythologies That’s where they get their archetypal and psychological power right and so in a balanced representation you have the terrible mother and the Great Mother as Anointment laid out so nicely and you have the terrible father and the great father So that’s the fact that culture mangles you have to death well It’s also promoting you and developing you you have to see that as balanced, and then you have the heroic and adversarial individual But in the postmodern world and this seems to be something that’s increasingly Seeping out into the culture at large you have nothing but the tyrannical father nothing But the destructive force of masculine consciousness and nothing, but the benevolent Benevolent great mother and it’s a it’s an appalling ideology, and it seems to me that it’s sucking the vitality Which is exactly what you would expect symbolically, it’s sucking the vitality of our culture you see that with the increasing demolition of of young men And not only young men in terms of their academic performance Which like they’re falling way behind in elementary school way behind in junior high and bailing out of the universities like mad and so And I well the public school education it’s become completely permeated by this kind of my anti male propaganda I mean, and I need to mean public schools are just a form of imprisonment. You know right now They’re particularly destructive to young men who have a lot of physical energy You know you know I identify as transgender gay mic myself way But I do not I do not require the entire world To alter itself okay to fit my particular the self-image I do believe in The power of hormones I believe that men exist and women exist and they are biologically different. I think that I think there is no cure for the culture eles right now except if men start standing opera in demanding that they be Respected as men here’s the problem You know this is something my wife is pointed out to she said well men are gonna have to stand up for themselves But here’s the problem. I know how to stand up to a man who’s Who’s? unfairly Trespassing against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined Which is we talk? We argue? We push and then it becomes physical? Right like if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse We know what the next step is ok, that’s forbidden in in discourse with women So I don’t know like it seems to me that it isn’t men that have to stand up and say enough of this even though That is what they should do it seems to me that it’s saying women Who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say look enough of that enough man-hating enough? Pathology enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender but the problem there And then I’ll stop my little tirade is that most of the women. I know who are saying are busy doing same things, right? They’re off they have their career. They have their family They’re quite occupied And they don’t seem to have the time or maybe even the interest to go after their their crazy harpy sisters And so I don’t see any regulating force for that that terrible femininity, and it seems to me to be Invading the culture and undermining the the masculine power of the culture in a way, that’s I think fatal I really do believe that I too I too believe these are symptomatic of the decline of Western culture And we and it will just go down flat. I don’t think people realize that you know Masculinity still exists okay in the world as a code among jihadists, okay? And when you have passionate masculinity, okay? Circling the borders like the Huns and the Vandals during the Roman Empire that that’s what I see I see this culture rotting from within okay, and disemboweling itself literally We have this Bit of combat let’s say It produced a scandal Now we actually talked about it Yeah No tricks just a conversation And then everybody wins right because I can admit whatever mistakes I made she can admit whatever mistakes She made we can drop the persona So you’re saying the polarization that we’re seeing right now that we are speaking out. It’s not In the future we will act out that polarization well if we don’t if we keep Accelerating it especially if we keep accelerating with lies. Yeah, you know and and this this whole channel for Rat’s nest is like 90% lies. Maybe more and You know a lot of its ideologically motivated lies, but it doesn’t matter it still lies like Kathy as I said There was virtually nothing she said in that interview that was actually Coming from her like like a deep part of her the soul of her or so it was all persona It was all persona and and and all use of words in a in a Expedient manner as tools to obtain I think probably probably status dominant status and reputation I mean what advice would you give to people to? To navigate this new world the first is for your mind. Be aware of the fact that the habits of the blue church and And how it works Don’t work anymore recognize that your way of making sense in the world that used to work Don’t work, and you really really need to set yourself free to begin learning the new child’s mind beginner’s mind second this by nature must in fact be exploratory so Swim, do not make sense prematurely in spite of the fact that the world feels dangerous inside of that you may want to protect yourself in this dangerous world Doing so too quickly did not allow the natural exploratory Approach to do what it needs to do really, just listen and Learn go all the way dad back down to human base Turn inward Learn how fear shows up in you Learn how not to allow fear to drive the choices that you make Learn how to listen to the whole way that all of you perceives. What’s going on become more integrated with your own body Go out into nature Spend a lot of time not connected to the chaos That’s going on and a lot of time Reconnecting yourself with your fundamental capacity to perceive reality in all the different modalities these human beings have the capacity to do Then relearn how to use other human beings as allies in figuring out how to make sense of the world I mean that really relearn like we have been abused and constrained by institutional frameworks that remove us from our own native capabilities So relearn that understand how to be a friend and an ally how to have a conversation with somebody where you’re really listening closely To get a sense of what their perspective brings to you where you’re not obligated to agree with them We are not obligated to move out of what you feel is right to form some new Consensus reality, but where you’re actually authentically? Recognizing that their perspective has some capacity to bring richness to your perspective This by the way is almost exclusively possible in person and what we’re doing right now is an OK version of it But we need to be very mindful the fact that Linear broadcast is bad and even interactive Bandwidth like this. It’s not good enough. You know you’ve got to learn from raw Physical and get yourself into places where your consensus reality, and your habits are willfully destroyed Human to human conversations and and get as far away from ideology as you can Your job is not to know what the fuck is going on Your job is to be absolutely certain that you have no idea what the fuck is going on and learn how to feel from raw chaos from raw uncertainty up Then and only then are you finally able to begin the journey of Beginning to form a collective intelligence in this new environment That’s my advice this is why we’ve created rebel wisdom to host these conversations to try and unpack what’s going on and through our workshops and events Start to build this collective intelligence for the future To see longer versions of the interviews featured in this film and our full-length documentary about Jordan Peterson check the rebel wisdom website Help us create more films about these subjects by sponsoring us on patreon and come to our events to have these conversations in person You

