The Atlas Society Asks James Lindsay

Speaker 0 00:00:00 Hello everyone. And welcome to the 110th episode of the Atlas society asks. My name is Jennifer Anju Grossman. You can call me JAG. I am the CEO of the Atlas society. We are the leading nonprofit organization, introducing young people to the ideas of Imran in fun, creative ways, like our graphic novels and animated videos. I am so excited. I've been so looking forward to this today, we are joined by Dr. James Lindsay, before I even get into introducing him. I want to remind all of you who are watching us, whether on zoom or Facebook or Instagram, Twitter, or LinkedIn, YouTube used comment, section type in your questions make 'em short and we'll get to as many of them as we can. Dr. James Lindsay is a best selling author mathematician, and a cultural critic who has written six books on subjects, including religion, uh, the philosophy of science and postmodern theory, his newest book, race Marxism explores the origins of critical race theory as a reinvention of, uh, Marxism focusing on race instead of class and his most famous book. So far, I guess I should add is, uh, one he coauthored with Helen pluck rose it's cynical theories, how activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity, and why this harms everyone. Dr. Lindsay. Welcome again. Thank you for joining us. Speaker 1 00:01:39 Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here. It'll be hard to top how cynical theories did, I'm happy to be able to report. I'm glad I got into so many hands. Speaker 0 00:01:47 Um, yeah, absolutely. I highly recommend it. And, uh, I would have to say also your co-author, uh, Helen pluck rose. If, uh, she needs to bring in some extra cash, she should start a hot side hustle as a, as a, uh, narrator, because she did a really wonderful job. She's a beautiful voice that Speaker 1 00:02:05 We all tried to tell her that, and she's so she's British. So she has a little bit of a roughneck London accent instead of like the posh ones. So she was so nervous about it, the British and their, their funny accent Speaker 0 00:02:16 Issues. Oh no, it was, it was amazing. I, I, you know, kind of had a hard time believing that that that was, was her, but it was, it was beautifully done. Um, so, and of course you and Helen and Peter Bogosian, uh, teamed up to submit some 20 academic books papers with seven of them getting published in prestigious peer reviewed journals. Uh, the resulting uproar became known as the so-called square scandal, if I'm getting that right. So, uh, tell us a little bit about how you came up with it, what happened and, uh, the reaction of course, when it Speaker 1 00:02:58 Was discovered. Yeah, so, I mean, this is a, this is sort of like in a sense, the origin story for how I ended up getting into this whole mess, um, in, in, in 2017, Peter and Helen and I embarked on a mission to expose what we thought was a huge political corruption and academia, whether they were publishing these absolutely absurd academic articles. And so we wrote, as you said, 20 of them over the course of a year, and which is a lot of academic articles, they usually is one or two a year is a career. And, um, we did 20 in a single year and we ended up getting seven of them accepted. Uh, seven of them were still under peer review. The wall street journal caught us so six, we had given up on and to, to account for everybody there. And what we were trying to do was expose that there's this, you can actually write stuff that's either horrific or absolutely nonsense, or just silly and terribly argued then to get these papers accepted as long as they had politically fashionable conclusions. Speaker 1 00:03:55 In other words, that you could just introduce as a, as a guy that Peter knows from Harvard, put it, uh, opinion and prejudice and pass it off as knowledge by flattering the political views of the editors and peer reviewers of the journals. I think it's actually worse than that. I think it's that they don't know what constitutes legitimate research. Uh, so we submitted these peer reviewed Oracles. Um, some of them focused on how we might deal with say the issue of rape culture as a big feminist talking point by, uh, considering the way that dogs have sex with one another in dog parks, as a focus, as a lens to focus on the issue through, and then to train men that we, the way that we train dogs in order to, you know, get them to not rape. And that, that one actually an award for excellence in scholarship is all just made up. Speaker 1 00:04:45 You know, in fact it was the data didn't even make sense. It was, it was impossible data claiming that we saw thousands of dogs, tens of thousands of dogs, uh, uh, over the course of a small amount a year. And so just absurd. We rewrote a chapter of Hitler's mind, conf his intersectional feminism, replacing his call for a, a movement, meaning the Nazi party, what became the Nazi party with intersectional feminism. And that was accepted by a feminist social work journal. We had a number of other pretty wild and crazy papers that get less and less PG as we go. Right. But the conceptual penis, I think the conceptual penis was the very, very first foray into that. Yeah. Conceptual penis is a social construct, um, where we argued that penises are not really best thought of as anatomical organs, but rather as a social construct, that shapes how we interact with our world in a particularly nasty way, in fact, that it causes most of our problems, especially climate change. Speaker 1 00:05:38 And so, uh, by raping the natural environment as we actually put it. So, um, yeah, so the, the, the purpose was to expose that these things could be, it was kinda like, what do they call a white hat, uh, experiment? Can we get this stuff through peer review? Will they accept it? Will they publish it? What does this tell us about the state of peer review? And a lot of people wanted to conclude that peer review itself, wasn't like they weren't being rigorous. And we tried to make clear, no, no, no, they're, they're quite rigorous. They rejected a number of our papers for the right reasons. They were accepting papers that met their minimum standards of research, but it's that there, their standards of research are bad and that's a much deeper and, and more significant problem. And so that was really the motivation behind that and what we exposed. Speaker 1 00:06:24 Um, but in the process, what changed the course of my life is like, I didn't do this stunt and then decide, well, let's just keep going on. The gr um, what happened was one of the papers was clearly, it was an education paper and it was clearly advocating openly advocating for abusing, especially white male students in order to get them to learn about and overcome their privilege. And, um, but we said we had to do it compassionately, cuz we thought that was funny. And they replied the peer. Yeah. The peer reviewers replied, you can't use compassion because that threatens to recenter the needs of the privilege. You have to focus on their discomfort if you wanna overcome privilege. And I was like, holy crap, this is the seat of a genocide. And so everybody thought I was literally insane when I started calling this the seat of a genocide. But that level of ignoring the, uh, the, the humanity of a group of people for political ends is where genocides grow from. They don't necessarily sprout. They don't necessarily flourish and fruit, but that's where that's the seed from which they grow. And so I remember asking my wife, if I could quit my job and dedicate my life full time to reading and exposing what's going on in this academic and then historical litera, philosophical literature. Um, and so that's kind of how I got to where I am now. Uh, Speaker 0 00:07:41 How did that conversation go? Speaker 1 00:07:42 <laugh> with my wife, she told me, she asked me kind of, you know, very practical, wonderful woman asked me, uh, can you make money doing it? And I said, I don't know. And she said, you have 18 months to find out. And so she was willing to take a risk on me if it was this important to me, she was willing to take the chance, took me 16 months till I could write my first salary check. So we got in right under the wire, uh, and the rest is kind of history. I mean, it also gave me a giant leg up into understanding what I'm dealing with, you know, and it's a, it's an interesting leg it's worth mentioning because we studied, you know, a lot of people