453. Potential Solutions to Fix Mass Indoctrination | Eric Kaufmann
01:25:41 Share

Imagine earning a degree that prepares you with real skills for the real world. Capella University's programs teach skills relevant to your career, so you can apply what you learn right away. Learn how Capella can make a difference in your life at capella.edu. Hello, everybody.

I have the opportunity today to talk to Dr. Eric Peter Kaufman. He's a Canadian author and a professor from the University of Buckingham. He's written a new book. It's come out in two different forms, The Third Awokening,

or Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution. Eric is also the author of a number of other books: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, The Orange Order, etc. He's a rare bird, you might say. He's a relatively conservative social scientist, and there aren't very many of those.

In fact, I think the two of us talking are about the only two that there are. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. We talk about a lot of things today. We talk about the sacred dimension of the victim-victimizer narrative. We talk about the state of modern universities and what's being done to, what would you say, stem the tide of the radical leftists. We talk about Dr. Kaufman's

well, his presumption that much of what's happening on the culture war front isn't precisely due to the invasion of Marxists that you often hear about, or even about post-modernism per se, but more about progressive literalism with its roots in the early 20th century. And so he makes that case. We talk about sex and the different political beliefs that are emerging, especially between men and young women. Join us for the conversation. You're concentrating on the culture war

which continues to rage madly, especially in, well, academia and everything it touches. Do you want to tell, I thought we'd start with two things. Do you want to tell people why you entitled your new book, The Third Awakening? And then maybe fill everybody in a little bit about the history you've had with cancel culture and academia and how that ties in with your broader body of work.

Yeah, Jordan, it's great to be on the show. And yeah, I've got a new book, The Third Awakening. The title in Britain is called Taboo. And what this book really is about, what it really argues is that what we're seeing, cancel culture, for example, attacks on the past, on history. This is actually a continuation and an acceleration of a pre-existing set of ideas. It is not a deviation from this, what

There are people who will say everything was fine in the 2000s and suddenly we've had this post-2015 deviation. My argument is actually no. What we're seeing is really a continuation of a set of ideas which arguably go back a century. And so these are the ideas really of left liberalism. And we have to understand ourselves as living within liberalism.

An acceleration of left liberalism, a set of ideas that kind of come together in the first decade of the 20th century as liberal progressivism. People like John Dewey, Jane Addams in the United States, the origins of pluralism, the origins of the critique of ethnic majorities and national identity.

And then this is sort of accelerated and every generation, but really from the late 1960s, we get a sort of takeoff.

And then we've kind of had with social media another acceleration. And so the third awokening simply means that we're not in the first one, that we've had three of these emotional outbursts and ideological awakenings. Just like in Protestantism, you have the first and second great awakenings in American Protestantism. These are sort of emotional upsurges.

So the first one was in the late 60s, and people forget that you had Black Panthers occupying buildings armed to the teeth. You had students demanding, you know, 50 Black professors be studied, every Black student be admitted. Black studies, this is how Black studies got started, for example, is through demands by people who occupied the offices of administrators. So the late 60s, we have a number of these things happening.

Then there's another awokening, which is in the late 80s, early 90s. That's sort of probably when you and I were coming of age. We had political correctness, Afrocentrism, speech codes, for example. Hey-ho, Western civ has got to go. Changing the curriculum, purging it of dead white males. That talk in the late 80s, early 90s

And then we have another wave, which comes in post-2010. So these are, in my view, continuous. They really touch on the same set of ideas, which is really making sacred a couple of things, which is identities are made sacred. So I define, for example, woke. One sentence definition, people always ask,

What is the definition of woke? Well, the definition of woke, as I mentioned in the book, is the making sacred of historically marginalized race, gender, and sexual identity groups. That's it. That's the one-sentence definition. And that is also what I would say, what I would describe as the kind of big bang of our moral order.

And out of that emerges a kind of very fuzzy folk ideology, which says, so these are the sacred groups. Those groups cannot be offended. So anything you say that might be interpreted by the most sensitive member of such a group as offensive marks you out as a blasphemer. You're profaning the sacred. You must be excommunicated, i.e. canceled. The other part of this is

absolute equality in terms of prestigious positions and resources between these groups. So, for example, you can't have a race gap or a gender gap in terms of the boardroom, in terms of...

admittance to elite universities and so on. It's got to be zero. So equality plus emotional safety, these are the two pillars of this ideology. But the point I make is this ideology is not some kind of system like Lockean liberalism or even Marxism that is more of a bottom-up empathizing rather than a top-down systematizing cognitive thing. It's much more emotional. We're attached concretely to the

Black civil rights movement to the indigenous, to the

LGBT movements, and it's our romanticization and sympathy for these concrete groups that provides our meaning. And that's primary in the system. It's not a set of ideas like Marxism. It's actually a set of emotional attachments. And so this is very much emotional, and it's driven from the ground up. Okay, so let me ask you some questions about that. Okay, so I guess...