How We’ll Win The Culture War

Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well. Today’s political landscape is, for
lack of a better term, a bit of a mess. It is characterised by two
warring camps, one on the left, one on the right, plus a large group
of exasperated, disaffected centrists and moderates in the middle,
whose necks are getting increasingly sore watching the back and
forth, back and forth of the bitter ideological tennis match that is the
culture war in 2019. It started off as a few hypersensitive university
students lamenting being “triggered” over certain words and
demanding safe spaces being gently poked fun at by snarky, witty,
highly amusing, very attractive right wingers who were sick of
being told what to think and say. However, it has turned into a vicious war
of not just words, but actions. From online dogpiling, to professional sabotage,
doxing, street brawling, and even mass loss of life;
the culture war has escalated to a place it never, ever needed
to go. So, how did we get to this point? Well, before I tell you how, pretty
please make sure you like this video, subscribe to my channel if you
haven’t already, and hit that notification button. Goodness knows
what’s going on with the algorithm at the moment, so if you like my
videos and don’t want to miss any, then I’d love you to like, subscribe
and smash that notification button right…now. Thank you! Here we
go. The left will have you believe the political
tension, or “division” as they call, it is caused by racist, sexist,
bigoted conservatives spewing so called hate speech led by a man named Donald
Trump who is apparently the second coming of Mussolini. To be clear, when I say the left, I mean the
“regressive” left; the faction teetering on the extreme, who, while
making up small minority of the population, occupy a disproportionate
number of influential positions in the media, academia,
Hollywood, and big tech. This allows them to dictate the cultural narrative,
and determine what is and isn’t publicly acceptable
to talk about. The right, however, will tell you this cultural
friction is caused by the blunt refusal of the regressive left to consider
opposing opinions, as well as their vicious smearing of any opposition. After all, if you tell a
group of people, that is conservatives, often enough that their entire
moral core is questionable because they support a certain political
candidate, you’ve got to expect that maybe those people will get a
little bit angry, eventually. And considering the left’s hostility i has
amped up bigly since the election of Donald Trump, for no other reason
than they are such appallingly sore losers, it’s no wonder
we have a reached a point where certain members of the two ideological
camps are role playing at civil war. From what I have observed and experienced
over the past few years, the regressive left, with their neo-Marxist
mentality of pitting people against each other as either the oppressed
or the oppressors, seems to have made it their sole mission to inflame
these tensions. So much
that conservatives, after years of ignoring or downplaying the
provocations, are starting to react. This is quite a big deal, because conservatives
are not naturally reactionary. Conservatism is not about reacting to things
so much as conserving what is good and true and functional. Conservatives want
to create and maintain, rather than react and destroy. Leftism, on the other hand, is by definition
a reactionary ideology. They are not about building things up; they
prefer to tear things down, with no discernible plan of what to
construct in their wake. It is in their nature to poke and prod and
harangue conservatives, to proverbially stick it to the man. Funny thing is, what the regressive
left doesn’t realise is that they already won that culture war back in
the 90s, and now they are the proverbial “man” to which people are
sticking it. Considering the tendency of the right to placate
rather than react, the regressive left has been dealt a surprising
hand in recent years, with right wingers finally making it known
they are fed up with the left’s rudeness. One thing I noticed after the 2016 election
is that it always seemed to the regressive left who were
suddenly talking about this “division” in society, and
how everyone was “divided”. And I remember thinking, uh, this isn’t
a new thing; everyone has always hated you, it’s only now that people
feel empowered to say so. You could say that the regressive left is
the ideological equivalent of Mean Girls Regina George So, why am I relaying my concerns and mournful
musings about the state of the culture war? Well, because, no joke, the West is on the
brink of devouring itself. We’ve seen this multiple times with the
violence perpetrated by Antifa, and also more recently the mass loss
of life caused by right wing extremists. There are a number of people out there who
are very keen to escalate, and I think we can all agree this
needs to not happen any more than it already has. Now, I’ve seen commentary from people who
tend to be somewhere in the so-called sensible centre lamenting
the fact there is not enough listening going on; that the two sides
are failing to hear and understand each other, and that’s why there’s
so much resentment and vitriol. Well, that, I think, is a load of rubbish. Conservatives do listen to leftists, because
we have no choice. All
they do is talk, we couldn’t not listen if we tried. They are so noisy,
and as I mentioned before, occupy such a large chunk of institutions
like the media there’s literally no escaping them. And the thing is,
conservatives are happy to listen! We don’t find hearing opposing
views offensive simply because they’re opposing views. The reverse,
however, is just not true. The extreme left is more than happy to admit
they will not absorb any opposing viewpoint. That’s why they demonize outlets like Fox News and Breitbart as fascist and company. It’s so they can excuse
themselves from tuning in on moral grounds; and thus avoid the
sheer trauma of listening to people they don’t agree with. They are
also much more likely than conservatives to break off friendships
over politics. A survey taken after the 2016 US election
by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute found Democrats