might go all the way back to mark. So they might go back before that and study Hael or Russo. Speaker 1 00:08:19 And, you know, Steven Hicks has done an excellent job with decoding that philosophy from the beginning forward. But we started at the present day, how it's being used and worked our way backwards mm-hmm <affirmative> or I did at least all the way back to these same characters. And so it, it colors the perspective you have of marks or the color that you have of Haggler that you have of Russo to look way back into philosophical history. If you see that the end result of the, you know, what, what fruit are there ideas bearing now to understand what came out of those ideas that led there? You don't, it's not just, oh, well let's just look at the dialectic in an abstract sense. No, we started with, this is what the dialectic dialectic has become. How did it get here and worked our way backwards to the literature? So it worked out to be a very interesting way to study this by starting at the wrong end and, and working our way back. Speaker 0 00:09:10 Well, I think, uh, I think that's right. And of course, um, Steven Hicks is a senior scholar at the Atlas society. Who's been with us for a very long time. Uh, we've taken his explaining postmodernism and we've distilled it down into a pocket guide to postmodernism and our, uh, postmodern postmodernism animated video in which we kind of give the parentage of it, but being fairly well versed with his, uh, his work and the approach that he takes that's was really an interesting kind of background to, uh, to reading cynical theories. And so let's get to that first, the title you write that postmodernism skepticism of science and other ways of discovering truth was quote so profound as to be better understood as a type of cynicism about the entire history of human progress. So let's get to that. In what ways, uh, does the cynicism define the entire postmodernism project to dismantle enlightenment values? Speaker 1 00:10:22 Well, I mean like the, the, with postmodernism specifically the kind of underlying thesis as the, every claim upon knowledge, every discourse, you know, so every kind of web of language that gets manifested around expressing knowledge or knowing anything or finding meaning in the world is ultimately just an expression of the power system that happens to be in place. And thus the people who benefit from the existing power system setting the terms of that system of knowledge or that system of, of discussion and discourse. So that's an extremely cynical way to think of the world to think that basically you can't even escape the unjust application of power because the unjust application of power is this pervasive thing that, that is, it, it, it defines the entire way that we communicate that we think what we claim is, is, or isn't knowledge, um, that this was a, a kind of very, you know, um, cynical project set up by people who happen to want to maintain their power and then has this weird poisonous element to it, which is, oh, and it's maintained by the way, through you, you don't even know that you're maintaining the power system because it's been kind of inculcated into you. Speaker 1 00:11:29 And by the way that we speak by what's considered true and false. And as you know, Fuco maintained it wasn't for example, whether something's true or false, that's all that interesting, maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. What is what's interesting is how power decided that somebody gets to say that it's true or false. The politics is the interesting part. So this, this profoundly cynical view of meaning making of understanding the world that we live, that, you know, the scientific method is again, it's biology, isn't a science that seeks to understand the world. It's merely a way for people who call themselves biologists to assert their power over people who want to have another opinion about what reality is a biological reality is, and that this is just a regime of truth. And that regime of truth will fall as political regimes always doing get replaced with another one that's of the same nature. So it's a profoundly cynical way to look at the way that human societies are organized and the way that people participate in them. Speaker 0 00:12:25 So, um, as you acknowledge in, uh, cynical theories, postmodernism is kind of this sprawling field. It is almost, uh, intentionally resistant to a definition, but, um, perhaps if you, you know, when people ask you to explain it, I get different answers from our, um, our different scholars. I like to think of it sort of as the attempt to continue on the, the grievance narrative, the good versus the bad people, um, the oppressors versus the victims, um, in, in the wake or the shadow of the, uh, practical and observable failure of Marxism economically. So I, I wonder if, if that sums it up or what else I might be missing, and then also just, um, getting into this idea of postmodernism versus applied postmodernism. Speaker 1 00:13:22 Sure, sure. Yeah. So, um, I think that does sum it up really well. Uh, the, what I would add to that, uh, in particular is that, um, postmodernism is a general skepticism of anybody's ability to claim, to know anything that knowledge itself is just a political contingency, which is a profound, again, cynical view on how the world works. And I think that this does spring from their, you know, observation of the failure of Marxism, uh, that, you know, they had their pet theory for how the world should work. So they already hated liberalism. They already hated religion. They already hated, you know, capitalism. They couldn't turn to those as Marxism fails. And what do they have left? Well, they were largely tied into the Neo holistic French existentialist tradition. They're like, everything's fake. Everything is a, just another expression of power. Why? Because the thing that they had put their hope on, which was Marxism was just another expression of power. Speaker 1 00:14:23 And so rather than seeing the world through a lens that, you know, everything can become corrupted. So you have to remain vigilant, not to allow corruption to take it over. Their view is everything is intrinsically corrupt. And the corruption is the story is in fact, the defining characteristic of everything. And I think that comes out of what you said, but if I were to, if somebody was to say to me, you know, one, you know, we got an elevator ride, one floor what's postmodernism. It's the belief that knowledge. And even the way that we speak about ideas is a political project that benefits certain people and not, and, and excludes others, which is a really profoundly, you know, that they call it a post Marxist idea. It takes the Marxist conflict theory and applies it in a different domain, which is the idea of making sense of the world. Speaker 1 00:15:12 So it's like almost a Marxist theory of understanding things. So nobody can truly understand things, but privileged people have set the terms of understanding on their own. And it really, it, it just becomes that. So in that sense, it becomes a project, practically breaking rules. How do you break the rules? Where do you find anywhere the rules are, they must be arbitrary and represent power. So how do you break them? How do you smash the rules, uh, because they benefit somebody and that somebody's probably not you. And if, even if it is you, you're probably harming somebody who deserves better. So it's is kind of very, um, I don't know, destructive, I I've compared it to a, an asset that can dissolve virtually anything. Uh, so, you know, that's, that's kind what I would, would summarize postmodernism as, as being, I think, um, Speaker 0 00:15:56 Is wanting to destabilize as, Speaker 1 00:15:58 Yeah, it is a fundamental attempt to kind of like, if we can't have our party, then we're gonna destabilize sort of everything. Cause we can't have what we want while nobody's gonna have anything, but I'm not sure that they were that petant. I mean, you look at the people that were guiding it, Jack Deda, I think just got off in his, like to give him a little credit. I think he was just a dorky academic lost in his ideas, which were all bad ideas. Michelle Fuco had his own other motivations that don't have to be expressly stated necessarily, but people know what they are. Uh, he was, you know, tied up in various sexual proclivities. We'll, we'll leave it at that for the moment that he was trying to find