Why I Don’t Trust The Government. CIA, Bohemian Grove, Georgia Guidestones, Illuminati, Freemasonry.

the government is kind of ridiculous
I understand how anyone at this point can trust the government they blurred
the lines of reality and they do it on purpose many secret intelligence agencies
themselves admit that they do not want our public knowing what is real what is
reality and this this has a negative impact on humans in general so how can
we even trust anyone even at the top levels of government when we know that
the CIA itself trying to distort reality? For the public is there any real reason
to trust the people in power or are they just influence us the way that they wish? We are now currently living at a time
that our forefathers actually warned us about, they warned us that the government
will be taken over by corporations and banks if we did not take a stand against
them. The reality of the situation is that the world is mostly run by a few
families that have set themselves into positions of power
and run as dynasties working together in a secret cabal using different
organizations and shell companies to hide their intent the reality is is we
do not know what their endgame is if their nefarious, if their beneficial to
this society, or they’re just plain evil. you the truth of the matter is is the
monarchies never ended ended no dynasty really completely ended, their power just
was hidden behind the scenes that’s why you’ll see that every president has a
direct line to the British monarchy. Yet that is only one family of control
they’ve established themselves so well that they’ve gone into the ranks of
every part of modern society and some some people will have to rise through
the ranks and join them as well these people are super wealthy and possibly
egotistical we have no idea like I said how nefarous they are, but we can see
daily so many ways in which they are destroying this world purposefully. If
the Georgia Guidestones actually point to what they want it seems as though
that they want most of the population of the entire world to die. This in their minds is
a way to cleanse the planet and to live in perpetuity with nature itself however
they only want 500 million people in the world which is a reduction of such a
high magnitude that it would eliminate most of the population itself. These
people hide in plain sight they belong to organizations such as Bohemian Grove
and bilderburg group, and the trilateral commission they’ve been working on this
for centuries the control they once have the illusion of
freedom because when we believe us to be free when one lets their control even
that much greater vendee and hopefully will break free from this and work on a
better future the egotistical elites do not rule us
but we’re all actually equal we must defeat them.

The Kaiser’s Birthday – Hypocrisy in Greece I THE GREAT WAR – Week 79

When Germany violated Belgian neutrality in
August 1914 Britain went to war over it, for neutrality must be guaranteed, right? Well,
that seems a bit hypocritical for Britain at this point, because as far as violating
neutrality goes, we can really see that the Allied position now is “two can play that
game”. I’m Indy Neidell; welcome to the Great War. Last week a British relief expedition on the
Tigris River failed to reach the army under siege at Kut. The Russians began an offensive
against the Turks and ended one against the Austrians and Germans, while in the Balkans
the Austrian invasion of Montenegro continued. Here’s what followed. Well, the rest of the invasion of Montenegro
followed. On the 25th, Montenegro accepted Austrian
terms. Two days earlier, Montenegrin King Nicholas had appeared in Rome and met his
son-in-law, Victor Emmanuel III, the King of Italy. Nicholas then went on to Lyon, France.
Back in Montenegro, Austrian forces occupied Scutari the 23rd and reached San Giovanni
di Medua, a seaport in northern Albania, the 26th, and Montenegro was finally overrun,
but it was the poorest country in Europe, and the Austrians didn’t really get much
of a reward, other than to some positive headlines, which I guess they needed most of the time. They now began their advance into Albania.
Meanwhile, the allies were trying to get the remnants of the Serbian army out of Albania
to regroup on the island of Corfu as quickly as possible. British engineers put bridges
across rivers, provision depots were established along roads for the soldiers and refugees
heading for the coast, and by the end of the month, around 8,000 Serbian soldiers a day
were leaving Albania. Another number that I’ll throw at you here: in November and
December when the Serbian army and civilian refugees were fleeing Serbia through Albania,
an estimated 200,000 out of 700,000 perished The French and British forces that had come
up through Greece to try to help the Serbs were at this point cooling their heels in
Salonika, and I’d like to look there for a minute, just in general. They had sent those troops there, to Greece’s
second city, but the British government didn’t think the Salonika force served any useful
purpose and tried to get the French to agree to withdraw all allied troops there, but France
was in the grip of a little domestic political crisis. Aristide Briand had replaced René
Viviani as prime minister a few months back and he was very pro-Salonika, and he even
made support of the Salonika project a test of loyalty to himself and his government.
Also, a lot of his support came from the Radical Socialists, and their favorite, General Maurice
Sarrail, was in command of the Salonika army. Withdrawal from Salonika would leave Sarrail
without a command and unlikely to get a new one, since General Joseph Joffre, in charge
of the armies in France, couldn’t stand him and felt threatened by him as a rival.
So Briand came out with the somewhat stale arguments that the Salonika force kept Romania
and Greece neutral and was some sort of a threat to the Austrian rear forces in the
Balkans, and once the Serbian army was reformed, it would also be used in the Balkans. So Briand
raised Joffre to command of all the French forces everywhere, not just in France, which
meant that his rival Sarrail was now his subordinate and Joffre had to support him. So back in
December the British, against their better judgment, were talked into keeping men at
Salonika partly by fear of provoking a collapse of the Briand government, and partly by Russian
pleas that they maintain a force somewhere in the eastern theater of war to hopefully
relieve some pressure at some point. Thing is, it was primarily the British and
French who had helped Greece get its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832, and since
then they had constantly supported that independence, but now they really acted like Greek independence
was a secondary issue to their own convenience, and Greece was not happy. Lemnos, the largest
island in the Northern Aegean, had been requisitioned for the Dardanelles campaign, and they had
landed tens of thousands of troops at Salonika without even really asking permission. Over
this winter, they transformed Salonika into an allied military settlement. In an area
of 200 square miles, they camped a total of 8 divisions and tons of war material and supplies,
but what was it all for? They weren’t putting any pressure on either the Bulgarians or the
Austrians, they were no threat to the Turks, they weren’t really helping the Russians,
and they certainly weren’t pulling any Germans away from the Western Front. What were they
doing? Well, they were suffering. Malaria is endemic
in northern Greece, and just something to keep in your head in future- malaria caused
ten casualties for every one taken in battle for the Salonika divisions. German journalists
even described Salonika as “the greatest internment camp in the world”, and it was
even worse than that, it truly became a giant military hospital, thanks to malaria, with
some units entirely falling victim to the mosquito. Of course, disease and suffering weren’t
confined just to Salonika; they were everywhere, including the western front. The western front had been pretty quiet all
month, but this winter saw a terrible outbreak of trench foot. See, men standing in freezing
mud for days on end in field boots or puttees would first lose all feeling in their toes.
Then the feet would begin to swell, then go totally dead, and then burn like they were
on fire. Often, when relief units would come to the front-line trenches, many of the men
being relieved could not even walk away from the trenches. They’d either have to crawl
or ride on someone’s back. This is thousands of men we’re talking about. Now, a lot of
generals and higher-ups thought that this was because of carelessness or even deliberate
malingering. There were, to be fair, a lot of cases of people wounding themselves intentionally
to get out of the trenches, shooting off fingers or toes, but this was the real thing, and
the pain was excruciating. One British battalion, the 49th, had over 400 cases this winter,
far more than casualties from the actual war. A cure was eventually found, though, and it
turned out to be rubbing the feet with oil a few times a day. Next door in Germany, this week saw the Kaiser’s
birthday on the 27th. It also saw an escalation of an anti-America
campaign. That day the statue of Frederick the Great in Berlin was covered with an American
flag draped in black with these words in gold letters on a silk banner attached to it, “Wilson
and his press are not America.” Photos of this were sent all over Germany and one paper
wrote (Gilbert), “Frederick the Great was the first to recognize the independence of
the young Republic after it had won its freedom from the yoke of England, at the price of
its very heart’s blood through years of struggle. His successor, Wilhelm II, receives
the gratitude of America in the form of hypocritical phrases and war supplies to his mortal enemy.” Those sentiments were actually mirrored elsewhere,
in Greece. Greek King Constantine made public statements
in the American press that got worldwide attention after the French occupied Fort Kara Burun
near Salonika this week. He said, “It is the merest cant for Great Britain and France
to talk about the violation of the neutrality of Belgium after what they themselves have
done and are doing… Just look at the Greek territories already occupied by the allied
troops… in proportion to all Greece it is as if that part of the United States which
was won from Mexico after the Mexican war was occupied by foreign troops, and not so
much as by your leave… Where is the necessity for the occupation of Corfu? … The transportation
of the Serbs to Italy would be simpler than to Corfu. Is it because the Italians are refusing
to accept the Serbs, fearing the spread of cholera, and the Allies are thinking the Greeks
want to be endangered by cholera any more than the Italians?” It’s not surprising this now made headlines,
since what the Allies were doing does reek of hypocrisy. And every time they occupied
a new part of Greece, Lemnos, Imbros, Kara Burun this week, the Greeks would protest,
and nobody took any notice. And on that note we come to the end of another
week. Montenegro fallen, Albania being overrun, the Italian, Western, and Eastern fronts quiet,
but disease stalking the troops pretty much everywhere. It’s true, though, Britain guaranteed Belgian
neutrality and ostensibly went to war in the first place when Germany violated it. And
look where we are now, 18 months later, Britain and France blatantly violating another nation’s
neutrality. To be fair, the British don’t actually want to be in Salonika, but not because
of anything to do with Greek protests. But it’s easy to describe- the Germans thought
invading Belgium was necessary, the allies think Salonika is necessary, and in modern
war, necessity always
trumps morals. If you’d like to see how the German invasion of Belgium actually took place, you can click right here. Our Patreon supporter of the week is Grant Gammon. Now, if you would, one day hopefully, see us filming on location, please consider supporting us on Patreon so we can reach our goals. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See you next time.