were almost three times more likely than Republicans to
have unfriended someone on social media after the election. There was a similar
disparity for self-identified leftists versus conservatives. Democrat women were by far the most likely
to unfriend someone because of politics, with 30% of them saying
they had done so. This
was followed by Democrat men, at 14%, then Republican women at
10%, then Republican men at 8%. Funny how those who so rigidly
preach tolerance show the most extraordinary intolerance while
doing so, amirite? This unashamed habit of packing themselves
into echo chambers, demonizing any opposing voices as morally
repugnant, and slicing people into tribes based on arbitrary characteristics
like race and gender, is why the regressive left, not conservatives,
are responsible for the division in society. I’m calling it, there it is. And they will
never, ever, ever see it. They will never admit fault, or consider that
somehow their behaviour is less than appropriate, because
they are so sure that they are the true, pure, moral, enlightened
class. Therefore, they feel
they are justified in being as vicious and as cruel as they want to anyone who disagrees with them, because they
believe those people are not only wrong, but evil reprehensible
scum. That’s the key difference between the left
and the right. The right
think the left are naïve, but the left think the right are evil. Big and
very significant distinction. Once you understand that, you
understand the mindset that we are dealing with. There is no
measure these people will not go to in order to protect their
narrative. So, if not enough listening, at least from
the right, isn’t the problem, then what is? Well, I would say it’s not enough talking,
specifically, talking from conservatives. As I mentioned earlier, conservatives are
not naturally reactionary. We’re also, funnily enough, not interested
in engaging in conversation with people who are going to
screech RACIST at us whenever we suggest something so horribly
radical as perhaps open borders aren’t such a good idea. That is what has landed us in this mess. Because of conservatives’
totally understandable unwillingness to let their opposition screech
at them publicly about what bad people they are, the regressive left
has been led to believe that their way is objectively the correct way
of thinking and speaking. And because there is no ideological balance
in popular culture, people in the middle who are desperate to
hear a different perspective are not given a reasonable alternative. All of this has allowed the regressive left to get away with
their thuggery and intolerance, under the guise of working for
the common good. This hall pass for bad behaviour they’ve
been handed is also what causes social justice warriors to act with
such hysteria whenever they suffer a loss. They are like spoilt children; their ongoing
global tantrum over the 2016 election proves that
they’d had it their own way for so long that they’ve forgotten how
to share. They are so emotionally attached to their
political beliefs that even a hint that maybe they are wrong on one or two
things goes to the very core of their being. To admit they are wrong would be to upend
the very fibre of their identity. Because of this, and also because of the left-wing
obsession with big government, it makes perfect sense they would
stress about who is going to lead them, and which politician does
what. Again, they’re
like children; they need to be reassured that the adult authority
figure is in the room, or they’ll become anxious and act out by crying
or throwing things. Literally. Conservatives, on the other hand, do not get
emotionally attached to our political beliefs, or at least not as
attached. This is, again, the
nature of conservativism. We don’t like big government. We would
prefer politicians to have as little to do with our lives as possible. Unlike the extreme left, we don’t look to
politicians for moral guidance; that’s what religious and community
leaders or family members are for. As such, whenever our political parties lose,
we shrug it off with an oh well, let’s work harder and win next
time. We do not need
therapy dogs and play dough and colouring books to get over the
appalling traumatic experience of losing an election. So, what’s the solution to all of this craziness? How do we generate
not necessarily a more conservative society, but a more balanced
one? A cultural zeitgeist where everyone feels
they can express their views without fear of losing relationships,
or having their reputation destroyed? Well, conservatives need to start finally
speaking up. It is very important we challenge the noisy
regressive leftists in our lives, but not for the reasons you think. It’s not to change their
minds; that’s not going to happen. The only way a social justice
warrior will seriously consider other viewpoints is if they go on their
own personal journey of soul searching. You won’t convince them of
anything. But, you can convince those who may witness
the discussion. To borrow from the Gospel according to Ben
Shapiro, never argue privately with a leftist. Always do it with an audience. They are the
ones you are going to persuade. Some of the best advice I ever got
when I was starting out on this journey of culture warrior-dom in
2017 was from my editor. Before I did my first TV panel gig, he said
to me, don’t go in there trying to win an argument. That’s not your job. Your job is to present
a particular perspective in an entertaining and interesting way, not
for the other panellists or the studio audience, but for the people at
home. Those are the people you are going to influence. The same is true in your own lives, without
cameras and studio audience. While you probably won’t influence your
opposition, they’ll be too busy hand-flapping and calling
you a bigot or something, you will influence your audience. Donald Trump embodies this. Yes, while he may be brash, and
seemingly spontaneous, and rude, and crude, he is what you would
call the first wartime president during the Culture War. That
brashness, while not typically conservative, is what is needed. Until Trump, the left has been the only side
actually fighting for what they value, and what a dirty, dirty fight
they have put up. And while
conservatives pride themselves on being dignified, and polite, and
not at all reactionary, that strategy hasn’t worked. Trump, for all his wonderful flaws, is actually
fighting that Culture War, using the left’s own tactics against
them. He is calling them out
at their own game, using words, not violence, and while he won’t
change their minds, he is proving to the silent masses just how
unscrupulous, disingenuous, and power-crazed the regressive left
actually is. His strategy, while unorthodox and uncomfortable,
is working. And yes, I know regressive leftists are aggressive,
I know they will denigrate and mock you, I know it is intimidating. But it is so
important we do engage with them to somehow swing the
pendulum of acceptable public dialogue to a happier medium, even if they cast you as the villain. Sometimes, you have to be ready to
play that villain to get the message across.