ways to justify. So, oh no, there's this weird attempt to use the word madness to exclude people that we don't want to have power. Speaker 1 00:16:42 We're crazy. We're dangerous. Oh no, there's this whole history of sexuality where, you know, prevents people from, you know, being able to be perverts in various ways. Uh, and this is just a socially constructed disaster, you know, but you can tell, you can, it's easy to see through, which is funny because Fuco is very niche and, and is approach and NHA was the one who's most famous for saying that the philosophers don't really do philosophy. They rationalize their own pathologies through lots of words. And it's like, yeah, that's you, uh, Michelle <laugh> um, we see you. So anyway, I mean, I think that your summary is actually pretty adequate to be honest. Um, the Speaker 0 00:17:21 Goal. Yeah. And, and I, but I, I thought that the addition of this perspective of cynicism also even helped me better understand some of the, uh, more benign aspects of postmodernism. Let's just say, um, aesthetically, uh, some of the surrealism there was, you know, almost a kind of playfulness, but there was still a cynicism. It was like, we're abandoning the, the pros, the prospect of creating great art that's original, and that has the prospect of ennobling or elevating or providing a window onto, you know, the transcendent. Uh, and we're just going to kind of doodle and squiggle and be, be funny and just, you know, take something that is, and reinvent it in a, in a different way. Um, but you have this interesting perspective and I, it, what's been very fascinating to me watching you on social media, watching your work over these past few years is it's almost like, uh, you know, the, the people that are just consumed with this postmodern perspective, um, they call themselves woke, but you almost have like a different kind of wokeness in being able to see where it's going next and how it's manifesting. Speaker 0 00:18:43 Um, and, and also I thought was interesting a lot of times, um, libertarians and, and, and Objectivists will say, oh, well, well, those are just the culture wars. Those are cultural issues. But, um, the framework that you present shows how actually that there is this, uh, continuing project of trying to advance, um, a, an egalitarian worldview, uh, and it's applying it to, to various aspects of, of life smashing the rules, wherever they may be, uh, sexual or otherwise. Um, but I, so I wanted to ask, given our experience O of the past two and a half years, um, I think one of the biggest shocks to Western civilization that we've experienced in my lifetime, uh, has been, uh, the, the way that, um, government authorities, uh, took advantage of, um, the, the crisis, the real crisis of this pandemic to, uh, to try to, you know, remake society reinvent, uh, or reset capitalism. So, um, just, just again, your perspective on, on what we've been through over the past past couple years. Speaker 1 00:20:04 Yeah. And this kind of ties into the question that you asked before. The part that I didn't answer about the kind of evolution of applied applied postmodernism. So what we called applied postmodernism was essentially a bunch of radical activists who had various threads back into critical theories of different types. Some of 'em were post-colonial, some of them were, uh, race theorists. Some of them were, um, post-structural feminists. They, they could have picked up these tools, these post modern tools, and started to apply them to their own activist projects. Excuse me? Speaker 0 00:20:38 Yes. I have to just also, we are doubly thankful for, for Dr. Lindsay, he's getting over a cold and, um, he's been traveling and he still showed up. So still, yeah. Hydrate <laugh> Speaker 1 00:20:56 Excuse me. I'm sorry about that. Uh, yeah, I am, I got a little bit of a, a bug in Phoenix, so we're dealing with it, uh, and I don't feel as bad as I sound, so don't worry about that too much. I just got the watery eyes from the coughing. Um, but no, these activists took this up and they, uh, very diligently started to put it into practice in order to transform the institutions that they had gone into. And this follows the instructions of a Marxist or neo-Marxist Harvard, Marusa from the middle of the 1960s going into the early 1970s. And he said that what you have to do is you have to infiltrate the institutions. It's not enough to be a Marxist. It sits outside and criticizes. You actually have to go in and become the thing. So he said, if you, excuse me, counterrevolution revolt, which you did in 1972. Speaker 1 00:21:50 He said, you know, if you're a computer programmer, you're gonna be a person who brings your ideology into computer programming, but you're gonna do the thing. If you're a biologist, you're gonna bring your ideology into biology, but you're gonna do the thing. And that's what we have to change. We have to take up what Rudy Deutsche called the long March to the institutions, largely through education, because everybody goes to college or to school to be whatever it is they're gonna be. And so that of course is the project of Antonio Grimsey that was written about in the 1920s, and then he was in prison. So nobody saw it until much later, except the Soviets, cause it was smuggled to Moscow, uh, maybe ma maybe. And so the whole project took on this, this new element, which was let's turn the schools into places where this ideology can be deposited in the heads of people who are gonna go out into the world and become the thing. Speaker 1 00:22:48 And that's a very important piece to understand it. The other thing that Marza did is also very important to understand, was he divorced Marxism from its traditional reliance on the working class, the working class, in his opinion had become stabilized and thus betrayed the Marxist agenda. So now you need a new working class is what he said. Uh, in say the yes and liberation from 69, you need to look to the racial minorities, to the feminists. So the outsiders to the, to the, uh, sexual minorities, you gotta find these people and motivate them because they have the energy to be our revolutionary Cadra, but they, they don't have the ideas. So you, what are you gonna do? You're gonna get those ideas to them by bringing them into the universities and by radicalizing the youth to go bring them into their areas. You know, so, you know, he teams up with Angela Davis, very radical black feminist. Speaker 1 00:23:39 And all of a sudden this German white guy is, has like tons of street cred with a bunch of hip black radicals. Like, how do you think he would've been treated otherwise? Right? So he finds his way in to start giving the black Panthers, the black nationalists, the black liberation of various stripes, the Marxist tools and neo-Marxist tools to understand their context and to re redefine it. So all of a sudden they're freed up from the shackles of having to pretend they care about the working class, cuz Marxists have never cared about workers in reality. Uh, they see them as a political opportunity and they move this into domains where they can, can, can do it with identity politics instead. And since they're not shackled to the working class anymore, these OI professors can become the people who direct it. And then eventually professionals can be the ones who direct it. Speaker 1 00:24:33 And so this evolves over time. It's impossible to tell the whole story without bringing Apollo Ferres ideas about, uh, knowledge and knowing into the equation. But I don't wanna divert into that. It's a whole extra hour right there. But in essence, these things combined within the educational domain, particularly colleges of education to create what we call woke now. And this is actually, I think if I had the chance to go back and do a second edition of cynical theories of Helen was interested in doing it. The part where we in chapter eight, where we talk about so called social justice scholarship, I think I would want to call it woke Marxism mm-hmm <affirmative>, which is, or we call it also reified postmodernism, which is where these postmodern tools, these critical theory tools had kind of been combined. And they got mixed in with the FRA area idea that, uh, knowledge itself, not in the way that the post moderns did it, but through the educational certification process is also its own Marxist structure. Speaker 1 00:25:28 People who are educated, you get to decide what it means to be