Stossel: NYC Government Traumatizes Gun Owners

Have a gun license? Plan to bring your gun to my home town next time you fly in? “Pack all unloaded firearm and firearm parts in a locked hard-sided container.” If you call the TSA, they will tell you to put the gun in a locked container and: “notify the airline during the ticket counter check-in process.” But even if you do this properly, New York authorities will still wreck your life. I declared my gun, because I always do. I travel, I fly in and out all over the US with it. Patricia Jordan carries her gun for protection. She correctly followed all the TSA procedures when she flew from her home in Georgia to New York City. It’s in the TSA case, everything’s separate. It’s locked. She was traveling with three teenage girls, and wanted her gun in her hotel room. I know that if something happens that I can protect myself. I was glad that she brought it just in case something did happen. On their way home, Patricia did everything correctly again. The airline counter she again told the agent she wanted to check her gun. But this time she was told, “Wait.” The next thing I know they’re getting ready to arrest me. For what exactly? For having a gun. I thought I was going to pass out, I really did. I have my permit. I’m doing everything I’m supposed to right. Of course I started freaking out. She sat there and begged the lady, “Please don’t arrest my mom, please don’t arrest my mom.” She’s like crying, begging her not to take me. The police put Patricia in jail and told her, you’ve committed a felony. The minimum was 3 and a half to 7 years mandatory prison for this. Another visitor, Avi Wolf was jailed just for having a gun part, an empty magazine. There were no bullets? It was just something like this? It was exactly like that. Instead of a plastic exterior mine had a little bit of a different make to it but it was exactly that. Somebody could’ve done more damage to an individual with a fork from McDonald’s than with that. Wolf too checked with the TSA beforehand. They told him, just declare it to TSA agents at security. I telling them that, just a notification I have a magazine here. It’s empty, there’s no bullets, there’s no gunpowder. You know, I called TSA before doing it, and this is what they told me to do, to declare it. The next thing I know they’re pulling me over to the side and they’re all like Do you know what you have in your bag? And I’m like, I know what I have in my bag, I told you what I have in my bag. Fast forward about an hour and it was 4 Port Authority police officers were there, the chief of LaGuardia airport is there. Like, I mean, they thought they found somebody trying to do 9/11 repeat. For this? Literally. For that. They asked me if I had a gun license. Of course I had a gun license. I’m from Georgia, everybody there’s got a gun license. And they’re like, well sir, you’re going to be getting arrested now. I’m like, oh, no. The other prisoners couldn’t believe why Avi was in jail. One guy beat up his wife, this other guy was busted for a whole bunch of drugs. So they’re like, what did you do? Why are you here? It’s like I got caught at security with an empty magazine. What did they say? Just laughed at me; like it was a joke. But it was no joke. Avi and Patricia were released after a day in jail. But they still faced that felony charge. I could barely function, I had to get on like anxiety medicine. I was throwing up every day. Months later, New York allowed each to plead guilty to a lesser charge: public disorder. But it cost each $15,000 in legal fees. Why does New York City do this to people? They need to spend a day in jail? We get them through the system as quick as we can. District Attorney Jack Ryan handles New York airport gun charges. We are not going to apologize for enforcing our gun laws. We do enforce them fairly and humanely and as compassionately as we can. Is it a fair system when it costs them, 15, 17 thousand dollars and they spend a day in jail? It’s as fair as we can make it under all of those circumstances. Even in Avi’s case? It’s an empty piece of plastic. Whether the magazine is made out of plastic, Kevlar, or metal I think is immaterial to make a question of how many bullets it holds. That’s why New York has banned them. Isn’t what’s material is whether it held any bullets? It didn’t. It was empty. You can discuss that with the legislature. They didn’t make it a crime only if there’s bullets in it. They made it a crime. Patricia had carefully separated her gun from her bullets. The officer could not even find my bullets in my suitcase; I had to stop and go show him where they were. But yet they said that this was considered a loaded weapon in New York. Under New York law if they’re together they’re loaded. And so we have prosecuted a number of those cases. They are loaded even if they’re not loaded? If the weapon and the ammunition are together they’re loaded. Most every week, New York jails someone who innocently travels with a gun, legally licensed in their state. These are people who are trying to do everything right. They go onto the TSA website, they follow the regulations to fly with their gun. They go on the airline website and they follow the regulations to properly fly with their gun. And then New York jails them. You’re a sadistic bully locking these people up. These aren’t threats We know they’re not threats after we check them out. We do not know who they are when we first talk to them. Give me a break. Prosecutors have discretion; they could be reasonable with these poor people who had no idea that they’d violated New York’s strange laws. But New York politicians don’t want you to have a gun. So they will put you in jail to send everyone a message.

English Tutor Nick P Noun Phrase (143) Smear Campaign

Hi this is Tutor Nick P and this is
Noun Phrase 143. The noun phrase today is smear campaign. Okay. Let’s take a look at
the note here. If someone organizes a smear campaign against another person or
company or some organization , they do it by spreading false and unpleasant rumors
about them or accusing them of things in order to damage their reputation. This is
often used in politics and is especially mentioned in news reports. So you know
it’s not like you hear regular people saying the word a smear campaign a lot,
but on the news you hear smear campaign very, very often. So especially if one
news network you know, favors one they might say that
the other political party is smearing the one they like or vice versa. Okay.
Let’s continue. Smear by itself can have the meaning of to try to damage one’s
reputation by telling lies. So if you just smear someone. So smear campaign means
they have the whole campaign doing this way , so they have a number of planned
events in order to try to hurt their opponents reputation. All right. Let’s continue.
They say the term has been around since 1936 or at least that’s as early as
they can find it. And it’s simply part of politics as usual today. You can always
find it in politics. It’s very, very rare once in a while somebody will try to
pretend that they’re above it but that’s only if they’re really way, way ahead.
They usually do this. They usually do mudslinging and smear tactics very
often because you know, if they don’t do it , you know they have to attack each
other. Just to try to stay even. If one side does is constantly attack and they
don’t respond to it, then you know, sometimes people will actually believe
all they’re not responding maybe maybe there’s some truth to it. Yeah. All right.
Anyway, let’s continue. However the practice
of this behavior has always been around. Yeah, especially in politics and it’s not
limited to politics though. They , you can find it in the business world and some
other areas of society. All right. Lt’s continue. Smear campaigns often include rumors.
that cannot be verified. Yeah. That’s that’s, that’s, that’s one of the main
parts. You don’t want it to be verified too easily , because then you can just get
rid of it. So it’s it’s ones where the question. There’s a question mark
there. Distortions you know, they kind of change whatever the truth is and you
know skew it to make it look bad or something like that.
Half-truths. Yeah. Well some of the best lines are half-truths because you know
there’s some truth to it and people say well you know, this part is true. So that
might make it more believable. And complete lies. Complete lies. This is total
lies. They just made the whole thing up. No truth to it at all. All right. anyway we got out three examples here. Here’s example number one. That political
party orchestrated a smear campaign against their rivals . Yeah. We will use
orchestrate a lot. Run is a common one. You can run because we often say to run
a campaign. So you could run a smear campaign or or get straight organize,
anything like that. Any sort of verb in that sense. All right number two here. In
the 1960s when Ralph Nader was campaigning for car safety, some say
General Motors hired PIs, you know private investigators to find dirt on
him. So they could run a smear campaign against him. This is one where it’s not
directly politics . I’s more business you know, if they’re if they don’t like what
somebody’s doing if against that maybe they could try to you know damage the
reputation of that person. So people don’t listen to him as much and the last
one here of course political parties often use smear campaigns because many
have proven to be successful yeah if they didn’t work they probably wouldn’t
do it. But unfortunately since they do work
The Woody’ often repeated. It’s one of the main tactics to use.
Anyway I hope you got it it. I hope was clear. That was informative. Thank you for your
time. Bye-bye.

Understanding Politics, Power & Human Behavior – LSU Professor Jas Sullivan

“I’m Jazz Sullivan. I’m an associate professor in political science in the college of Humanities and Social Sciences. I teach politics because I want students to understand about power, the shifting nature of power, who gets what when where and how. I want my students to understand how policies are formed because we all have to abide by them. One of the biggest aspects of being part of the college of Humanities and Social Sciences Is that no matter what major, it deals with human behavior, and its applicable to all of the situations that they will confront in the market. Because it really helps them understand human behavior. Human behavior from A whole lot of different perspectives, and the other is it teaches them to look at an issue from multiple perspectives. My favorite part of teaching is that We have very bright students, and they want to know about the topics that we’re offering. I love teaching because I want students to walk away from the class about who they are, the decisions they make, and how that affects the world in which they operate.”

#NimbleVlog by ORCHANGO — Episode 5: Two types of opponents, FOOT DRAGGERS vs TORPEDOES

We are continuing our series of episodes about the ORCHANGO Ladder of Commitment and Resistance™ – which is the nimble tool that we use to
work with and through the politics of corporate transformation. [The] last episode was about the top of the Ladder, with the Helpers and the Campaigners. Today, it’s about the bottom – which is actually the mirror image of the top. Let’s start with the Foot Draggers. They are the exact opposite of the Helpers. They don’t like the change and they are trying to slow you down on the technical front. And because they go about it mostly in a passive-aggressive way, we call them the Foot Draggers.
So for example, they are very good at finding excuses to explain why they didn’t deliver
things, or they could not make it for a meeting, this kind of things. They will say: “Oh,
sorry, the CEO asked us for this urgent report. We had no choice but to switch priorities”. Yeah, sure… But above all, the Foot Draggers are masters
at throwing challenges at you. With statements like: “This is not going to work because…”;
“We tried that before and…”; “The customer is never going to go with this innovation…”; “This is against our policies…”; “Have you thought about…” this kind of statements. Can you picture some Foot Draggers from your real world? I’m pretty sure you can, because there lots of them out there. And myself, when I didn’t like a change, I’ve been
acting as a Foot Dragger at times. The biggest trap with Foot Draggers is to
get into a non-productive – useless actually – back-and-forth with them. Because they
love it when it’s happening, because they are wasting your time: they are slowing you
down. So this is the way [they go] about it: you interact with a bunch of Foot Draggers and they are throwing a challenge at you. And you provide a beautiful answer because with your team you thought about it. In fact, they are not even listening to you. Or actually they are listening a little bit because you might say something they might be able to use against you. But mostly, their brain is thinking about the next challenge they’re
going to throw at you. And it goes like that back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth. And they are happy because they are wasting your time and your energy. So don’t fall
into that trap! The Torpedoes….
You remember from the last episode, the Campaigners were Helpers on steroids. Same thing here:
the Torpedoes are Foot Draggers on steroids. And the same way the Campaigners were working
both on the technical dimension and the people dimension, the [Torpedoes] they do the same
things as the Foot Draggers on the technical front – to slow you down.
But they are also very active on the people front. They are trying to build a campaign
– a negative campaign – against the transformation. So again, as we talked about last time, be
strategic in how you use your time and energy because you have a limited amount of
that. So, if a Torpedo has not a lot of influence, forget about them; don’t lose sleep on them.
However, if you have an influential Torpedo, then you will need to do something about it.
BTW – it’s typically relatively easy to spot a Torpedo at the beginning of a transformation
journey. Because contrary to the passive-aggressive Foot Draggers, they have no problem telling
you in your face that they don’t like the idea of the transformation. After a while
however, they tend to become quiet. And on my end when this was happening initially in
my career, wishful thinking: I thought they were stepping up the Ladder. Phew… Well,
most often than not, a vocal Torpedo that is suddenly becoming quiet is now super active behind
the scene building this negative campaign against your transformation… So watch out!
[In the] next episode of the #NimbleVlog, we are going to tackle the remaining piece
of the Ladder, which is a very important portion where you have very distinct – where you
have lots of people first – but also where you have very distinct smiley faces: the Skeptics
and the Wind Watchers…