Ann Coulter Digs Into The Democratic Party

for 542 42 joining us now on the line as she does most Monday afternoons at this time is Ann Coulter author of many best-selling New York Times books including her most recent one just out it resistance is futile and resistance was futile on Saturday afternoon wasn’t it it sure was a microcosm of the whole book it’s going to their protest these lunatics are gonna end up saving Trump from not building the wall our side is really really demoralized but but watching these lunatics pounding on I assume we’ve been running the the videos pounding on that trying to break into the Supreme Court the purpose just nasty ugly many mentally disturbed protesters that is that really shows the the underbelly of the pleasant-looking Democrats they present for our for our for our votes like bado Aurora oh no no no right behind the Democrats are these women’s yeah better or war who says they need to import Mexicans because the into the into Texas because blacks won’t pick cotton anymore who runs away from a from a a drunk driving accident that he caused and then and then denies it even though there are police reports out there who commits a burglary of a college building and then says he did it was a college prank even though he wasn’t in college yeah his his name bado or work or bado Kennedy and well he was never called bado until he decided to run in Texas and wanted to give himself more of an Hispanic sounding name I think the most egregious thing he’s done is just recently when he was speaking at a college campus and citing that anti-cop book the new Jim Crow that cops are just racist sleeve choosing black people and black people only to a prison this is the new way used to be slavery but now we pretend they’ve committed crimes I mean to be taking a broad brush on describing police officers particularly in Texas that was where that Dallas shooting was where five wasn’t at five five right this is a Hillary Clinton style style move remember after that happened Hillary Clinton once specifically asked to go on Wolf Blitzer so she could comment on how the implicit racism in police forces across America and that she was going to do something about that five cops but their corpses aren’t even cold yet in the morgue and she attacks them for their implicit racist elected Trump did the same thing to cops brutally murdered in cold blood here in her home’s alleged home state of Massachusetts and and she goes down to New Orleans to the nut nut roots conference I call it and talks about the the American justice system is racist front to back but and let me ask you something what is it what these Democrats change in their names I know I thought I mentioned a briefly last week and then I thought a more there’s beta or roark there’s Gary Hart pence there’s Anthony Villa via who became Anthony via Ragosa there’s Kevin Lyon becomes Kevin de Lyonne and then there was the congressman in Philadelphia who’s now in prison I guess the name was Frisell I don’t know for his Lefty Frizzell but he changed it to Chaka Fattah you know political Rachel Dolezal don’t confuse us with white man just change our names the sounds more but if I moved to Texas and I could become Howie Carrara you know run as a Democrat yeah if it isn’t already clear if the Democrats take control of the house this fall I need to put a list together because based on seniority all of the important committees and and probably by rights the the new speaker it’s pretty much going to be across the board not only members of the Congressional Black Caucus but some of the especially or ripe ones like like Sheila jackson-lee and Maxine Waters I mean if once in whatever her name is Alexa occasio Cortez and that one up near you either personally yeah this isn’t enough to show Democrat white men that there is no place for you in the modern Democratic Party I think it will become very clear if Democrats take the house yeah a better way and I missed one Linda Sanchez formerly known as Linda Jones out in California yeah yeah yeah she I think she married I think her name was Jones I think she married a Jones but as soon as she was running in that district against b1 Bob Dornan and said this is 50% Hispanic now she went back she dumped that she dumped that married name faster than you could shake a stick at it yeah I have been thinking that if you’re I should start advising young Republican girls I made I mean I guess you don’t have to be a Republican Mary huh miss panic so you can take the last name right away you will be guaranteed a spot a spot on TV yeah that’s that’s a good point I mean you know there’s to be guided work for Mike Dukakis and his name was a Manuel Carr bio and you know I was just say man you got it made you know your Spanish but you can claim to be Hispanic and he goes I would never do something like that that would be despicable because he was Castilian or something you know but I thought to myself yeah he’s the one he’s the one in a million who was not going to and he died shortly thereafter so I wonder what he would think now if he could see the way these these you know people are taking these names or changing the names Kevin Lyon he didn’t think I guess he was afraid he was going to be confused as an Italian right so he destroyed to become Kevin de Lyonne like has announced the Leone right it’s so despicable how I mean and Democrats have the audacity to talk about Republicans pushing identity politics no this is coming 100% from the left as I’ve said many times it is it is one thing to have set asides racial set-aside and affirmative action for african-americans the descendants of American slaves but but this idea they you know you arrive on Friday and by Monday you’re looking at the newscast and saying I noticed there are no ties on the evening newscast no you just got here right and and someone just points out we forgot the biggest fraud of all Mayor Warner Wilhelm or Warren will of New York City the one who told the homeless woman to get lost the other day because he was in his doing his workout yeah that was on the front page of the New York Post that’s all we’ve actually got we’ve actually got the tape of that Steve right you got that let’s listen to this [Music] he’s doing his work out there on the left turns on their own it’s so much fun did you see what’s his name Scott the one married to Gabby Giffords what’s his name I don’t know host Kelly Scott Kelly he send out some quote some some statement I believe it was attacking Kavanagh don’t worry the point of it was totally you know down with the social justice warriors but he quoted Winston Churchill and the sjw’s ganged up on him because apparently Churchill is now is now a white supremacist too so so the big you know tough man astronaut sends out a tweet apologizing for closing Winston Churchill yeah I I know I know yeah that was pathetic hey how about this latest thing did you see you remember this woman