educated. And therefore they set it up as a country club for themselves to exclude other ways of knowing blah, blah, blah, yada, yada Marxism all over again in the domain of knowledge. And what you get now is this new woke Marxism where you are, if you read for air, he's not ambiguous. Like he actually says that the process of becoming aware or conscientious, he calls it to oppression in his say pedagogy of the oppressed is a process of literal death and rebirth. He compares it to wow, was like born mm-hmm <affirmative> he? It is, it is born again. He actually in, in his 85 book, the politics of education has like a three paragraph span in the 10th chapter where he openly says, not only does he say it is the Easter and that you have to go through it and oh, re be reborn on the side of the oppressed, he must die to your, to your, uh, you know, bourgeois values and be reborn on the side of the oppressed. Speaker 1 00:26:26 But he also says that the Easter, that Christians celebrate is just a date on the calendar because they don't die and be reborn on the side of the oppressed, which is the only real Easter, which the only real Easter is to be reborn into Marxist Praxis. He actually says that. And so it's like, this becomes this really different thing. And that's what I now conceptualize as woke. And that's this idea, you know, that, that, uh, every single domain can be pulled into a Marxist theory by saying that the knowledge system that operates within that domain and you see how post modernism feeds into that is itself. A construct of the people who wanna maintain their dominance and power over others and keep other ways of knowing out now, Marxism is a, if let's, let's give them the credit of being true religionists that actually believe what they say vertically, as opposed to power hungry monsters, what Marxism operates as in every single instance, if we have the true believer, who's just will give them all the credit. Speaker 1 00:27:21 They really do want the best. They think this is gonna work is it's the sales department for fascists. This is this great ideal world utopian world. That's gonna come along. And then somebody who knows how to do things in the world, cuz Marxists don't somebody who knows how to do things in the world is gonna come along and graft onto that and create a totalitarian system out of it. And that's what seems to happen every time I see that as having kind of a risen in the financial sector, in the corporate sector, primarily 2008, 9, 10, 11 in the wake of the financial crash. When they realize that they could bust up occupy wall street, by sending in these identity, politicians who make everything so complicated and poisonous and postmodern that nobody can do anything with it. And then he said, oh my gosh, we look progressive. Speaker 1 00:28:01 Let's make our, our corporate emblem, you know, a rainbow flag this month and we look great and we're just here for the equity and for diversity, we behind all these great words. And meanwhile, we're crushing our competition. We understand go, won't go broke. And so smaller corporations will go broke faster than that. So let's force all these policies in place where that's, the only way you can do business is to have this very expensive stuff. And they, they pulled a kind of cist. Uh, well frankly they created a, uh, a conspiracy and a, a, uh, uh, what am I, what's the word I'm looking for a cartel that, you know, they set up the policies. Well, these are the correct environmental policies. And these are the only way these are the correct social policies. And they're all rooted in all this identity politics, Marxist nonsense. Speaker 1 00:28:48 These are the correct ways to run a company. These are the so-called ESG scores. And you know, if you don't play ball, we're gonna make it impossible to do business. We're gonna restrict your access to investment capital. We're going to buy, you know, 20 to 30% of your stock using other people's money to do it. And then we'll threaten to sell it all. If you don't participate with us. So we, maybe we will crash your company's value overnight. And so they have, you know, a gun to your financial gun, to their head. And all of a sudden, we're not dealing in a place where corporate leaders can make, you know, decisions in the best interest of their, their own corporation, themselves, their clients, their customers, they're now making decisions according to, well, Larry fi is gonna kick me out of the club. If I don't do what Larry Fink said, what it kind of boils down to. Speaker 1 00:29:34 And of course, uh, we see that, you know, with the world economic forum, having been pushing exactly these designs with lots of other weird designs, by the way, oddly tied to Apollo Ferrari all the way back to the 1970s, um, through Ferrari's mentor Dom Heder Kamara who Klaus Schwab called his spiritual mentor, who K Schwab risked his, uh, entire organization to bring Dom Heder Kamara to, to Davos, to Switzerland in 1973 at their annual meeting, which was the third one they ever had. And he brought him in and he's like, it was illegal to bring him in. He had to get special permission from the, from the government of Switzerland to bring him in because, uh, dome Heder Kamara was not allowed to speak in Switzerland because he was a communist and Switzerland wasn't taking aside being neutral and the, you know, the great debate political debate of the middle of the last half of the 20th century. Speaker 1 00:30:29 So what you see is this huge movement that's used all of these tools and kind of created this witches brew of, oh wow. This idea, like, for example, you talked about the COVID Michelle, Fuco talked about bio power. This is a way that Michelle Fuco warned that governments can control people. Let's do that, you know, and, you know, jump for oar. If we're talking about the Poston warned about the idea that you can create a false legitimation scheme legitimation by Pureology, you let's do that too. Let's just take over the media and make sure that that's how it works. John bore yard warn that we lived in a hyper real world of images where we can no longer access reality. We can't tell what reality is because we live in this constant world of images and we've lost the ability to discern it. So let's flood the zone with not just propaganda, but propaganda that comes from every single angle propaganda that looks like education, propaganda that looks like, uh, just the ads, entertainment, or organically. Speaker 1 00:31:25 Your algorithm on social media feeds you certain tweets or certain Facebook posts or whatever. So it looks like that's just what people think. Relentless propaganda to create a hyper real experience of reality around you. And they've see, they see all I'm not giving Fuco and dairy dye and Bre yard, and Leard all this credit. But these lunatic saw these tools and picked them up and were like, this is how we win. And they were able to accomplish all of the Marxist agendas that the critical and cultural Marxist had laid out. Once they were able to use the postmodern and post-structural tools of divorcing people from being able to understand the world on its own terms, they, they removed all objectivity from the world and replaced it with literally pure, uh, subjective first. Or if we get fully Marxist subjective, leading the objective through a dialectical relationship between the two that puts primacy on the subjective, rather than the objective, I don't know how technical you wanna get, but this is what they were able to accomplish. Speaker 1 00:32:24 And this is what they're doing to us at this point. Now, historically Marxist did the same thing. This was Len getting frustrated that the stupid workers wouldn't do what they were supposed to do spontaneously, like mark said, so he said, oh, we need a Vanguard. The Bolick party's ready to go. Stalin saying marks was wrong, but man, it's me. Not, not, I know what to do. It's me, you know that. And then mal picking this up and saying, oh, well we need Marxist Leninism with Chinese characteristics to make, you know, to fit it into this context. It's, it's me, you know, this same mentality though, that you need this elite Vanguard to usher the thing through and define the terms because the stupid people can't figure it out for themselves. That's your cost swabs. You know, they, they have this now universal acid in woke Marxism and they're like, well, we'll put it in the S score of VSG. Speaker 1 00:33:10 