Problems with French Numbers – Numberphile

PAUL SMITH: And then when they
get to 70, that’s where the big problems start, because the
French haven’t invented a word for 70. BRADY HARAN: I always assume the
one thing that is kind of international is numbers,
mathematics. That’s the one thing that
is the same everywhere. You’re about to ruin
this, aren’t you? PAUL SMITH: Yes, I am. One thing that you learn when
you’re studying a foreign language is that counting
systems are very different. And, in fact, it’s one of the
ways that you can tell if somebody’s a really good speaker
of a foreign language. You can really tell what their
real mother tongue is when they start counting, because
even if somebody operates, you know, an English person living
in France, when they start counting to themselves, they’ll
probably count to themselves in English. They’re our closest neighbors,
so you’d have thought that maybe they’d count in
the same way as us. But one of the things that I
have to keep repeating to my students is that, in fact,
the French don’t count in the same way. And they use numbers in very
different ways in a whole range of different everyday
environments. Let me give you some examples. So the French– well, what do
we do in England when we’re counting numbers? We give numbers, the first 12
numbers when we’re counting, we give them individual names. So we go 1 to 12. And then we slip into a thing
where we go 13, 14, which is kind of 3 and 10, 4 and
10, and so forth. The French start off in a
slightly different way. They go a bit further. Un, deux, trois, quatre, cinq,
six, sept, huit, neuf, dix, onze, douze, treize, quatorze,
quinze, seize. And then they go for our 17,
dix-sept, 10-7; dix-huit, 10-8; dix-neuf, 10-9; and
then vingt for 20. It’s very similar, the
counting system after that, to English. So they go on to 20, as
I said was vingt. Then they go to 30, trente. Quarante for 40. Cinquante for 50. Soixante for 60. And then when they get to 70,
that’s where the big problems start, because the
French haven’t invented a word for 70. Instead what they do is they
count to 60 and add 10. So whereas we go to 60 and then
go to 70, a French person goes to 60, but then goes to 60
plus 10, because they say soixante-dix. Soixante-dix is 70 in French. Soixante-dix literally means
60-10, but it means 70. Oh, they know what
the number 70 is. They don’t sort of do
this plus business. And a French person, when they
hear you say soixante-dix, they don’t think, oh,
that’s 60 and 10. They see 70. So the mental picture that is
conjured by the sound of soixante-dix is still 70,
the same as we would. And then they continue by
instead of say– they haven’t invented a word, for
example, for 71. So that’s soixante et onze,
literally 60 and 11. It’s rather odd with these
ones that they say soixante et onze– “et” is the word for “and”– because when they get to 72,
they just say soixante-douze. Soixante-douze, 60-12. And it’s only when we’re dealing
with ones that they use the “et.” But it gets even more confusing
from the English point of view, because you
think, OK, so we’ve got 60-10, that’s 70. Soixante et onze,
soixante-douze, soixante-treize,
soixante-quatorze, soixante-quinze,
soixante-seize, soixante-dix-sept,
soixante-dix-huit, soixante-dix-neuf. What do they do when
they get to 80? Surely they’ve got
a word for 80. Well, no. Because the French, when they
get to that number, they say quatre-vingts, which
means 4 20s. Well, that’s what it means,
4 20s, literally. The French, of course, when they
hear quatre-vingts, see 80 in their minds. And then they go
quatre-vingt-un, 4 20s, 1. 4 20s, 2. BRADY HARAN: Not 4 20s and 1? PAUL SMITH: No. They’d just be– ah. The reason they don’t say 4 20s
and 1 is because it’s too many words. So there’s also a style issue
here, because, you know, the French love their style. But what they do do then, and
this is the other weird thing, when they get to 90, they still
haven’t even thought of another word for 90 or
a decent word for 90. So what do they say? They say quatre-vingt-dix,
4 20s, 10. And then when they get
to 91, they say quatre-vingt-onze, 4 20s, 11. 92 is quatre-vingt-douze. 93 is quatre-vingt-treize. 94 is quatre-vingt-quatorze. 95, quatre-vingt-quinze. And so it goes, until
they get up to 100. And they have invented
a word for 100. So 100 is cent. One of the big problems, of
course, with this kind of numbering system is when you’re
listening to somebody giving you a phone number,
because if I could just explain– let me think of an English
phone number. So you might have 0115, so
that’s your Nottingham code. Then you’d have 962 would be the
subcode for the exchange. And then the individual
number would be 5782. And in English, we would read
out all of the numbers, 0-1-1-5, or we might say
0-double 1-5, 962, 5782. BRADY HARAN: This isn’t a real
number, by the way, is it? PAUL SMITH: No, no. I just made that one up. OK. So that’s an example of an
English telephone number. But in France, they do it
completely differently. They will take the numbers and
they will say they will actually distinguish the
numbers 62, 58, 49, 27. And when you ask somebody for
their phone number, they will tell you that it is
62, 58, 49, 27. They won’t say– BRADY HARAN: They’ll do that
for all numbers, will they? PAUL SMITH: They’ll do that
for all telephone numbers. They won’t say 625-849-27. And this causes not big
problems, but if you’re on the telephone to a client in France
who wants your mobile number and you’re used to giving
your mobile number in the way the English do and then
you try to do it to the French, they find that very
difficult to cope with. And it works in the
other direction. My students are endlessly
telling me about the problems they had copying down
telephone numbers. And of course, the really big
problems start when you get to numbers that start with
a 6, with a 7, with an 8, and with a 9. So it’s a problem, because
if you’re English and you hear soixante– let’s remember that numbers,
what we would call 60 to 69, start with the word soixante. But so do numbers 70 to 79. Let’s say that your friend
starts saying “my number is”– I’ll say it in French,
“mon numero, c’est soixante” you start– you do that. And then they say “et onze” and
you have to go back and correct it, because it’s not
soixante at all, it’s 71. But the other thing that the
French do with numbers while we’re on the subject, that’s the
French for “10 point 69.” Let’s say that that’s the world
record for the women’s 100 meters dash in
the Olympics. Now you can see that’s very
different from the way that we would write it in English. It’s also very different from
the way that we would say it. There we’ve got a
decimal point. And the French are
using a comma. But they also say
it differently. In English we say “10 point 69,”
because we separate the tenths and the hundredths. But the French would
say “10 comma 69.” So you have to listen
now very carefully. If you’re watching a French
sports commentary, for example, if you’re watching the
Olympic Games in France and you’re trying to catch the
time, you have to listen out for not 10 point 69, but “dix
virgule soixante-neuf,” “10 comma 69.” So once again,
you’ve got this issue of numbers being grouped
together. And that’s something the
French do all the time. They don’t separate individual
numbers out. They group them and
use their name. The word the French use for a
comma is “virgule.” And they use that in grammar as they
use it in numbers as well. So when a French person reads
out this time, then they will say “dix virgule”– comma– “soixante-neuf.” BRADY HARAN: To a French person,
is that “10 point 695” or is that 10,695? PAUL SMITH: It’s 10,
virgule, 695. So it would be “dix virgule six
cent quatre-vingt-quinze.” That would be the way
they express it. BRADY HARAN: How would a French
person write 10,695? PAUL SMITH: Well, they would
either just do that– and very often they
leave a space. In a French textbook you might
find there’s a space between the thousands and the 695. Or occasionally, this is going
to confuse you, just occasionally they’ll do that. 10,000, full stop, 6-9-5. So in fact, you could say that
the French and the English do exactly the opposite thing. And you could argue that it’s
just to confuse each other and it’s deliberate. Well, I don’t have a problem
with it, but it has caused problems in the past. There was a rather unfortunate
case in a French hospital a few years ago where there
was a serious– too large a dose of something
was administered to patients simply because of a misreading
of a decimal point for this, or a comma not being read
the right way round. So it can be a big problem
in technical translation. Technical translators need to
be absolutely sure that they get it right, because
otherwise it can go very, very wrong. BRADY HARAN: If you’d like to
hear a bit more about French numbers, including why it’s
impossible to score 20 out of 20 in France, check out another
video we’ve got here on “Numberphile.” Or if you’d
just like to hear more about languages in general from people
like Paul and others, check out another channel I’ve
got called “Words of the World.” It’s got all sorts of
fascinating videos about things like California
or biscuit or vodka. There’s loads of videos on there
already and there’s new ones going on every week,
so maybe subscribe.

Merovitz Potechin LLP – The Referred to Law Firm

I’m Chuck Merovitz and I’m the managing
partner of Merovitz Potechin LLP. I’m Eli Udell and I’m a partner at Merovitz Potechin LLP. I’m Yasmin Vinograd and I am one of the partners at Merovitz Potechin. We are very proud of this firm and its
team. Our primary value is integrity. We decided a long time ago that integrity
was way more important than money. We are very fortunate to have a group of people here that love what they do and love helping people, so I think
that core values sort of, not only do we insist upon them and live
them on a daily basis but I also think they flow naturally from the type of
people we have here at the firm. The people who work at Merovitz Potechin are an amazing group of people starting from the partners through the lawyers to
the staff – who are really the backbone of our firm – they’re all honest, caring,
incredibly talented, experienced people. We call ourselves to referred to law firm
because we get a lot of our business as a result of referrals from accountants
and other lawyers who value the way we practice, they value our integrity and
they value our expertise. We have people call us when they’re most emotional, and at their most vulnerable, they don’t know what to do, they don’t
know what the rights are, sometimes they don’t know what their obligations are
and they call us and we’re able to give them advice and show them what they need to do and sometimes help them solve disputes that have been going on for years and are very bitter and very emotionally draining on them and the
ability to see people who are able to get past that issue is very satisfying.
We also value caring. Everybody in this firm cares about each member of this
firm, our clients and also our colleagues at other law firms. I just love working
here and this is the first place that I’ve truly loved working. It’s a source
of a lot of pride for me and it’s my pleasure to be a part of this team. We do
everything we can to help the clients solve their issue or achieve their goal
with the best possible results.

Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia: The full interview | VIEWPOINT

Christina: Camille, welcome to AEI! Camille: It’s great to be back, Christina. Christina: Oh, my goodness, do you know that
21 years ago, I don’t know if it was today, but close to today we were interviewed by
Ben Wattenberg, for the AEI program Think Tank which aired on PBS, and the question
was, “Has feminism gone too far?” and I looked at the transcript and it’s amazing, because
all of the things we were saying are truer today than they were 21 years ago… Camille: Absolutely. Christina: …about the excesses of feminism,
and the victimology, the male bashing, the panic over sexuality. At the time, 21 years
ago we were confident that it would be corrected. It was simply too, too mad to succeed, but
it’s still here. Camille: I know. Well, Christina, we sent
up early warnings. You, heroically in the late 1980s, were in direct confrontation with
women studies professors, at a time when… Christina: At a time when, as philosophers… Camille: Yes, at a time when I could not get
published and finally after my first book, Sexual Personae was released in 1990, you
wrote to me, and told me of your problems. And we’d discovered each other as allies,
and that our status, it seems to me as truth tellers, is historically unchallenged. And
I think that people are going to start to wake up and to realize, if they had listened
to us at the beginning, we wouldn’t have these problems now. Christina: We wouldn’t, and it was so obvious
to me, I was criticizing the feminist theorists at the American Philosophical Association,
and what they were writing at the time was just warmed over Marxism. It was so much animus
to American society, to men, to everything, to art, to beauty and it seemed to me, it
wouldn’t take long for it to correct itself. It was never corrected, and what happened
is you and I…we did…I believe won the argument, and the journalists agreed with
us, and the court of public opinion was on our side. They won all the assistant professorships.
They just quietly worked. They didn’t care about criticism, because all criticism is
by definition backlash. Camille: Well, a lot of people dropped out
of graduate school, the really free thinkers. The independent minds couldn’t take the kind
of conformism and the PC ideology that they had to account out to. I got letters like
that. Once I was known in the early ’90s, letters came from all over the country from
former graduate students who said they knew they had no future in the profession, because
of a total, kind of brain dead attitude you had, a servile, sicko fantasy that actually
you had to have to certain received opinions. Christina: Absolutely and in our interview
21 years ago you mentioned this Kremlin-esque feeling in feminism. It was a Kremlin-like
environment, so much censorship and excommunication, and so forth, and students today don’t realize
there had been this purge of anyone who was a dissident. I happened to have tenure when
I started criticizing it, but it would be career diminishing or career annihilating
to criticize feminism, even more so today. Camille: Right. Well, when I was a graduate
student at Yale which was 1968 to 1972, I was the only person doing a dissertation on
sex at the graduate school, and I had trouble getting a job because of it. I was the only
openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School. There were a lot of closeted people, and I
didn’t have a sex life, okay? I thought it was important to me to put the gay identity
out there. But from the very start, as feminism’s ideology cohered and solidified, I could not
have a single conversation with feminists, either inside or outside the Academy. They
could not stand…again, just what you say…anti-art, anti-rock ‘n roll, anti-Rolling Stones. They
would not take seriously anything that has to do with biology and hormones or anything
like that. I was completely ostracized, but I belonged to the pro-sex wing of feminism,
also pro art, pro beauty, pro fashion, pro Hollywood, all of these things were anathema. Christina: Pro glamor. Camille: Pro glamor. But then thanks to Madonna,
there was this new dissident wing in the ’90s, which won. The pro-sex wing of feminism won. Christina: Right. Camille: But now we won all these gains, but
the institutionally entrenched, feminist commissars, all right, have brought it all back to square
one again. All the new freedoms we won in the ’90s, in the pro-sex insurgency are gone
again. Christina: It’s amazing, and it’s a kind of
axis of intolerance with deans, and fanatical young feminists, and the United States government.
Because the Department of Education has sent this directive to all the schools, that they
have to clamp down on harassers, and they’ve defined it so broadly that it includes if
you overhear someone telling an off-color joke, you can bring them up on charges of
harassment. So we have this little reign of terror, this hyper puritanism. It’s as though
George Orwell’s Junior Anti-Sex League has occupied feminism. Camille: It’s truly Stalinist, absolutely.
Now I take a very extreme view which is that colleges and universities should never interfere
in any way with the social lives of the students. It’s up to the students to regulate themselves.
If a crime is truly committed, it must go to the police, so a lot of these problems
with stuff if universities would confine themselves to education and not to the surveillance of
student’s private lives, now our generation won these freedoms. It was in loco parentis
when we arrived in college. Christina: Yes, parietal hours. Camille: And men wouldn’t be allowed in your
room, and then if they were there…this was right before I got to college…but you had
to have your feet on the ground at one time. They’d look through your door. Christina: People managed to do things. Camille: In 1964, when I arrived in college
our women’s dorm, the girls had to sign in at 11:00 o’clock at night whereas the men
could run free all night long. So we are the ones who demanded that the authority figures
get out of our sex lives. Christina: And we wanted to be as free and
as wild as the boys. Camille: Yes, and they said to us, “No, the
world is dangerous. We need to protect you from rape,” and what we said was, “Give us
the freedom to risk rape.” These are the freedoms that we won, and now this younger generation
of girls want the parental figures back in. It is deeply Stalinist. It is deeply infantilizing.
It’s deeply reactionary. It has nothing to do with feminism. Christina: It’s fainting couch. Camille: This is a retreat. Christina: It’s fainting couch feminism. Camille: Victorian. Christina: Victorian ladies… Camille: Yes, it is. Christina: …swooning on this chaise, and
you’ve heard about the Safe Spaces young women. I gave a lecture at Oberlin and Georgetown
a year ago and they organized Safe Spaces for students who were triggered by…it was
a philosophy professor was going to reduce PTSD because of what they objected to, is
that I might have some ideas that invalidate their experience. Camille: They’re institutionalizing neurosis.
It’s what they’re doing. Christina: That’s absolutely true. Camille: It’s absolute madness. Christina: Have you heard the phrase, the
fashion on campus now is called intersectional feminism, and it’s supposedly very progressive?
And it’s going to take feminism to a place where it is taking account of women with multiply
marginalized identities, on and on. But all of the women, the practitioners, seem to meet
at the intersection of propaganda, and neurosis, and rage, and they’re bullying people. They’re
using feminism now. They’re telling men, “Check your privilege.” Camille: Well, I think it’s a good idea that
feminism be critiqued by class issues. Because what I have said all along is that what is
being demanded is a bourgeois protection, a white middle-class girl style, the perfect
little girl emerging from her parents living room wants the same kind of protections on
the college campus. So I’ve always felt there was a bourgeois element in this that was never
sufficiently critiqued. And then what I see on the street are Latino
women, African-American women who may be middle-class, but have a working class background, as I
did as an Italian from an immigrant family…who were able to handle themselves on the street,
able to speak back. Don’t mind having strong voices and strong gestures. Christina: Well, intersectionality started
with those women. So it was a group of African-American women who were just setup with the Women’s
Movement, attending only the needs of highly professional, upper middle-class women, but
it has been appropriated by mostly middle-class white women on the campus. So Safe Space was
actually a word that was used early in Black Feminism, as where black women and Hispanic…places
where they could just talk to each other and they weren’t censored. They could speak their
minds. But now it means a place where, for example young women at Brown University if
there’s a debate that upsets them, they flee to a Safe Space where they…It was described
in The New York Times by Judith Shulevitz. They had coloring books, crayons, tapes of
frolicking puppies, bubbles and this is what feminism has come to. Camille: It’s what education has come to.
Absolutely the definition down, they’re therapeutic. What can I say? Therapeutic resorts is what
education has turned into. Christina: So they have feeling circles. They
have reflection journals, and it’s this odd mix of therapy and anger because the word
for this style of activism, they call them Cry Bullies because they combine…they’re
both victim and victimizer and they do to other people this new style of campus intersectionality.
They actually do to other people what they claim was done to them. They treat people…they
objectify and they stereotype, and they demonize and then they try to get people punished. Camille: Well, Christina, this is coming from
the public schools. It’s coming from the public school education, which was devoid of knowledge
of world history and world geography. It is nothing but naval gazing and the diversity
training, and all kinds of instructions about social interaction, when in fact, if the atrocities
of history were revealed to young people, they would be able to put their own little
hurt feelings into perspective. Christina: Into perspective. They have no
perspective. Camille: No. Christina: I think with these anti-bullying
programs, they are learning that even the slightest insult is a major event. You must
bring in the adults. “It was terrible. He called me a name,” so they come to college
thinking that if someone disagrees with them or says something that’s distressing, that
it’s a catastrophe. Camille: I’ve called my feminism Amazon feminism.
I’ve called it Drag Queen feminism, Street Smart feminism because the drag queens of
old knew how to handle themselves on the street. They could be a six-foot tall, African-American
guy in a dress and he knew how to pull off his high heels, and defend himself on the
street, and what a tongue they had. And now everything is about weakening students, not
strengthening them. Christina: Oh, it’s exactly that and now let’s
talk about the young men. Can you imagine being a young man on campus today? And what
I see happening is it’s just the way society used to police the sexuality of gay people.
It’s now open season on the sexuality of heterosexual males. Camille: Absolutely. Christina: They’re monitored, and policed,
and demonized. Camille: …and neutered. They’re neutered.
By the time they get to the Ivy League, they’re neutered. Everything’s been stripped off of
them. They’ve been made to feel ashamed of anything virile. They have nothing to identify
with. Christina: They’re taught their masculinity
is a pathology in need of a cure and then it’s offered to them in these gender studies
programs, and it’s not just gender studies. Now this philosophy that demonizes men, it’s
throughout curriculum and you’re absolutely right, it’s going on in the high schools. Camille: It’s coming early on and so then
can you wonder, “Why are video games so violent? Why is there so much porn on the web?” Why?
It’s because the imagination is being repressed, and censored, and forcibly cleansed of anything
that’s authentically animalistic or sexy or vibrant. So you have all the imaginative energy
of the universe now going into these other forms where it becomes much more violent,
and when people see it, they go, “Oh, this is atrocious. This is so awful.” But guess
what? You’ve made a whole area of life impermissible. You’ve made all kinds of human desires and
fantasies impermissible and so it has to come out someplace and that’s where it is. Christina: That’s right, and what happened
last year was a group of cultural critics from, I guess, liberal arts colleges started
writing for magazines for video games, I mean websites. And these cultural critiques started
to attack the gamers, and tell them their games were sexist, and that they were contributing
to the rape culture, and the gamers were not like the young men at the Ivy League. The
gamers fought back. This became known as Gamer-gate. The press has completely misunderstood it,
and the defamed the gamers. They were just defending a hobby that they love. And I made
a video about them in my Factual Feminist series and defended the gamers and then they
started to call me Based Mom. I am a mom. But being based means being authentic, genuine,
no-nonsense and cool, so that’s good, and so I’m Based Mom on Twitter. You, I’ve been
talking about you and sending out your things. They call you Based Goddess. Camille: Oh, for heaven’s sakes, fantastic.
It’s a wonderful compliment. Christina: So the gamers, they appreciate
what we’re doing because they have defined the battle all by themselves, and there are