that works at CNN you probably don’t know her because I doubt you watch CNN any more than I do Katelyn Collins remember her you know I’m trying to get to know her now because I know the story you’re talking she was they brought her in she was as part of a pool reporting and camera crew just to get a spray you know that you you they bring in one reporter in case something happens so she she decides she violates all the usual rules of protocol for the White House press corps and starts screaming at Trump about the Michael Cohen tapes that he would that he had supposedly given up and you know Michael Cohen had him had these tapes which of course he didn’t have as we later found what’s her name The Apprentice gal Omarosa whatever happens to that tape of Trump using the n-word okay go ahead but anyway so she was a hero so she’s so so they said you know you’re out of here you know you’re out of here for a couple of days you’re so you know you you can’t come in you can’t come to the press conferences cuz you violated the rules I mean it wasn’t like permanent banning or anything they just give you know giving her a slap on the wrist so you know so she’s a big hero and even Fox News has to chime in and say Oh Kaitlin Collins deserves the Profiles in Courage Award at Senate senator well guess what happened and leaping to her defense and saying oh you can’t be held accountable for something you do in high school they will take the double standards make your head spin they were just calling Kevin our rapist for something that allegedly clearly did not high school and I have I have it right in front of me here what I have I’m holding it up for the camera here here are her tweets this is not this is not an unproven allegation these are the tweets that she was sending out and every and not a problem because you know what she works for CNN and even if she got fired from CNN and she’d go to work for MSNBC she could be a co-anchor with Joanne Reid and they could all talk about how much they don’t like members of sexual minorities I mean I guess if you have 100% control of the media this is the sort of thing you can get away with but it’s still this one this one’s a little stunning you have to go back what is it now 18 years to get to Gloria Steinem writing in the New York Times that a governor dropping his pants and saying kiss it to someone who works for him no that’s one free grope rule that he took no for an answer but but Cavanaugh allegedly again BS story no corroboration recovered memory and so on and so forth allegedly did the same thing as a drunk college student and we’re going to burn down the Supreme Court if he gets on because of that that’s 18 years here it’s a week later how about the fact that they are they all went two years ago they were writing about how the Democrats had a lock on the electoral college they were going to control American politics yeah for a generation if not forever then they lose the election and they want to abolish the Electoral College then they talk about the Supreme Court as sacrosanct any time they rule in favor of abortion or gay marriage it’s settled law the Supreme Court decided it it’s the ultimate thing now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court so we’re gonna have to pack the Supreme Court right that’s what they’re saying in you know well they they do not accept democracy or losing in a democracy just immigration of course the biggest issue that’s how they win finally permanently and beyond repair or fifty years into the social experiment of bringing in a million third-world errs or more every year eight out of to vote for the Democrats the Supreme Court they figured out about thirty forty years ago it’s not that the Supreme Court is was designed to be a super legislature of these philosopher kings but the Left figured out oh they go last so simply is a logistical matter if we can pilot these cases and get five justices to rule fourth so it’s either you know sixty million foreigners voting for us in elections if that’s not even enough then we’ll get five justices now these are being these these paths of cheating are being cut off they want to back the court well okay then a Republican gets in and he packed the court and then a Democrat gets in and he dies Supreme Court and in the in the New Hampshire House of Representatives right and Coulter thanks for being with us the title of your new book is resistance is futile allow the Trump aiding left lost its collective mind and it certainly did over the weekend thank you and alter by I’m how a car [Music]

Every High School Principal Should Say This

If every high school principal gave the following
speech, America would be a much better place. To the students and faculty of our high school: I am your new principal, and honored to be
so. There is no greater calling than to teach
young people. I would like to apprise you of some important
changes coming to our school. First, this school will no longer honor race
or ethnicity. I could not care less if you are black, brown,
red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are
African, European, Latin American or Asian, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower
or on slave ships. The only identity this school will recognize
is your individual identity—your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school
will recognize is American. This is an American public school, and American
public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm here an ethnic or racial
identity—or a national identity other than American —you will have to attend another
school. This includes after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students
based on identities such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever else may become
in vogue in our society. Those clubs cultivate narcissism—an unhealthy
preoccupation with the self—while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond
yourself. This school’s clubs will be based on interests
and passions—clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy,
languages you do not already speak, and more. If the only extracurricular activities you
can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnicity, race or sexual identity,
that means that little outside of yourself really interests you. Second, I do not care whether English is your
native language. My only interest in terms of language is that
you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America’s
citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. Furthermore, I would be remiss in my duty
to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the job market, if you leave this
school without excellent English-language skills. We will learn other languages here—it’s
deplorable that most Americans only speak English —but if you want classes taught in
your native language rather than in English, this is not the right school for you. Third, because I regard learning as a sacred
endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and
your teachers will dress accordingly. There will be a dress code at this school. And you will address all teachers by their
title, not by their first name. They are your teachers, not your pals. Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated
anywhere on this school’s property. By obscene language, I mean the words banned
on radio and television, plus epithets such as the b-word, even when addressed by one
girl to another, or the n-word, even when used by one black student to another. It is my intent that by the time you leave
this school, you will be among the few your age to distinguish between the elevated and
the degraded, the holy and the obscene. Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained
in only one way—the only way self-esteem can be attained—by earning it. One immediate consequence is that graduating
classes will have one valedictorian, not eight. Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school
toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to racism, sexism,
Islamophobia, homophobia, global warming, tobacco, or gender identity. No more classes will be devoted to condom-wearing
and teaching you to regard sexual relations as no more than a health issue. And there will be no more attempts to convince
you that you are a victim because you are not white or male or heterosexual or Christian. This school will have failed if any of you
graduate without considering him or herself inordinately lucky—lucky to be alive and
lucky to be an American. Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your
teachers will hand them out to you. I’m Dennis Prager.

Free speech on campus: Is it in danger? | FACTUAL FEMINIST

Is the campus free speech crisis a myth? Some say yes. They tell us not to be distracted by media
stories of campus radicals shouting down speakers. “Look at the big picture,” they say. “Free speech is doing just fine.” Are they right? That is coming up next on the Factual Feminist. I was recently invited to Lewis & Clark Law School
in Portland, Oregon, to give a lecture making a case for more openness on women’s issues, such as the gender wage gap, or the patriarchal
rape culture. These need to be questioned and debated, not accepted as gospel. Women—everyone—are best served by truth—not
slogans, much less myths. But I was drowned out by chants: “The wage
gap is real,” “The campus rape culture is real.” My speech was disrupted. And video of the protest went viral, and several
news stories cited it as an example of growing intolerance on campus. That’s when the pushback came. Matthew Yglesias at VOX, and political scientist
Jeffrey Adam Sachs in the Washington Post, assured everyone not to worry. Support for free speech is stronger than ever,
they said—especially among college students. As evidence, they pointed to one of the most
trusted sources of data in the social sciences, the General Social Survey. The GSS has been measuring public attitudes
on free speech since the 1970s. And it does suggest, just as Yglesias and
Sachs say, that 18 to 34 year-olds are the most likely to support free speech. But there are two big problems. First, not all 18-34 year-olds are students. In fact, the GSS excludes those who live in
“group quarters”—such as dormitories! Moreover, the GSS measures support for free
expression by asking people how they feel about speakers such as —communists,
homosexuals, atheists. But most of these involve issues that are
much less controversial today than they used to be So what we need is a study that asks relevant
questions to a cross-section of current college students. Fortunately, three recent surveys come closer
to the mark. For example, the Gallup-Knight Foundation
survey, looked at a random sample of 3,000 college students. The survey found that 70 percent of students said they preferred their campus to be an ‘open learning environment’ where
they might be exposed to offensive speech. Twenty-nine percent preferred a “positive
environment that prohibited certain speech.” Jeffrey Sachs cites this as further evidence
that the “kids are all right.” Well, nearly 30 percent of college students favoring
censorship is not exactly cause to rejoice, especially when that figure is up from 22%
two years ago But here is what is most troubling to me:
37 percent of college students said it was acceptable to shout down speakers. I have been lecturing on campuses for decades
and, until recently, no one shouted at me or tried to disrupt the event. My colleague Charles Murray has faced noisy
protestors in the past, but he says, he could always count on someone in the audience telling
them to “Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say.” The protesters, aware they were in the minority,
would melt away. But recently, at schools like Middlebury,
Berkeley, Claremont-McKenna, Evergreen State, Lewis & Clark—the censorious minority is not melting away. censorious minority is not melting away. Why not? I have noticed one striking change. An increasing numbers of college professors
and students equate speech with violence. I first became aware
of the conflation of speech with violence in 2015. An Oberlin professor explained in the campus
newspaper that by questioning sexual assault statistics, I was attacking victims’ experiences
and their… reactions to those experiences” Such skepticism, she said is a form of discursive violence. The idea that words and arguments constitute
violence is gaining currency. In statement about my Lewis & Clark talk,
protesters said, that while “free speech is an important tenet” that freedom stops
“when it has a … violent impact on other individuals.” “There is no debate here.” And no debate was allowed. The law students who disrupted my talk at
Lewis and Clark were very much in the minority. And students who came to listen did tell them
to keep quiet. But the protesters were confident and determined. Because, I think in their minds they were taking a principled firm stand against violence. But speech is not violence—it is how we
avoid violence. Speech is how we negotiate with one another
in a pluralistic society. The distinction between words and deeds is
foundational to American law—it’s foundational to American democracy. Surveys about what students think about free
speech in general may not tell us much about the real state of tolerance on campus. We also need to understand how students think
about speech, and whether they are captive to a worldview that equates it with violence. And we need to know how many administrators
will tolerate their reign of error. Those who assure us that all is well on the
campus have yet to come to grips with this problem. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments section. And please subscribe to the series and follow
me on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you for watching the Factual Feminist.