And now we're gonna tell all the plebs what they're supposed to do. And we're gonna they're, they've created the new Vanguard model. And it's funny that their one bank is actually called <laugh> Vanguard, that they're ushering us through, you know, their intended change of history, their intended reset of history, their intended year zero, or, uh, you know, whatever, whichever greatly forward, you know, which one do you wanna like attach it to, they're gonna take us through this great revolution out of shareholder capitalism, where the goal is, each company has got a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns and into a stakeholder capitalism where a council of stakeholders is gonna decide what the right policies are and which companies are better to prop up through crony investments and which are, uh, best kind of like held down or knocked down. Like, you know, I don't know an electric car company. Speaker 1 00:33:59 That's got like the cleanest record period. Like let's just knock that out of the scores because he decided to buy Twitter. Um, this weekend of Tesla and Elon Musk it's owner bought did something we didn't like politically. So no, no, no, no, no. Tesla's bad, bad score, but we have this crisis going on with energy. So ExxonMobil environmental score, plus plus let's bring it right up. Let's in other words, let's have this council of stakeholders who gets to make the real decisions about how the world needs to operate at the biggest, um, global political levels and will tie all of the economic strings up through that. And of course, you know, it's good to pause and say, council of stakeholders, stakeholder capitalism, well, what is the Russian word for council? Oh yeah. It's Soviet. We have a Soviet establishing itself in terms of, you know, literally global corporate governance. Speaker 1 00:34:45 And that's largely because of the Western context is they have to get around our constitution. They have to find a way. And so as my friend, Viv, Ramo Swami says, you know, they use the corporate back door to come in through the front door that the government's not allowed to go through Joe Biden, can't decree, uh, that we're not going to, or that, you know, such and such is gonna be censored on social media because it violates the first amendment, but Twitter can have its terms of service, however it wants. So they have a back door, same thing, Joe Biden, can't say you can't buy or sell in the United States, but MasterCard can decide your reliability and cut off your ability to have payment processing or PayPal can cut off your ability to have payment processing or any of these private corporations under the neoliberal guys of well they're corporations. Speaker 1 00:35:28 They can do whatever they want. Uh, it's their business. And this denial of service becomes actually a powerful weapon. When you end up having a, what do call it a public private partnership where the governments and the foundations and the, uh, corporations start colluding. If you think of the government as one giant corporation, and then say, Disney is another giant corporation. And if they start colluding, you know, in a kind of what we would use to call a trust, organiz a trust arrangement, then you can actually accomplish what neither of the two individually can can do. If you have the shareholder or sorry, stakeholder agreements that they're all signed onto, say through the world economic forum, where they've all made a commitment to support these agendas or else they risk thera of this financial sort of Damocles, that's been hung over them. You can get thousands of corporations to March together, even if they don't want to, cuz they know it's not in their best, their best corporate interest to do otherwise because you've got a small number, uh, council, uh, of, of people who are, are able to pull all of those strengths. It's really, it's, it's amazing that they've been able to pull this off. Uh it's you can also read the seeds of it throughout Marusa. Yeah. It's he wrote it all down in the sixties. They've just made it come true. Speaker 0 00:36:42 Uh, and you bring that up to date with race Marxism. We're going to get to that, but we have been deluged by, uh, bunch of questions across all of these social media platforms. So I do not want to deny our great peeps and opportunity to ask you a question directly. So we've got one from Instagram, Aaron Malay says, uh, socialists, like vouch, like to lecture people about Praxis, but what does Praxis actually mean? Speaker 1 00:37:13 Okay. So Praxis is theory informed practice, which is kind of complicated. How deep do you want this to go? Do you want me to go back to haggle and talk about the theoretical idea and the practical idea and the need to unify them into the absolute? I mean, so the idea is that, um, Marxists believe that their theory is the, the first and last word on reality. They Marx even said that the VOF social, the, the scientific socialism is the first true scientific study of history and its conditions. It's the only scientific study of history, its conditions and therefore sociology, uh, and the unfolding of society. And so they call what they're studying in the world, the real or the concrete or the actual, or the objective conditions that people live in and the real or concrete or actual or objective causes that cause them. Speaker 1 00:38:03 So the theory is what comes first practice is putting into application that, which their theory says they should do. So they should maybe disrupt and dismantle. They should have a protest, they should have a riot. They should, you know, try to get onto a corporate board or they should make sure that certain people, uh, are able to get hired and other people fired, whatever. And then it only counts as Praxis if it is informed by the theory. So whatever you decide to do your activity is not informed by, by your own thoughts. It's informed by your understanding of the theory. And then if secondly, afterwards you reflect upon how, what happened compared against what was going on in theory, what contradictions were revealed. So you remember Lenon saying it accelerate the contradictions. You wanted people to see the contradictions and this made what he was doing practice because they would see the contradictions in their environment. Speaker 1 00:38:55 And when they saw the contradictions in their environment, he could then direct the disgruntled dissatisfaction that arose from those onto a scapegoat or whatever, but this made it Praxis. So, so Praxis is activity that moves the objectives of Marxism forward. So it is the attempted mixture of theory of theory and practice. Or you could say it's theory driven practice, um, that constantly figures out how to inject more theory into whatever happens. So practic that that's kinda very abstract, practically speaking, what practice looks like and means is that they're gonna go do some, they're gonna implement some idiotic policy like equity policies at schools, and then scores are going to go down and then they're gonna come out. And they're gonna say that the reason that scores went down is actually because, uh, the school has a massive racism problem and it's not ready for a, uh, you know, anti-racist grading system that they imply installed or whatever, or an anti-racist education system. Speaker 1 00:39:54 And so now you have to add in our anti-racist a second anti-racist component or anti-racist training or anti-racist classes. In other words, the people aren't aware, the people, uh, involved in that situation or system are not aware of the true nature of reality. So you have to bring them closer to the true nature of reality. And then they'll start to succeed is what it actually means. It is the Praxis is when, you know, you take a, a prisoner in a Chinese thought reform prison under Mau, and you tell 'em you're accused of these crimes. And then your, your perspective though, you you're very individualistic, you're capitalistic. Your imperialistic was a frequent word. They used perspective on the world, prevents you from being able to see that you're, that you actually committed crimes against the Chinese people. Um, and so now we're gonna interrogate you and then we're gonna send you back to yourself or struggle, and your, your cellmates are gonna struggle you to help you see, to help you recognize that's the actual term in Chinese. Speaker 1 00:40:46 We're gonna help you recognize your crimes from the people's