subcultures out there. Groups of people, hobbyists who read comic books, and now these gender
critics are coming in. They’re not just at the universities. They’re in all of the subcultures,
and turning them into very unhappy places. But they made a mistake when they went after
the gamers because the gamers fought back, and the gamers know a thing or two about winning. Camille: Well, the entire world of animation,
and video games, and cartooning, this is all a pure imagination and it must be protected,
like art. Christina: It’s the art, and the world of
gaming is diverse, and if groups of women…there are a small group of very cool gamers. It’s
mostly guys and a small group of women, but if women, I don’t know. If they want video
games about Downton Abbey they can make them. Camille: You see when you’re not exposed to
complex works of art, like Dostoevsky for example then you end up with a simplistic
view of human life. You see this Utopian view. Somehow everything’s going to be like butterflies
and birds, and so on. The dark side of human existence is completely
missing from these people’s experience or study. Now our generation, I think was more
realistic because our parents had been part of the Depression, World War II, the Holocaust
was huge… Christina: Absolutely. Right. Camille: …and so we had a sense of reality
about what is important and what is barbaric in human history. This idea that you can micromanage
reality down to the pleasant is a Doris Day view of existence. It’s so reactionary. People
don’t realize it’s sentimental. It’s middlebrow and it does not belong on the college campus. Christina: They are sanctimonious. The sanctimony
alone is enough to drive you mad. What the students are doing now and this is at Oxford
University…I think you know about this…the young women are demanding trigger warnings
for anything that’s violent or unpleasant in a classroom, and so I’m thinking again,
trigger warnings in a history class because you’re going to study…? Camille: Also law. I think it also had to
do something of law. Christina: Oh, yes. Camille: It had to do with rape cases. They
had to have a trigger warning. Christina: Well, there’s a group of professors
at Harvard Law School who are opposed to it because they have young women who are going
to be studying law for some of them to be litigators, but they do not want to hear even
the word, violate. They’ve been asked to excise upsetting terms. Well, what kind of world
are we going to have when these people graduate? Camille: It is so regressive. It’s like the
era of the Hollywood studio production code when violence was also censored on not just
sex. And that’s why Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho in 1960, it changed the modern film and opened
it to all kinds of representations of the reality of human existence. I think that from
what I can see, most feminists seem to lack a sense of psychopathology. They don’t understand the most extreme manifestations
of human psychology. So again, they think they can micromanage everything. They think
that they can somehow fine-tune the entire world to be entirely safe. The world will
never be entirely safe for any human being, male or female. The idea that somehow a girl
going out at night alone, as long as everyone has graduated from an elite school will be
somehow protected against an attack from a maniac… Christina: From a maniac, from psychopaths… Camille: Exactly. Christina: …and that if you tell a young
woman, “You should not binge drink, and then go out and walk around. You’re courting danger.”
“Oh, well, tell men not to rape. Don’t tell us what we have to wear.” Camille: It’s called blaming the victim. If
you try to give good advice to be street smart about how you dress, and how you behave and
to be aware of your environment, and know how to handle yourself in a potentially dangerous
environment, that’s called blaming the victim. It’s absolutely crazy. Christina: That men aren’t predators, but
there are predators among men. Camille: There are truly insane people. The
human mind remains primitive. The human mind remains half-animal, but of course, if you
completely remove biology from your consideration… Christina: Then you’re going to end up… Camille: What’s the first thing they do with
this kind of Girl Scout code, they have a Girl Scout view of how… Christina: It’s all socially constructed,
so we can just re-engineer… Camille: They’re Utopians. They’re in this
fantasy world. They think they can produce a sexual utopia. But all of the excitement
and interest of sexual relations comes from potential danger. Guess what? Gay men have
known this for thousands of years. Gay men go out everywhere around the world, and court
danger and death every time they pick up a rough trade on the street. It happens all
the time. Do you hear gay man complaining all the time? Gay men trying to micromanage
the entire world, so they can pick up strangers in bus terminals without danger? No, gay men
find the danger a kick, now why is it then that men have that kind of more sophisticated
sexuality? But no, girls are still children. We must always protect them. They’re tender
flowers. It is so regressive. This is not feminism. Christina: I know it. Camille: Nor is it modernism, as you say Victorian. Christina: It’s Victorian, and it’s also feminism
is full of so many bad ideas that should have been laughed out of…for example, this idea
of “the male gaze” and they use this, “Woman is treated as object passive, he’s
the agent”… Camille: It’s Laura Mulvey’s idea from the
1970’s. Christina: Exactly. Camille: It’s absolutely just a polluted film
criticism, and Laura Mulvey’s a very nice person. I’ve met her at the British Film Institute
in London. Christina: I think she changed a little bit. Camille: But she knows nothing about the visual
arts. You cannot just wade into film criticism and start talking about the male gaze without
knowing something about the history of art, and of perspective and of vision, and so on.
The male gaze is a foolish idea, it should long ago been discarded. Christina: And it’s not as if in gay culture
we don’t find the male gays. I mean gay males enjoy looking at pictures of beautiful, idealized… Camille: And there you disproved a theory.
Because gay men know when they look at a beautiful young man that they are not creating some
sort of powerful subordination on that man. They know they’re looking up in admiration
at that beauty. It’s been part of Western art since the Greeks, for heaven’s sakes. Christina: I mean men look at women, and yes,
they’re enjoying it, but they’re also often intimidated. Camille: Very intimidated, and biologically
it appears to be that the visual apparatus is much more connected to male sexuality than
it is in female terms, and this is what women don’t understand. They think they can put
on every kind of sexy costume and it’s merely décor. That it does not carry its own message. Christina: Right. Camille: Because they don’t see things as
visually as men do. I don’t know whether I have the male gaze or what, but I totally
understand this. There’s this charge in female sexuality. Young women today want to wield
the power of female sexuality without then accepting the consequences of it. Christina: That’s right, and I think what
we’re seeing now on the campus is we’ve had this hyper puritanism, this policing of sexuality
and then all of these functionaries, the apparatchiks, the universities…I read the University of
North Carolina has 40 or 50 sexual harassment, sexual assault… Camille: Oh, my. What a waste of money. Christina: …work shoppers and they’re busy. Camille: Parasites. Christina: They go back and forth to conferences.
They get new ideas. Camille: Horrible. Christina: It used to be that a lot of theories
they objected to, they were inspired by French philosophy and there was a lot of obscure
nonsense. Now a lot of the scholarship is driven by these apparatchiks, some with functionaries
in university and their little findings, which is all propaganda, advocacy research. So it
turns out that Swarthmore is a rape culture. Camille: Oh, for heaven’s sakes. Christina: And where on earth are women more… Camille: A Quaker school. It’s ridiculous. Christina: …safer. They now have, these
sexual harassment, assault counselors they have fact books and little videos, and they
bring kids in for orientation, and tell them they actually describe the campus, “It’s as
dangerous at Oberlin and at Wesleyan as war-torn Congo.” Camille: It’s absurd. Christina: So the young women are frightened,
so they’ve introduced so much paranoia. Camille: Yeah, it’s the bureaucrats. Christina: And the culture of blame and young
men can be destroyed simply by being accused in… Camille: The kangaroo courts, absolutely. Christina: …the kangaroo courts. Camille: The bureaucrats have taken over the
universities. The faculty also have very critically lost power over the past 30 to 40 years. The
faculty has been utterly passive and not pushing back against all of this. Christina: Where have they been? When we were
talking… Camille: Utter wimps. Christina: …20-21 years ago, I thought for
sure more scholars would come forward. Because I do believe that this panic, this Salem witch
trial atmosphere, it was created by scholars working with university functionaries, but
it’s going to take scholars to stop it. Where are they? Camille: Yes, that’s right. They’re afraid.
There’s a fear. Now once you tangle with the bureaucrats, they have all the power and now
with federal regulations behind it, it’s intrusive. I’m hoping Congress is going to roll this
back, this over-interpretation of Title IX. Christina: Back in the 1990s, when we were
winning the argument, and we had the support of the media, there were all these great writers,
that took our side, pro free speech, and it was taken for granted, and people would make
fun of the courses. They would look at the MLA and there would be these silly courses
on, I don’t know…cross-dressing and medieval Valencia or autoeroticism in the early Jane
Austen. It was fun, and then the media got a little tired of it, and thought it had gone
away. It didn’t go away. It got much worse. And if you look at the curriculum now and
the courses that kids take…on Twitter there’s a Twitter called Peer Review and all he does
is report abstracts, show abstracts in journals. It’s so shocking, and it never ends, and you’d
think they’ve reached the ultimate of madness. Just to give an example and this isn’t the
worst, Feminist Glaciology. It’s a feminist study of glaciers. It draws on feminist post
Colonialism, and feminist political ecology. What are these fields? There’s a field, Feminist
Political Ecology. What do they read? It must just be slogans, and mixed with a little propaganda,
a little paranoia thrown in. One course after the other, so are they taking History of Western
Civilization? Are they learning about art? Do they know major historical figures? No,
but they could talk about these arcane, little propaganda, stick topics. Camille: Yes, the core curriculum was abandoned
as these new micro-fields came in. Women’s studies, African-American studies and so on,
and identity politics, they changed the curriculum in the 1970s, and then all of a sudden the
whole history of Western art, well, that’s classist, it’s racist, so we have to abandon
that. And so what you have now is a whole generation, in fact two generations probably
of graduate students who are incapable, actually of ever teaching in a broad, narrative way,
the old, wonderful survey courses. Christina: Right. Camille: Now what I’m calling for is an attack
on upon the curriculum, a reduction by 60% of these elected, these silly electives to
be thrown out, and a compulsory return to teaching within these core ideas that are
oriented toward ancient to modern. Because another thing that, in addition to what you
just mentioned, the fragmentation, is that too many courses now are dated in the present,
the present from after the Enlightenment or even after the 19th century. So you have an imbalance in the curriculum,
so that young people have no sense of the ancient civilizations, and the way they rose
and fell over time. They have no idea of the world. They think that all the evils of the
world are isolated in Western culture. They have no idea about the atrocities, and the
oppressions of empires all over the world. So what we need to do I discovered in my students
coming from a broad range of preparations, now and then there’ll be private schools,
but mostly they come from good suburban schools or from bad inner city schools and they know
absolutely nothing about the chronology of human life. Hence, they look around them, and they see
things that are flaws in our current system, and they believe that these flaws can be fixed,
and that all other cultures in the history of the world were somehow a paradise on earth,
and we’re enjoying the most liberties, ever as women. Christina: These cultures and all these students
who are so hostile to the United States because it’s a capitalist, hetero, patriarchal, oppressive,
imperialist system, these sorts of terms are taken seriously. Well, compared to what? What
other country? We’re far from perfect, but we’re a struggling democracy that’s done more
to address racism, and classism, and sexism than any country I’m aware of. But it’s almost
as if they don’t know that. Camille: I know it. Christina: They don’t know that we have experimented
with systems that don’t have free markets and they didn’t work out very well. These
students don’t seem to know that. They don’t know the history of Communism. Camille: Oh, they have no sense of economics
or much less, political theory. Christina: Economic illiteracy. And so they’re
very confidently and they’ve been taught in their classes, and what astonishes me is someone
who as a professor of many years, I always thought it was a sacred commandment, “Thou