You pulled out two strings there. You did associate the system of ideas with liberal progressivism, let's say, starting in the early 20th century. But then you were also stressing the more emotional side of it. Let's call it the compassionate side. So I want to ask you—and you talked about it as bottom-up and emotion-driven—

So it seems to me that the analysis of the woke phenomena has revealed a number of potentially fundamental causal elements. You pointed to liberal progressivism and compassion.

and the role of emotion, let's say. Other people have pointed to the role of like a kind of a meta-Marxism. So it's the Marxists, of course, divided the world into victim and victimizer, essentially on economic grounds. The difference now is that that same narrative seems to play out. There are victims and there are victimizers, but there is a number of dimensions along which that axis of inequality can reveal itself. And you talked about

race, gender and sexuality. There's other axes as well, but those are likely the primary ones. And then with regards to the emotional side, this is something I can't help wondering about, and no one is talking about it, and I can understand why. We did a series of studies that were published in 2016, which was pretty much when I left the university, so it never got completed.

But we identified a group of ideas that hung together statistically that we called politically correct authoritarianism, deviated to some degree from, say, the liberal progressivist ethos in that the people who adopted this set of ideas were perfectly willing to use compulsion and force, that being perhaps the primary distinction.

The predictors that we found that determined whether or not people adopted those beliefs were, first of all, low verbal intelligence. That was a walloping predictor. And the second one was being female. And the third one was having a female temperament. And the fourth one was having ever taken even one politically correct course. And so one of the things I'm very curious about, see, I've been thinking that one of the things that we're seeing

is the increased female domination of the university system, especially in the humanities and the social sciences. And I think there's a fundamental feminine ethos that's instinctive, that can be made more sophisticated with genuine education, but that has a proclivity to divide the world up into predators and infants.

and woe betide you if you happen to fall into the predator camp. It's very tightly allied with the victim-victimizer narrative. And, you know, you do point out in your book that there is a predilection for women between the ages of 18 and 34, and this has been shown everywhere. They're way out of lockstep without it, with every other demographic group, way more progressive.

far more radically left, way more likely to identify, for example, to even claim that the Hamas terrorists are victims in some sense, which is just an absolute miracle of interpretation. So we've identified a number of streams. There's a Marxist influence. There's a postmodern influence, which we haven't talked about. There's a liberal progressive influence. There's an emotional influence. And then I don't know if you have any specific thoughts about how

the increasing female domination, especially of the humanities and the social sciences plays into that, because that's a major league cultural revolution. The fact that the universities are dominated, for example, administratively as well by females. And so,

I know that's a hell of a thing to ask you to talk about right off the bat. I think that's actually really interesting, and I think it is a contributing factor, but I just want to sort of put in a couple of caveats. And the first is we only see this female effect amongst young people.

So older women, we don't find greater support for cancel culture. It very much seems to be among young women. The second thing is, if you were to go back to 1970, for example, women were, you know, there's a survey done every year in the U.S.,

H-E-R-I, Higher Education Research Institute, 100,000 freshmen, 18-year-olds entering American universities. In 1970, women were somewhat more conservative than men. 18-year-old women, 18-year-old men.

And it's really not until 2004 we start to see those 18-year-old women starting to be more liberal than the men, and that's now widened to about 15 points. And so some things happened to women in the recent period. That's the first point to note. So – and that's – the other thing is that –

FIRE, which is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, does an annual survey in the U.S., 55,000. So there's a lot of survey data in the book. I try and ground this as much as possible in the data. So they ask questions, for example, is it okay to shout down or block somebody from speaking?

And on those questions, actually, um, especially using violence to, to prevent somebody from speaking, women are less likely than men to support that on blocking. They're about as likely where women really stand out is should a speaker come to campus who wants to say something that might be offensive. So for example, uh, that says BLM is a hate group that says trans is a mental disorder. There you see a big gender gap. Uh,

And you see it also amongst Republican women, by the way, versus Republican men. So it seems like the attitude, there's the authoritarian, I want to do violence, which is, I think, not gendered, or it may even be somewhat more male-dominated.

But there's this protective, oh, I don't want anyone's feelings to be hurt. And that, I think, is more female. So I think there are some nuances here. What I would say, I mean, the way I think about it is women will tend to back up whatever is the moral order. If the moral order is a woke moral order, they'll back that up. If it's a religious or patriotic moral order, they'll be more likely to back that up. Whereas men will be more likely to be the contrarians. I think...

Because it's, you know, people will talk about, well, women are more compassionate. But the point is, compassionate to who? Like, compassionate to... Well, that is the point. That's for sure. That's the point. So, compassionate to the transitioner or the detransitioner? Compassionate to...