standpoint. And so the idea of practice is that you're going to basically start drilling theory into people's heads until they learn to see the world through theory. And when it's you for you to do your own practice, it's for you to take the Marxist theory, go put it into practice and figure out a way to make yourself more Marxist as a result, and to do it again and again and again. So it's a kind of a self, uh, self reinforcing feedback loop of Marxist theory. If you go to the marxist.org website and read their definition of truth, they actually kind of explain this. They say that the truth is a matter of a social formation for Marxists, and it's always relative, but then they get down and they say, well, you know, this is what rationalist truth means. Speaker 1 00:41:31 Something about reason and, you know, whatever, this is what empiricist truth means. Something about corresponding to the world. This is what, uh, PR uh, pragmatist truth means. It means, you know, getting a result in the world. And it says that the Marxist view of truth is closest to the pragmatist view, but that it must always follow from the combination of theory and practice in other words, the true axis. And so the true Praxis is putting Marxist theory into action and then staring at what happened until you can figure out the Marxist reason for why it didn't work. And this demand more Marxism as a result. That's the kind of bottom line of what Praxis is. And the goal is, like I said, from hel to reunite the theoretical and the practical idea at which point, the absolute idea realizes itself is deity. And we enter into the perfect world order at the end of history. Speaker 0 00:42:20 Okay. Uh, I'm gonna take this question from Gloriana 12 on Instagram, because I, I think it actually speaks, uh, it goes directly to one of the quotes that, that I had excerpted, um, from, from one of your books, she says that she agrees that there seems to be a religion among progressives, but it, but is it only one belief or, or multiple sex? And I think you've, you've spoken to that in terms of talking about C T as just one denomination among a broader religious. Speaker 1 00:42:51 Yeah. So yes, it's, it's multiple sects, uh, but there's kind of, what do you call it when you, um, in a religion, when you have a bunch of sex that kind of come together under a single, like Eccles Assal ecclesiastic? Um, I can't think of the word, there's a word for this. Um, when, when, you know, they all kind of come together, uh, and, and talk about how their sort of manifestations are the same thing. And that's intersectionality for these people. Intersectionality is the idea that all of the forms of oppression are reflected on all the other forms of oppression, but that they're all still distinct. So there's kind of one overarching sect, but you know, the critical race theorists are, they're the people who focus primarily on it are gonna get most aggrieved about race, and they're gonna sometimes attack the other groups. The queer theorists are gonna get most aggrieved about section or sexuality, but they're sometimes gonna attack the other groups and so on. Speaker 1 00:43:40 So I would definitely say, especially when you get outside of the identity politics thing, though, that it starts being definitely multiple religions, um, that are coming together kind of in this way. Like the, the COVID thing is another example of the exact same religious mindset. And, you know, people go back and forth. Should we call this woke? Or should we not call it woke, but we should call it woke because it's still deriving from the idea that, uh, you know, we have to look at certain ways of knowing and other ways of knowing it. It's just complicated because it's a Vanguard model. So it's, it seems to be self contradictory. So bear with me a second. The Marxist theory of knowledge is in medical knowledge is well we've, you know, certain people have established themselves as medical authorities and they've excluded other people from their ways of knowing, et cetera. Speaker 1 00:44:29 And they do this to maintain their power. And you're already thinking, oh my God, that's what they're doing. But that's always what the Vanguard does because there's the one with the correct theory. So you see this problem is, is the stupid plebs. Can't be trusted to do this. And this is where the Vanguard of Lenon or Stalin or ma comes in. You have to have an elite that comes in and understands the right answer to these questions and moves things along. And so the COVID thing follows this whole thing exactly the same. It's just that the Vanguard's much more obvious. It's more of a top down process than a bottom up identity politics thing. Uh, same thing. If we move into the realm of environmental, uh, justice or climate justice or climate change, uh, again, you have the exact same thing. There's a council of experts and nobody else is allowed to have an opinion about it at all. Speaker 1 00:45:13 Nobody else is allowed to ask questions, et cetera. You've got a Soviet, that's just determining what the right answers to those are, but those are in a sense, the climate change, like kind of Malian death cult, that's clearly working hand in glove with the weird COVID whatever in the world. Maybe also Malian let's hope not, but ish, uh, death cult, and then the identity politics, death cult are all somehow working hand in glove together, but they're actually in a sense, kind of different denominations. You could have people who are very invested in the environmental or the, uh, medical one and not necessarily the identity politics one, but there it's really kind of a one it's like, it's like, uh, they're all in a sense Baptists, but some Baptists believe you have to baptize at birth. Some people think you can't do it till they're like seven. Speaker 1 00:45:57 Some people, it can only be a confession adult, you all these different rules on when you can baptize each other. And they all hate each other, um, and have like intense disagreements and they can, some can drink and some can't drink and all of this other complicated crap, but they're all Baptists in a sense, this is all one kind of woke knowledge is, uh, knowledge is understood in a Marxist and or Le way. And in different domains, it comes up in different ways. Um, so yes, different denominations, different secs, but they're all in one kind of a, and I cannot, I still can't believe, I can't think of the religious word for this because I got ecclesial in my head and that's not, it it's Speaker 0 00:46:35 Cordless. Speaker 1 00:46:37 I mean, we can go with that. That's not, it we'll figure it'll pop in my head at an awkward moment later. Um, Speaker 0 00:46:41 All right. Well, I wanted to, uh, just Nina, uh, morose, who is a supporter of the ATLA society, uh, just, uh, she is weighing in, she started excited to hear this discussion, but she was also helpful in recommending not just Dr. Lindsay's books, but his new discourse podcast for anyone who wants to understand this philosophy, it's origins and its current tactics. Uh, she's giving you a testimonial. She's learned a great deal from, from them. So, um, go ahead to a commercial and tell us a little bit about, uh, about the, the podcast. Speaker 1 00:47:18 Okay. The word is ecumenical, by the way, uh, I told you come into my head, it's an ecumenical counsel of various sex of religions and somebody Scott Schiff, it says, has commented. Depression theory is the underlying theology. That's correct. Cuz it's narcissism. It's all narcissism. They're all sex of narcissism. So NASIC are people who believe that they've been flung into the world against their wishes and they suffer in the world. But there's an absolute truth that if you access it, you can break free of the prison of the world. And for Marxist, because it's collective system only works. If everybody breaks free together all at the same time. So it's different people who suffer in different ways. Maybe they suffer with, oh my God, I could get a disease. I don't want, oh my God, climate change might ruin the whole planet. Oh my God. Speaker 1 00:47:56 You know, racism posed upon us. Oh my God, I'm a boy that feels like a belong in a girl's body or something like that. And it's all the exact same, it's all variations on the same thing. Oh my God, I'm a rich asshole named Carl Marks who wishes everybody to pay my bills for me. So I'm gonna write a bunch of fake economic theory. Okay. So what's going on at new