shalt teach both sides of the argument.” So in any philosophy class, I would make sure
whatever we were studying, I’d try to bring the best that was thought and said on both
sides. Well, in these classrooms, in many classrooms and especially anthropology, sociology,
not philosophy…philosophy is so far immune to this, although it has other problems… Camille: Literature, throughout the humanities. Christina: …literature, and then of course,
gender studies, all the ethnic studies classes it’s largely one point of view. They have
their doctrinal feuds, but it’s the gamut from A to B, they leave out all other perspectives.
Conservatives aren’t there, heaven forbid, libertarian perspectives, not there. Commonsense
has no place, and so the students have this sense that they’ve been exposed to what they
take to be settled knowledge. It’s not settled. Camille: Well, this is another thing I’m calling
for is that the profession has not paid sufficient attention to this question of advocacy in
the classroom. I think that it’s important that teacher’s have opinions inside the classroom.
However they have an obligation, an ethical and professional obligation, to identify what
they’re saying as opinion and to state openly to the class that every person in the class,
has the right to express a contrary opinion and to hold it without the rest of the class
scorning it or creating a hostile environment, etc., but that’s totally gone from the profession.
The idea, the ethics of teaching, the ethics of teaching, as well as the ethics of research
are no longer a subject of study by the profession itself. Christina: Oh, this is very important to bring
back, and just in terms of effective teaching what I’d love to do because I loved it as
a student…you’ll remember this. This was especially true in philosophy. You would read
a set of philosophers, let’s suppose philosophers defending free will in a metaphysics course,
and either you’d tend to agree with them as you read them, then the teacher would switch
and you’d read the determinist, and the critiques, and then you would say, “How did I ever believe
that?” And you’d have that wonderful, intellectual experience of changing your mind or realizing
that, “I’d been wrong. Now I’m right. Maybe I’m wrong.” Then you develop this sense of some humility
that you have to take into account a full range of opinion. This is what I did in my
philosophy class and this is what every textbook I ever saw in philosophy does. But on one
occasion, this is probably what prompted me to start criticizing feminism, the chair of
my department asked me to teach a Women’s Studies course, Feminist Theory and I sent
away for textbooks. I thought, “Okay. I’ll teach it. I’m a feminist. I’m a philosopher.
I’ll teach feminist philosophy.” I assumed, I don’t know what I thought, I thought it
would be historical figures saying some terrible things and some good things, and then I thought
maybe it was people pro and con abortion or surrogate motherhood, affirmative action. No, what is was, was a series of rather paranoid
texts. These were feminist philosophers writing these really…but they were ideologues. The
readings were mutually reinforcing and there was a lot of false data. That’s where I became…I
alerted to the role of propaganda. You take these sensitive, mostly young women in these
Women’s Studies classes they hear that one in four of them will be raped, that they’re
going to cheated out of 25% of their salary and they have a massive loss of self-esteem,
and that’s only if they’re not already dead from an eating disorder caused by patriarchal
standards of beauty. They learn this. These sorts of things were in the textbooks,
and I was just appalled at the lack of balance, and as I said, the propaganda and the ideology.
So that’s when I went to the American Philosophical Association criticizing it, and I thought
like at other times I’d been there, you argue. It’s combat, and I was prepared for that and
then you go out for drinks. That’s typically what happens. Well, we did not go out for
drinks. The room was full of feminist philosophers. Some were hissing, stamping their feet, and
I was excommunicated from a religion, I didn’t know existed. And then it was the year or two after that,
I think I was reading The New York Times, it was about this woman, Camille Paglia, I
wasn’t sure how to pronounce it, and I was riveted and soon after you spoke at MIT. It
was a rainy night. I went out to Brookline, and I had a little child at home, and there
was nothing to keep me away and the room was filled, all of them MIT. Camille: Thousands of people came down. Christina: They had video screens in the hall,
so students could see. Camille: People came from all over in the
Boston area. Christina: We were there. Camille: They had the police there to handle
the crowd. Christina: Yeah, they had the police there,
and I think that evening, you may have deprogrammed a thousand students. You were there, and you
were just telling the truth. Camille: Well, half of the crowd was against,
half was for. I felt like I was steering a ship on a stormy sea. I did some of my best
improv comedy ever that night. Christina: Oh, you were… Camille: I was putting on all… Christina: If only we had that on tape. These
days we’d have you on YouTube, get millions of views. Camille: There’s a transcript of it in my
Sex Art book. Christina: It was one of the most thrilling,
intellectual experiences in my life, and for all those students, and I remember there were
a group of people, I forget, they had a name for themselves. They were all dressed in black,
and they came to protest your views, I guess, on date rape or something and they came, and
they were going to make trouble. But then they were so outnumbered, and they were mesmerized
by you, and I watched as they quietly melted away. Camille: You see because they were very used
to disrupting speakers who read prepared texts, and I do improv in controversial situations,
and it’s very difficult to deal with because everything negative that came from the floor,
I would just do something with it and throw it right back. Christina: Well, that’s the way to do it. Camille: I was trained in the school of Joan
Rivers at that point. Christina: Oh, that’s the way to do it. As
God is my witness, I will not read a speech again. It’s actually not a good idea. It’s
better just to talk to the audience. So this is what happened. A couple weeks ago, I went
to UMass, Amherst and I was there with Milo Yiannopoulos, who is this provocateur, satirist,
self-described shit poster and just funny and he says provocative things to me, not
to everyone and I have to correct him. He does go too far. So he’s sort of like it’s
not really good cop, bad cop. It’s more like concerned mother and wayward son, and we’ve
gone to a few campuses together and then we had a comedian, this wonderful comedian, Steve
Crowder. So there were three of us. As soon as we come
on, people in the audience just burst out, they start screeching, and yelling, and then
Milo says something and he’s doing what you say. He makes some…I won’t repeat what Milo
said, but that provoked him, and then I went up as Based Mom to be reasonable, I thought.
Well, I upset them. They were screaming even more. They were using foul language. It’s
all on tape, so it’s gone viral. But there was not a moment that they weren’t
screaming, and I don’t know where the campus police were. Apparently this is permitted,
but at one point Milo said, “We’re not going away. We’re here. We’re going to give our
talk,” and then the comedian did this little riff. He was angry at them and that’s also
gone viral on the internet. But my hope is that…so this has all been covered by the
conservative press, not a word in The New York Times, not a word in The New Republic
or on Slate. The liberal media is not paying attention,
so I’m very concerned. I mean the last time we had the help of the liberal media that
didn’t work, so maybe not having them, maybe it doesn’t matter. But I’m just wondering
who’s going to come forward and defend just free speech. Where is that right now? Where
is the movement? Where are the Nat Hentoff’s? Well, Nat Hentoff is still there, but in those
days we had just so many people coming forward and defending free speech. Then you had people… Camille: I think there has to be pressure
on the colleges and universities themselves, to maintain an atmosphere for civil discourse
and for hospitality to guests of any political persuasion, and without that kind of backbone
coming from the college administrators themselves, I think this is going on. But I feel that
there’s slowly a sense of things turning. The seriousness of it is starting. To become
aware… Christina: I think so, too. Camille: …that this is really getting absurd
now. Christina: And I also think some of the…not
some…I think a lot of the millennials, because it’s a scrappy generation, and it’s also they’re
all connected on the internet and so they talk to each other we haven’t heard from them
yet. I think every generation faces a threat to freedom. You always have to fight for it.
The ’50s, you had the McCarthy era and earlier generations, there’s always movements that
come along, and have good reasons why someone should have to shut up and keep quiet, so
these censorship campaigns. So this generation is being challenged, and I think I’m seeing
signs of rebellion. Camille: I don’t think students realize the
kind of power that they have for pushback against the college administrations. They
keep on accepting all of this paternalism, this suffocating, all enveloping paternalism. Christina: Right, I think the activists, the
social justice warriors on campus they know the power they have over administrators. Camille: Yes, that’s right. Christina: Someone taped a young woman going
into an office at Vassar College demanding a copy of the…it was a setup. There was
someone filming this poor administrator, really. So this pretend student went in with a copy
of the U.S. Constitution, I think it was Vassar and she wanted it shredded because it was
triggering. And the conservative media had a good time with it because it was showing
that here’s an administrator that would shred the Constitution. That’s not what I saw in
the tape. I saw a frightened administrator. Terrified of this young woman, probably thinking,
“Am I going to lose my job if this doesn’t…?” and she was a hostage. This administrator was like a frightened hostage,
and this is what I think, so what I want the millennials to understand, the social justice
activists and the Safe Space people on campus, they are pressuring and frightening the administrators
who are giving into them which is nothing these administrators should be proud of. But
it’s time for a pushback from the students who value free speech, who value rational
scholarship, who would like to be free individuals, and to stop the policing of sexuality. All
of these things have to be fought for again. Camille: That’s right, absolutely. Yeah, so
there has to be a new movement, a new Free Speech Movement in my view. There has to be.
It has to come from the students, as it did the first time with Mario Savio at Berkeley. Christina: I was just going say we need the
Mario Savio’s, and at that time they had a lot to lose too, because that’s what the students
will tell you. They’ll tell you, “Your college is so expensive, and if I get in trouble…”
and now you can be marked, as a rape cultural apologist or a racist simply by challenging,
simply by asking for open debate, you can be…there’s a lot of stigma. Camille: Well, the administrators, they are
now running essentially a business. The colleges are all competitive with each other. They’re
desperate for tuition dollars, so the bureaucrats are all about protecting the PR image of the
university. So they want to be on the politically correct side of protecting those who have
suffered from racial or gender injustice in the past, etc. There really is this…speak
of sanctimonious, there’s this puffed up view of themselves. They’re somehow part of the
progressive movement of social justice in the universe, by suppressing people who have
dissident views on campus. Christina: You can’t even get…and I’ve been
writing about this for years, as you know. There’s now this set of…it’s just a body
of egregiously false information at the heart of campus radicalism, particularly campus
feminism, and 21 years ago we were talking about false statistics on rape, false statistics
on the wage gap. This wage gap is still going on. Camille: It will never go away. It’s so ridiculous. Christina: This one statistician said a phony
statistic is harder to kill than a vampire once it’s out. A false feminist statistic
is the hardest to kill of all. Camille: It’s unbelievable. Christina: It is beyond the reach of rational
analysis. Camille: No one understands that, for heaven’s
sakes, John Kennedy signed the Equal Pay bill, it was like decades ago. It was a half century
ago and there are very rare cases of a woman being paid less than a man for doing the same
job. Christina: The same job. Camille: Okay. Right, the same job. They don’t
understand this. It’s so simple, a simple point. Christina: No responsible economist would
tell you otherwise. Camille: Oh, my Lord. Christina: Yet, when I say this on campus,
shrieks. And some young woman at Oberlin I remember as saying, “If you want to make as
much as a man, you should change your major because on average men are more likely to
study these highly remunerative fields, petroleum engineering or naval architecture.” And I
just said to the Oberlin student, “You know if you study feminist dance therapy you might
not earn as much.” Oh, my goodness, they were outraged at the idea that they couldn’t study
what they wanted, and then earn as much and so forth. They carry on, but it’s we’ve got
this propaganda. There’s no way to correct it and then you get shouted down on campus,