Marx Part 3: Cultural Marxism & Political Correctness | Philosophy Tube

March is my month of Marx! In Part 1 we looked at Labour and Class conflict, in Part 2 we looked at Capitalism’s Consequences. Today
we’re looking at the term ‘Cultural Marxism,’ and if you’re watching this video, it might
be because you’ve just used that phrase and someone has linked you to me. So let’s break down and explore this commonly-used term. Let’s start with the Marxism bit. Marxism
refers, funnily enough, to the systems and work of Karl Marx. But Karl Marx wrote a lot of stuff, and lots of people could be called Marxists who believe or teach very different things. Some people we might call Marxists because they believe in the Labour Theory of Value, which is a controversial theory about how
things come to acquire value in an economy. Some people we might call Marxists because they believe in historical materialism, which is the idea that history follows a particular course determined by the people’s relations to the means of production in their society. Some Marxists are interested in what he had
to say about machines and automation, some people are called Marxists because they like to analyse societies as being made up of groups called classes – the point is, the word ‘Marxist’ is a lot like the word ‘fish.’ Fish move through the water; Marxists move through the ocean of work that Karl Marx left behind, but there are lots of different kinds of fish that live at different depths
and exhibit very different behaviours. Some people are also post-Marxists: they say that some stuff Marx got right and some stuff he got wrong, so we need to sift the good from the bad. More on that next time. So Marxism is a very broad class of theoretical
commitments and methods, some of which this series explains. We should distinguish it
from Leninism and Stalinism. Leninism was developed on top of Marxism by Russian revolutionary
Vladimir Lenin, and it’s the idea that rather than wait around for history to take the course
Marx thought it would, a small group of revolutionaries called a Vanguard should take power and enforce that historical change. Stalinism refers to… whatever Joseph Stalin
was doing that day, basically, which tended to be rather unpredictable except for its
being very nasty. It’s the means of governance that Stalin used, typified by state violence, rapid
industrialisation, a cult of personality, terror, socialism in one country, and the
meticulous planning of how the economy should run, as well as the brutal enforcement of
that plan, which as you may know, resulted in millions of deaths. Rather confusingly,
Stalin referred to Leninism as Marxism-Leninism, to try and make it seem like Lenin’s interpretation
of Marx was the only correct one. Now let’s look at the ‘Cultural’ bit. This
is a modifier attached to the word Marxism, which seems to make it even more vague
than the word ‘Marxism’ already is. A variant of the term, ‘Cultural Bolshevism,’ was used in Nazi Germany to denounce… well seemingly unconnected groups of people: artists,
musicians, anybody who was a bit more liberal than the Nazis, bascially. Cultural Marxism is associated with a group of academics who fled Germany during Hitler’s rise to power for the USA, and who came to be known as the Frankfurt School. It included people like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They were living through a time of great social upheaval, so like Marx, they were interested in how social change happens, and they drew on his work as well as the work of a number of other famous thinkers. The Frankfurt school came to be seen as the centre of a secret plot to secretly spread ‘Marxist ideas,’ which came to be an even more vague term than it already is, through America in an attempt to destroy it. The idea was that, rather than establish a revolution, these Marxist academics and their allies were secretly undermining American value from within, particularly in universities. How this idea of the secret plot arose is really fascinatingly odd. In 1992 an essay appeared in Fidelio, written by one Michael Minnicino. Minnicino’s essay,
which you can find a link to below, talks about a supposed link between the Frankfurt School and 60s counterculture, as well as Operation MKUltra, which was an illegal CIA attempt to develop mind control – which it turns out was real, look it up – which Minnicino thinks helped
popularise LSD, leading to a resurgence in the Frankfurt School’s popularity, because anybody who took the Frankfurt school seriously has to be on drugs, right? Later in the 90s an American right-wing thinker called William Lind tied Marxism to political correctness. In several speeches to the right-wing think tank Accuracy in Academia, Lind said that both Marxism and political correctness
were “totalitarian ideologies,” infecting everything from universities to the media
to even some of the clergy. He took what he saw as an encroaching sinister force from
the left – feminism, sexual liberation, challenges to religion, affirmative action, conversations
about systemic racism, even environmentalism, not all of which have that much to do with
Marx – put them all under the umbrella term ‘Cultural Marxism,’ and tied it all back to the Frankfurt School,
many of whom, he chooses to point out, were Jewish. Also tied up in this was Paul Weyrich, who
helped found several influential conservative think tanks including the Heritage Foundation;
the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC; and the very famous Moral Majority,