discourse? Well, you kind of just heard, um, this is like kind of the nature of what I do. Uh, I actually, I spend all my time reading Marxist literature and then comparing against other Marxist literature and trying to figure out what in the heck it says and where it fits. Like how does it work? And in particular, as you kind of just picked up, I'm very interested in tracing it back as a religious movement that I think is actually a combination of a number of mystery religions that were kind of popular in Europe, in the, you know, late 18th century, mid 18th century, going into the 19th century that cobbled themselves into a, uh, kind of scientist, scientific, not scientific framework. Speaker 1 00:48:55 The science was arising. Nobody knew what science was and say 1807. Uh, if you know why that date's important, good for you. Nobody quite knew what science was was then people were making stabs at it. And maybe, I don't know, GWF haggle made a stab at it in maybe 1807 and called something, a system of science and trying to explain what science is and how it works. And they kind of cobbled narcissism into a scientific or scientific, I should say, scientism being their kind of new framework, uh, way of thinking about things. And so what I do with new discourse is I, I mean the name should tell you, I try to give new ways to talk about these issues. I feel like the academic establishment has failed us, how they couldn't see this tyranny coming, uh, is something of a mystery, but it's largely because it was their tyranny that was coming. Speaker 1 00:49:45 Uh, and so they were perhaps motivated not to see it or just busy doing their own academic things. But certainly I don't accept the mainstream interpretations of critical race theory or queer theory or postmodernism or even, uh, Marxism itself. I try to break that down right now. I'm in a huge stretch of doing critical education theory and or critical pedagogy as it's also called. And I'm actually breaking down, um, Apollo Ferari, which has forced me to go back and read a lot of haggle and a lot of marks and to really into a lot of George Luco, the Hungarian Marxist, to try to understand how this actually operates kind of as a system of faith or theology. And so I do these long form podcasts where I read through primarily it's not to just talk, but mostly what I do is read through their documents and explain what it says like, this is what they're saying. Speaker 1 00:50:35 This is where this comes from. This is a little reference you might not have caught. It's it's almost like a college class where I go through academic papers, books, chapters, et cetera, and try to bring you into the ability to see and read Marxist literature, whether it's the woke kind of today, whether it's the sustainable kind of KLO Schwab, whether it's the old school like Carl Marx, 1844 manuscripts, I want you to be able to see what's there as I see it, if I'm right, cool. If I'm wrong, well, at least it's out there and people can criticize it. So that's also cool. Uh, so that's what I try to do. The books are just kind of extensions of that. I just try to explain like race Marxism tries to explain how the, the, if we think of Marxism as like an engine of a car and it was in the economic car, somebody lifted the engine out, did a few tweaks and stuck it in a new car that's race. Speaker 1 00:51:28 And then they did the same thing to make queer theory. I don't have a book for that, but they stuck it in the, in the, well, I say, we'll say a queer body to make it go, uh, in another direction where, you know, the, the, the OI property is being normal or being considered normal and so on and so forth. So I try to make these things as clear as possible that it is largely all I do. Actually, I I'm gonna spend the rest of my night reading another piece of Apollo for S education theory that, uh, I've read like 11 times already, cuz I'm trying to finally organize the podcast that will get me out of this book and into something different. So, Speaker 0 00:52:07 All right. Um, well we have eight more minutes. There is a question here that I'd love to get to, but if there are any others that you see in the thread that, uh, really speak out to you, then, uh, then go ahead. But again, on Instagram, Bing 9 99 asks, what do you think is a bigger threat to America today woke Marxism or the alt right? That the woke Marxist and even some libertarian types seem to be terrified of. And I thought that was interesting because I, I do think that in cynical theories, you, you talk at the end about liberalism and the fact that the kind of, um, post applied postmodernism is, is energizing. Yes. Um, the, the nationalist, right. Which could present, you know, in itself a threat, but right. Uh, with the time that's gone by, um, since you've written the book and, uh, you know, now we're also seeing some, some policies, uh, which, you know, some might describe, I would as a liberal coming out of, uh, the Supreme, uh, court. Um, so yeah, what's, what's the big, the bigger threat. Speaker 1 00:53:21 Okay. So this actually turns out to be a complicated and timely question. Um, the immediate threat far larger threat is woke Marxism. I mean, if we end up in what's well that that's not precisely true. Woke Marxism is a tool for this huge cist, fascist communist, weird cloud Schwab new world order thing. And if we get up in that we're all screwed. There'll be no freedom for anybody anywhere ever again. Uh, like never, we'll never get out of the digital prison that they're gonna build, uh, in all likelihood. And so think of what China is doing is stage one out of like five progressive stages of worst tyranny. Like with all the surveillance, all of the, you know, being able to turn off your money whenever they want, et cetera. And that's like, step one of five, the last steps are like literally getting inside of your head with like implantable devices to control your thoughts. Speaker 1 00:54:17 No kidding. That's the pro program of the world economic forum, tyranny that woke is enabling. So that's by far the biggest threat to freedom in the world. Now, if we step back from that woke is probably the larger of the dangers in terms of its ability to create dysfunction. The alt-right is an, is, is an imprecise term. What it tends, what it seems to refer to doesn't exist in any significant capacity. But what it covers up by using this incorrect term is something that's called the Postliberal right. And I'm actually very afraid of the Postliberal right, which is rapidly gaining context and, and, uh, support. And I don't mean like on the internet with 25 year olds, which is kind of its primary basis of support. I mean, with influential people, with lots of money and people who are in government and running for positions in the government who believe that the liberal order has failed has come to its end and has to be replaced with something else. Speaker 1 00:55:17 Uh, that is, you know, basically the idea is, well, we couldn't keep society free. So if we're gonna live in an unfree society, better hours than theirs. And so they want to go ahead and, you know, grab the club and start whacking people with it. And this has very ascendant energy because the procedural liberal order where the law rules, not any individual seems not to be able to contain the woke problem. So people are becoming increasingly desperate realizing that we're increasingly close to the possible success of this tyrannical great reset. They're becoming increasingly warm to the idea of fascist isn't the right word, but reactionary is reactionary solutions to the problem that will not favor individual freedom and Liberty either. And that will, at some point, because woke is rapidly now on the decline, not necessarily institutionally, but it's popularity is through the floor. That's on the decline. Speaker 1 00:56:16 Whereas this Postliberal right is on the asset at some point in the near future, which I would guess would probably be the next six to 10 months, probably just six before the end of the year, we will see a switching of which of the two is presents the largest, uh, immediate danger. Um, because it depends if they've got another big trick up their sleeve at the world economic form or whatever, then that may not be the case. But right now woke is the a, is the access point to that? Now the thing is, is the Postliberal right, are producing the conditions that the weirdo globalists can take advantage