if you even suggest… Camille: Well, the biggest gap in Women’s
Studies is the failure to have a requirement about biology. Christina: Oh, well that. Camille: Because there’s no reference to biology.
You’ve had 40 years of Women’s Studies with a social constructionist view of gender without
the slightest reference to hormones or endocrinology or anything else. Christina: Exactly. Forty years of Women’s
Studies, and I think we know less about gender than we did at the start of it, for this very
reason. This dogma, oh, that men and women are the same, that we’re cognitively interchangeable. Camille: We’re blank slates at birth, and
society inscribes gender on us. It’s absurd. Christina: As one feminist philosopher said
many years ago, “We’re all born bisexual, and then through socialization, we’re transformed
into gendered human beings, one destined to command, the other to obey.” I once read that
to my husband who said, “Which one commands and which obeys?” Camille: There you go. Christina: For heaven’s sakes, I’m someone
who was writing a dissertation on androgyny and I never for one moment in my entire life
have questioned that the sexes are actually different, and that there’s a very powerful,
hormonal compulsion that drives the sexes together for our procreation, hello, okay. Camille: And it’s so obvious and people say,
“Well, what’s the evidence?” Well, let’s start with the entire anthropological record or
just look at a magazine rack and it’s clear that men are looking, on average, I’m not
talking about all men and all women, but on average, there are different propensities. Christina: Men have 8 to 10 times the amount
of testosterone circulating in their bodies than women do. As if there aren’t consequences,
but of course, this subject is something utterly untouched in gender studies. You’re going
to graduate with a degree in Women’s Studies and know nothing about it. Camille: Nothing about it. Christina: Nothing. Camille: Nothing to know and so they are,
at any time they find statistical disparity between men and women, any field, if there
are more male petroleum engineers, it has to be discrimination. Camille: Right, it can’t be women’s free choice
for any reason. Christina: Free choice and that on average
women are interested in other things. Camille: Absolutely and also women want more
flexibility in their lives to allow for children… Christina: Children. Camille: …but that’s not also part of the
feminist equation. Christina: Oh, and if we don’t have a special
bond with children…It’s so absurd the denial of nature, the denial of femininity and masculinity. Camille: Absolutely. Christina: Which for most people, it’s a source
of enjoyment and if you are conventionally feminine, you enjoy that typically and the
same with male, and you enjoy a masculine man. And all of this is now either denied
or there’s this aura of disapproval around conventional sexuality and there’s so little
pushback in the Academy. Camille: Well, it’s because there’s no knowledge,
and people are just settled and sluggish within their little selves, their ideological selves
and there really are very few truly inquiring minds left, no true intellectuals, really
in the Academy. The Academy and, of course the colleges and universities, have never
been known for producing free thinkers. It is after all a bureaucratic entity the Academy.
If we want intellectuals, the present system is certainly not the way to produce them. Christina: I’m just wondering, “What is this
generation? Are we going to have some great public intellectuals coming forth, who aren’t
just spouting dogma?” Camille: You’d think that the web would allow
people to have free and independent though, but no. Christina: No, you have all these people… Camille: Yeah, everyone is so grouped and
clustered. Christina: …and these little Twitter moms
that are policing everyone. Camille: Oh, absolutely. Christina: You’ll have these incidents. This
poor comet scientist who wore the wrong shirt to a press conference, and then they were
hysterical on the internet, to punish him and censor him, and these kinds of happen. Camille: Parochialism of their minds. The
banality of their minds. Christina: I know exactly what you’re saying.
Why aren’t there more people like us? Why don’t more people see it? Camille: Well, we’re the product of a certain
time. I realize that now and I’m trying actually not to be too hard on the young people today
because they didn’t have our kind of background. Our parents… Christina: The comedians, Mort Saul and Lenny
Bruce, and then George Gavin. Camille: Carlin, comedians were tremendous. Christina: Richard Pryor and so today the
comedians aren’t allowed on campus. Camille: Yes, that’s right. Christina: They’re triggering. They don’t
want to go. Camille: Humor comes from violating taboos.
All right, we could have a taboo about women or race or anything else, then you you’re
attracting humor toward it. Any rigidity attracts humor because satire breaks up the rigidity. Christina: So anyway my question here is,
I think these propaganda and the denial that there are differences between the sexes they’re
just built up. It’s a big lie and it’s almost to me, comparable…I can’t carry out this
analogy too far. But the credit default swaps and there was all of these bad mortgages distributed
everywhere. No one knew where they were, but they were everywhere in the economy and then
it brought it down, and I see this as feminist misinformation. We have feminist misinformation
in every area, disseminated by these credulous journalists who don’t ask the right questions.
So everybody believes sexes are exactly the same and there’s this wage gap. That there’s
rape culture on campus. That women are victims and men are…all of this is out there. Large
numbers of people believing something that’s just not true. Camille: Well, you have to realize that a
lot of people in the media now are products of those PC elite schools. I encounter them
all the time. Christina: So do I. Camille: And trying to get their minds to
focus, they have an utterly…I’m talking about Yale degrees, Harvard degrees, Princeton
degrees. Christina: Oh, the more prestigious the degree,
the more likely it is. Camille: The worse, absolutely. Their minds
are like… Christina: Whole generation of young women… Camille: …they can’t focus. They have no
knowledge, and they’re in media. They’re writing The New York Times, they’re doing political
analysis in The New York Times. They know nothing. Christina: They know nothing, but they have
a lot of confidence, very high self-esteem. Camille: Yes, because… Christina: No problem there. Camille: …they have these bright and shiny
degrees, which are in fact, meaningless and valueless. Christina: Worthless. Camille: Worthless degrees, worthless Ivy
League degrees. Christina: They should go back. They should
go, I don’t know. Camille: Remember I used to say that Naomi
Wolf, her parents should have sued Yale for mal-education. Christina: Susan Faludi’s parents should have
sued for… Camille: Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf, these
are two very smart women, who were defrauded by their elite school education. Look how
their careers have tanked. Why is that? They didn’t have the solid, rigorous education
you and I did. I went to the State University of New York at Binghamton. I had a superb
education in the basics, and that is fueling my productivity at my stage of life, but look
at Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. They started out so strong, and there’s nothing because
they have nothing underneath it. Christina: I identify with them in this way.
I came from Southern California in the hippie era, I was a flower child, so if I had come
to college and they had courses in witchcraft I was interested in that. My friend in high
school was Mimi Simo [SP] she became a witch. She was a brilliant girl, but she became Star
Hawk, and I don’t know. We were friends, but then she became…maybe we could still be
friends. I wouldn’t want her to put a hex on me. But I went to NYU, and if they’d had
kooky majors, I would have gone in for them. I would have been a witchcraft major maybe.
But the most interesting thing I could find was philosophy and my philosophy professors
at NYU it was clear thinking and rigor and precision rules, and coming as a flower…I
thought it was far out. We read this book called Language, Truth, and Logic by A.J.
Ayer. It was a very extreme statement of the need for a logical rigor in your thought,
and so forth, and I loved it. I fell in love with it, and I slowly class after class I
had, reading the great philosophers, and I slowly became a disciplined thinker. I like
to think that I did, but I always knew how I once saw the world, and then the transformation. Of course, that’s what I hoped to do in the
classroom. What I see now is that 17-year-old, 18-year-old Christina coming from the California
flower child culture, and a lot of kids are coming from all sorts of backgrounds, but
you come to school, it would be reinforced. It would be catered to, and I could have run
to the dean and said, “I’m not really getting the courses that I would like to take.” You
can design your own major. Camille: That’s right, it’s cafeteria style
now. Christina: It’s cafeteria style and it’s even
in the museums now. Camille: Oh, absolutely. Ah, the museums,
horrible. Christina: The museums, I was in Portland
and to the local museum, and there was a beautiful display of some Indian artifacts and some
exquisite photographs of Indians, Native Americans, and the works of art it was all beautiful.
But in every room, there was some feminist art historian had written a hectoring, little
description censoring and talking about the gaze of the tourist and all this kind of deconstruction,
and so you couldn’t learn about the art, and you couldn’t enjoy it. It had to be mediated
through the mind of this fanatical… Camille: Ideological perspective. It had to
be filtered through, the judgementalism, the moralism, the guilt tripping and so on. Christina: It was one big guilt trip. Camille: Instead of the actual encounter with
an artifact from the past, and a sense of awe and reverence before that object, no we
have to have this interposed contemporary figure hectoring us. That’s the sermon. They’re
new preachers, the new scolds, perfect. Christina: They’re scolds. Camille: They’re new scolds. Christina: They’re scolds. They’re pests.
So we see it going into the media, that’s a given, and now in the museums and then there’s
cultural appropriation. This is one of the new ideas that if you, at some level a lot
of this there’s a kernel of wisdom, that you don’t put on black face and essentially demean
another culture in that way. But now they’re going after yoga classes and that sort of
thing, you’re not supposed to say Namaste. That’s going to put all of Portland out of
work. It’s nothing but yoga studios, I don’t know. But now performances of the Mikado,
the Gilbert and Sullivan, people are saying, “Well, that was cultural appropriation. It’s
demeaning.” You have the museum in Boston where they have beautiful kimonos on display.
Well, now there were protesters and the protesters didn’t seem to be from Japan. It’s almost
always people that aren’t in that culture that are the most shrill. Camille: Oh, good Lord. Christina: And so the Boston Museum, the Museum
of Fine Arts had to apologize. Camille: Oh, I don’t believe it. Christina: So this is going on. It’s permeating
the culture and I want it to stop. Camille: Yes, that’s right. It’s so unsophisticated.
This is not the way. Christina: Anti-intellectual. Camille: This is not the way you contemplate
history and art, through the contemporary political filter. This distorts the meaning
of history and art. Christina: It distorts and trivializes, and
that’s what I see with students. They’re not having these encounters with great works of
art. Camille: Right. Christina: That’s what a teacher should do. Camille: We were produced by the great books
curriculum. Christina: We always had, no matter what even
if you had a bad teacher you always had a classic. Camille: And a sense of respect for the greatness
of the work, not this debunking, sneering deconstruction. Christina: Now they have a sense of superiority. Camille: Exactly. “Oh, this is like a product
of all kinds of outmoded or racial or gender paradigms,” and so on. Give me a break. The
whole history of the world is seen through this contemporary lens, and again, it’s absolutely…and
that’s we’re not getting any important intellectuals and young intellectuals, young writers, young
analysts. If you’re ever going to get any they have got to start going back to the library
and finding other independent thinkers because they’re certainly not being presented with
them in the classroom. Christina: They’re just not. Camille: No. Christina: So that’s the message to students
today. You cannot depend on your… Camille: Don’t depend on the teachers. Christina: …teachers. Camille: No, distrust authority. Resist authority
and go and find what you need in the library and don’t just sit there on rear end in front
of the computer because the computer self-selects for you. You’re not going to find it. You
have to go and physically engage with the things on the shelves. It’s what I did. I
ransacked the Yale University Library. Christina: Someone called our universities,
“Islands of repression in a sea of freedom.” Students have to liberate their islands. So
we’re here foment rebellion. Camille: That’s right. That’s right. Christina: Well, thank you, Camille. Camille: Well, great, Christina, as usual. Christina: So I’m hoping we meet… Camille: We always agree. Christina: …20 years from now and oh, goodness. Camille: That’s right. Okay. Christina: It’ll be free again and liberated. Camille: Let’s hope free speech is restored. Christina: Yes, and sanity. Well, thank you