which had as its head the late Reverend Jerry Falwell. All of these groups have shaped and in ALEC’s case continue to shape American politics, and Weyrich, like Lind, made this ‘political correctness=secret evil Marxist plot’ leap. So the use of ‘Cultural Marxism’ as a kindof catchall term for left-wing political ideas with sinister conspiratorial possibly Jewish origins, has a rich and interesting history. Nowadays, variants of the idea are used by all sorts of people, including Pat Buchanan, the white nationalist groups Council of Conservative
Citizens and League of the South, Norwegian terrorist Anders Brevik, anti-feminists, – on
Twitter I’ve seen it used by Trump supporters, white supremacists, Gamergate supporters, anti-immigration people, anti-government types – like Marxism proper, Cultural Marxism it seems can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Adding ‘Cultural’ to Marxism makes the resulting term vague but obviously negative. We should also note that using ‘Cultural Marxist’ as a slur is obviously not engaging with any of the ideas behind Marx’s work, or engaging with any of the ideas behind political correctness, if you use it as a synonym for that. Calling somebody a Cultural Marxist seems a little bit like booing them, it’s obviously disapproving but it doesn’t really offer any critique beyond that if it’s just used on its own. That’s has been Part 3. We’ve learned about the history and use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism.’ In Part
4, we’ll finish our studies of Marx by going Beyond Capitalism. This episode was sponsored by my Patrons on Patreon: Jesse Austin, D.J. MacIsaac, Michael Hill, Lydia and Nate Thorn,
Alan Falloon, Jeffrey Peckham, Emiliano Heyns, and Horatio Cordero. So thank you to everybody who donated, all your names are in the description, and if you’d like to join them you can earn rewards by sponsoring the show!

Ben Shapiro Criticizes Milo, Reddit, and Keyboard Warriors

(Off screen) hi! my question is… I feel like it might be a little bit more personal but um what do you think about the places on the internet like slash poll do you know about that at all? (Shapiro) not familiar, no! (Off screen) I’m talking more about the keyboard warriors who… I know have insulted you in different… (Shapiro) like the reddits in the 4chan? (off screen) yeah, like reddits in the 4chan because I feel like they kind of started almost like a political revolution online of getting rid of P.C. but i just wanted to see what you thought about it them? (Shapiro) I think they’re mostly losers who sit in their mother’s basement, smoke pot and masturbate (laughter) I think that my biggest problem would be with this group of people is that there is a… again I’ve spent my entire career fighting against political correctness right I’m the guy who goes to public high schools with under…. with… with poor kids and says to the poor kids the reason your parents are permanently poor is because they’re bad with money and made bad decisions don’t make those decisions and you’ll do better right that’s politically incorrect and that will get you shut down by the high school principal right which happen that’s political incorrectness it is not political incorrectness to shout cock at people right you’re not actually changing anything I’m sorry but shouting cock at people doesn’t make the world a better place it just means that you’re an asshole so the idea… so you know my big problem with this is that there’s a whole generation of young people who are falling into the trap of thinking that principled by saying stupid things and not just saying stupid things, like cuck is just a silly thing but people who are using the n-word in chat rooms because they think ‘oh I’m violating some sort of societal taboo and that makes me cool’ yeah well that’s not going to be so cool when it turns out your employer can search you and now you can’t get a job right it’s not going to be so cool when you fall into this trap of associating with all with all these folks and it turns out that’s on your Facebook page it’s all fun and games until you actually have to live in the real society where the left is willing to go after people now I don’t think the left should go after people for this sort of stuff because I would prefer to live in a society where we can all say whatever we want but I don’t think that you saying these things promotes that because I don’t think it’s important that we have a society where you say the n-word I think it is important that you have a society where you can point out that we’re not disproportionately sending black people to prison we’re sending black people to prison in precisely the proportions they’re committing crimes I think that’s more important than you shouting cock or the n-word right and this is this is my big this is my big problem with you know as you know I have this long-running debate now with my old bud Yiannopoulos it is my big problem with Milo and his entire movement is I think that Milo is not conservative I don’t think he knows anything about conservatism I don’t think he cares about the Constitution he says this openly I think that Milo cares about being a provocateur and I’m sorry I provocateur generation is only valuable in standing for things that are worthwhile it is not… being a provocateur just for the sake of being a provocateur is worthless provoke in the name of something real and decent and then I’ll stand with you provoke in the name of just being a provocateur because you’re violating taboos and you’re wasting my time thank you