of in exactly the same way. So it's gonna blow up in their faces too. Um, they want to do crazy things like split apart the United States, which, um, is <affirmative> is a vehicle. This part of the program is to get rid of countries like the United States, because they're big and unified and control, lots of assets and resources and so on. Speaker 1 00:57:10 So this Postliberal right. Actually freaks me out and I'm sort of looking down the road. I'm like, okay, are we have we, have we have like, I don't know, we have like a giant attacking us right here. And then a hundred miles down the road, there's going to be like a dragon. And it's like, crap. You know, so that's a complicated answer. But the thing that gets called the alt-right isn't real, um, not real. I mean, there are people that do that. Like for example, everybody trots out Charlottesville, but they don't know that. For example, the people with the Tiki torches were paid by the same people that paid the people on the other side of that whole fake conflict that were all paid by the same weird globalist interest to create a conflict that they could use to do a reflexive media push. That was a question by the way, here in the Q and a is could I explain reflexivity? Speaker 1 00:57:57 Yeah. It's creating a story and flooding it from every direction so that you think it becomes, it becomes true by people thinking it's true. So an example of a, uh, classic reflexive statement is this is a revolutionary moment. It's false until enough people believe it to make it real. And then, or the economy is gonna collapse. Well, let's false unless a lot of people believe it and go rip all their money out of the market. And it collapses all at once. And so reflexivity is a means of projecting into the world that, which you want to create in the world and then creating a, uh, media environment where everything, somebody encounters encounters, or a cognitive environment where everything they encounter reinforces it. So they just believe it's inevitable and happening. So they go along with it, self-fulfilling prophecy on purpose in a sense. And that is what, um, that's the, the kind of environment that I see happening around this Postliberal right. Speaker 1 00:58:44 Rising up is, oh, well we have no other option than to go fully, uh, forceful. Um, somebody says, who are the intellectual leaders of the postal bar? Right? Well, Alexander Dugin in Russia, uh, Putin's guy, you might look into him. He's probably the most intellectual of them. Curtis Arvin, uh, who used to write under the code name, mens mold bug is a neoreaction is his philosophy or dark enlightenment? He's a Postliberal guy. Uh, politically JD Vance is running for office as a Postliberal, uh, I've heard, but I don't know that Blake masters is Postliberal you kind of run into these guys. Um, possibly I don't think I don't. I mean, I don't know if they, if they doubt that the constitutional order can, can continue in the United States, then they're probably Postliberal. Uh, and I, I really worry about it about that, but the kind of big philosopher types are gonna be kind of fringe characters like Curtis Arvin, and then whatever in the world Alexander Dugin represents behind Putin and whatever. That's all about Speaker 0 00:59:45 Fascinating. Well, Speaker 1 00:59:47 And I see advance and masters are teal guys, and I prefer them over Romney types and nobody should prefer Romney types. That's a disaster, Romney's a disaster. Speaker 0 00:59:56 We, we agree on that. Uh, kind of a choice between lessers of, of two, two evils, but, uh, yes. All right. Well, um, that is taking us to, uh, the end of the interview. This has been absolutely spectacular. Thank you very much. I'm going to release you to go and spend the rest of your, uh, evening, as you said, uh, reading, um, Neo Marxist education philosophy. Wouldn't be fun. Um, and, and what can we do? Um, I guess I just would close with, what can we do to support your work, or, or what would you say the priorities, uh, for the people that, um, that are concerned about this threat and, and, uh, what would you recommend that they do to help, um, protect the freedoms that we, we all cherish? Speaker 1 01:00:47 Sure. I mean, the first and most important thing to do, if you wanna protect freedoms and things, it has nothing to do with me is to, um, take the issue seriously and to start learning about it. Uh, I believe in read a Polish proverb a number of years ago that I firmly believe, which is, do not attempt to cure that, which you don't understand, imagine what kind of things you might inject into your body. If you tried to cure something, you didn't understand, imagine what could happen, never attempt to cure something you don't understand. And so start studying this. You need to, you know, read race Marxism if you want. And if you think it's wrong, great, right. Thoughtful criticism of it, if you think it's right, or you think parts of it are right advance the thought, I mean, this is something that needs to happen to be happening. Speaker 1 01:01:27 Um, I think that if you want to support what I'm doing, the most valuable thing to do is actually to share the materials. If you go check out the new discourse podcast or the new discourse website, and you find something on there, useful share it with somebody, um, I'm not like about to ask anybody for money. I don't care. Uh, I want the materials to get out there. It's, like I said, with cynical theories to did very well, and I'm just happy that it got into as many hands as it did. And that means the most valuable thing you can do is to help other people realize this is a moment where sitting on the bench is not going to be acceptable. Freedom really is, you know, for real, at serious risk, we can disagree about little details here or there about a lot of things, but freedom is something that we must all stand up to preserve. Speaker 1 01:02:12 And the way that you're going to do that is by understanding the problem and then being willing to take action in accordance with your best understanding of the problem. And so getting materials out that are talking about the issue, because certainly, you know, they're not gonna put me on CNN to make sure lots of people hear what I have to say. Mm-hmm, <affirmative> sharing those ideas. If you thought, what I have to say is interesting or valuable is kind of up to you and you kind of have to make it grassroots and, and, and flowing outward, uh, from, from your little, your, whatever. Maybe your reach is big. Maybe your reach is small, but whatever it is is kind of within that range. But the most important thing is you have to do something and it starts, I hate, I've been telling people for like three or four years, they're like, you know, what do, what do you have to do? And I'm like, you're gonna hate me for what I'm about to tell you. You have to actually learn some of this before. I know you don't want to, you actually have to learn some of this before you can possibly take it on. It's not hard once you break through the surface, but the surface is complex and it's confusing. And it seems like it's nonsense. And then you finally break through and like somebody said in the comments, it's just the theory of oppression, correct. That's right. That's all it is. Speaker 0 01:03:19 Right. Well, and so everyone who's been watching, you can start right now by sharing this interview on your social media. And, uh, of course tag, um, Dr. Lindsay, he is at conceptual James on Twitter, and I believe on Instagram as well, Speaker 1 01:03:38 I think on all of them. Speaker 0 01:03:40 Oh, okay. Great. And while he's not gonna, uh, ask, make a pitch for money, I, I would say, uh, for those of you who are enjoying this kind of content and want us to do more of it, um, perhaps even do a pocket guide on critical race theory, uh, please consider supporting the ATLA society with a tax deductible donation tune in next week, I'm going to be, um, interviewing Chris Wright of bright beam. And then the following week I'm gonna be interviewing Jack Carr. I've been talking to my, uh, my favorite, one of my favorite nonfiction authors today. And we're going to turn to one of my favorite living, um, fiction authors with Jack Carr in a couple of weeks. So thank you very much. And again, thank you so much Dr. Dr. Lindsay for this interview and for all of the work that you do Speaker 1 01:04:28 Well, thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.