My Opinion on the Bang Chan Situation and Controversy (RANT)

Hi guys, it’s Anna! Today’s video is going to be more serious than usual because I’ll be talking about the Bang Chan situation.
I’ll be talking about what exactly happened and why he’s under fire then
I’ll talk about my personal opinion and other people’s opinions and reactions
and lastly I’ll talk about what we as fans and as people in general should do
when situations like this happen. And before anyone calls me a fake STAY or fake fan please hear me out. I still love Bang Chan and Stray Kids. I
don’t think any less of him I still stan and support him, but I am
disappointed. I strongly believe that you can still stan and love someone without
blindly following them. You don’t have to agree with everything they say or do if
it’s against your beliefs or if you think it’s wrong. That doesn’t make you
any less of a fan or a fake fan. I think that because you love them, you should
call them out when they do something wrong or when they fuck up, educate them and try to explain to them, why what they did was wrong.
Help them understand and realize why it was wrong so that it doesn’t happen
again. There is nothing wrong with that. But to
people who want to educate Chan please be civil, be respectful and be nice about
it. Don’t try to shove it down his throat, attack him or harass him. That doesn’t
help the situation and that doesn’t help him really understand why it was wrong
and help him grow. You can’t fight fire with more fire, that is just not how it
works. So basically what happened was that Chan had cornrows for the 3Racha ‘Zone’ stage performance and the reactions were split on this. There were
very negative reactions as expected, but it has gotten way out of hand. If you
guys didn’t know cornrows are traditionally an African-American hairstyle and it is
considered disrespectful when a non-black person wears it. And if someone feels offended and upset by what Chan did I think that they have every right
to feel that way. Just because you are not offended or upset and think it’s
stupid or it’s just a hairstyle doesn’t mean that the people who are offended
that their feelings are invalid. People need to be more considerate of each
other’s feelings. That being the people who were offended,
the people who weren’t offended and Bang Chan himself and try to
understand where they’re coming from. Just because one black STAY is not offended
doesn’t mean that others won’t be offended as well. And just because
someone is upset and offended doesn’t mean that they are sensitive or
overreacting, maybe they have a reason to feel that way. And in order to educate
myself and help me understand where the people who were upset are coming from, I
looked on Twitter and on Stray Kids I guess Fancafe where STAYs can write a
letter and what I’ve learned is that some black people are looked down upon
because of these hairstyles. They are called like just horrible things like
ugly and dirty and unprofessional or unkept and they can’t get jobs or get
fired from jobs or they have problems with teachers in schools, so it has a
very negative reaction so I understand, why some people might feel offended and
upset with what Chan did. Like maybe they were treated poorly or they were
discriminated against or they had just a bad experience and then they see a
non-black person have the same hairstyle but being praised for it and called cool
and beautiful. I can see where they are coming from. We need to understand why
some people might feel upset or offended or hurt and respect their feelings. But
also at the same time understand why someone isn’t offended or upset by it. Maybe they didn’t have such experience, maybe they
don’t care if someone who’s not black has this hairstyle, maybe they don’t know
and that is not wrong either. Everyone has a right to feel however they want –
they can be happy that Chan is representing the culture and they can
feel proud, but there can be people who might feel offended and hurt by it and
that is not wrong either. I think what’s important is to understand the other
side and be considerate of their feelings. We shouldn’t make them feel like
their feelings are invalid or that they are too sensitive or that what they’re
feeling is wrong. You can disagree with someone’s opinion or how they feel
without being rude or hateful about it. But here is where the big BUT comes in.
I will not tolerate or support any form of hate towards Bang Chan. I will not
support people canceling Chan. Yes, he made a mistake, but everyone makes
mistakes and what is important is that he realizes, why it was wrong and learns
from it and never does it again. I will not support people who are bashing or
harassing or just telling these rude, hateful and vile things to Chan, just
because he fucked up. Nor will support OT8 or to 2Racha stans, that is not a thing. Stray Kids is 9 or none, 3Racha
is 3 or none, there is no other way. Let’s make this clear. Yes, I’m
disappointed, but what I want for Chan is to understand, why what he did was wrong and why some people feel offended and upset and take it as a learning lesson.
Do I love him less? NO! I hope I made myself clear with that. It’s like when a
parent scolds a child. They don’t want their child to do wrong things and get
into trouble so that’s why they scold them, but that doesn’t mean that the
parent hates the child or loves him less. This is the same situation. Another thing
I will not support and it upsets me so much is people who are making fun of
Chan’s health and his well-being. This is NOT okay. Calling it karma or something –
that is not okay! I’m not here to cancel Chan or Stray Kids, none of that, I
still love and support him so don’t come for me calling me a fake STAY or a fake
fan just because I don’t agree with what he did. Lastly what I will NOT support is
people going into you black STAYs DMS or Curious Cats, calling them such rude, vile
and racist things, just because they feel upset and offended. They have a right to
feel that way and as I said just because you don’t feel upset doesn’t mean their
feelings are invalid. I know that people want him to apologize and clear things up so that the fandom just calms down, but please don’t harass him. I want him
to address things and apologize when he actually realizes, why what he did was
wrong not because people pressured him into it. I want him to learn and realize
why it was wrong so that he can grow and become a better person than he already
is. So do I think he made a mistake? Yes. Do I think that he should apologize or
address things? Yes, because there were people who were upset and hurt by this. Do I think he’s a horrible and bad person that should burn in hell?
No, God no! Another thing I’m disappointed by is that I would think that JYP would
know better. Not only JYP, but other kpop
entertainment companies. This is not the first time this happened. This has
happened so many times already and idols have been called out for it.
These idols were dragged to hell and back, so I would think that they would learn from it and would realize that, this is wrong, this is a sensitive topic
and we shouldn’t do this. But this is a whole
another video. What I want with this video is for us to be more considerate and
understanding of other people’s feelings. You don’t have to agree with them, but
try to understand where they’re coming from. If you want to educate someone not
only on this topic, but other topics, remember be respectful, nice and civil
about it. Make them understand that you are coming from a place of love. Overall
let’s just be better people. So that’s basically a breakdown of what happened
and why people feel a certain way. Just to make myself clear one more time
I still stan, love and support Bang Chan. So that’s my personal opinion and how I
feel about the situation…you might agree, you might disagree and that’s okay too.
It is completely okay to have a different opinion than someone, but
remember – be considerate and understanding of the other side. Also
don’t try to fight with hate that doesn’t create love. So those are my two
cents on the situation, leave a comment down below telling me, if you agree with
me or if you disagree with me and why I disagree with me. Let’s keep the
conversation going. But remember – please be respectful to each other in the
comments because if I see anyone rude I will delete it. We can have a nice and
respectful conversation even though we might not agree with each other. So with
this video I hope you understand where I’m coming from where the people who are upset and hurt by Chan’s actions are coming from and where the people who are not upset by this are coming from. Just be mutually understanding and respectful
towards each other and be nice to people. So that’s all from
me and I hope you have a wonderful day and hopefully I’ll see you next time, bye.