The biological male wants to enter a woman's shelter or a woman's prison or the women in the prison? I mean, the ideology is what tells you who to be compassionate towards. So if we go back to the liberal progressives, Jane Addams was relatively pro-lynching, or at least thought that wasn't a bad idea because she was very, very empathetic towards white women. And so she was willing to accept that there were these black male predators and

and buy into that framing. So what I'm just saying is I think what's happened is an ideology has crept in and told women who to be compassionate towards and who not to care about. So, okay, so your point fundamentally is that, I believe, is that

the ideology specifies the victim-victimizer dimension and identifies the victim. Now, do you think it's... So, when we did our study, it was agreeable. I said it was being female and having a female temperament. Those were both predictors. We never saw that in any study we ever did, looking at what predicted beliefs, for example. Generally, if we controlled for temperament, sex had no effect.

But that wasn't the case in this specific situation, which I thought was extremely telling. And it's also very interesting, as you pointed out, that it's young women in particular. And I can't help, as someone psychoanalytically influenced, I can't help but think that a fair chunk of this is misplaced maternal instinct. I believe that the young women who are by and large childless in the years when they shouldn't be,

are unbelievably sensitive. Well, let's talk about what happened in 2004. You know, you said that's when women started to shift their political priorities. Now, I know from people who've been investigating this that TikTok is a particularly pernicious influence, especially with regards to the campus protests that are occurring right now. And the TikTok short videos that are fostering the campus protests, at least among women, focus on compassion.

for the war victims to the ultimate degree, and they seem to be extraordinarily effective. But there's a real problem here that needs to be wrestled with, because if it is the case that young women are differentially sensitive to a certain kind of propaganda, and they also increasingly occupy the majority positions in university institutions, for example, then we have a whole new kind of social problem on our hands, because we've never had, it's only been in the last 30 years,

that we've had the opportunity to see what female dominant large institutions would look like, right? That's historically unprecedented. We have no idea what pathologies or advantages those systems might have. So what do you think happened in 2004? Like, why did the tide start to turn then? So my interpretation—there's other data series that we can see changing. So political donations shifting towards the Democrats, for example.

around roughly the same time. Now, political donations come for people who are highly educated, relatively well-off, for example. I think what happens in the U.S. anyway is you get George W. Bush, who's more of a populist, not an elite-style conservative who's just about tax and spend, for example. And I actually think you see he's also, to some degree, advancing the agenda of the religious right, to some degree. Yeah.

I think this populist style cultural conservatism doesn't work as well with the elite opinion formers, and so they start to drift away in terms of political donations. And if you like the kind of background, the ambient noise, the mood music that is coming through the elite institutions, the schools, the culture, just starts to turn against Republicans and conservatism, for example. So I actually think...

Women are a kind of – they kind of reflect what is the dominant ethos in a society, or at least the prestige ethos in a society. So if we actually swung the ethos against wokeism, I think women would be in the forefront of that. I don't think there's anything biological. So I am more of a sociologist and a political scientist, so I tend to –

approach these things from a kind of sociology of emotions perspective, which says that ideas can tell you which emotions to turn off and which emotions to express. And now, of course, that's refracted through things like gender. So in this case, I think women will just back up and reinforce the dominant values, dominant ideology of the elites in a society. So I'm not

As convinced— Why the elites? Why do you think it's— Okay, why would women specifically back up the dominant ideology of the elites? Do you think that's a consequence of something like hypergamy? Or what's your theory about that?

Are you or someone you know fighting the battle against cancer? For the last 25 years, Invita Medical Centers have been pioneering personalized, cutting-edge treatment programs for patients all over the world. Invita has been the leader for patients looking for advanced immunotherapy and genetically targeted therapies, all while focusing on fewer side effects and better patient outcomes.

As a global leader in oncology care, Invita is committed to healthcare freedom for all. They've spearheaded a revolution in employer health insurance options, empowering companies to provide their employees with access to not only top doctors, hospitals, and technologies, but also the first-of-its-kind nationwide personalized medicine coverage. Invita is doing all of this, plus offering significant tax and cost savings, full transparency, and liberation from the grip of commercial insurance carriers.

Whether you're a patient in need or a company looking to break free of monopolized healthcare insurance, Invita could have the solution for you. To learn more about their treatment options, visit invita.com or visit invitahealth.com to learn more about their company insurance programs. That's invita spelled E-N-V-I-T-A dot com for treatment options or invitahealth.com to learn more about their company insurance programs.

Because it's weird if they're also standing up for the underdogs, is it that they accept the elite differentiation of who's an underdog and who's a power monger? And then why is that associated with youth, let's say, with women? I'm trying to disentangle all that.

Well, I think there are a couple of things. I mean, one is the education system, which I think shifts in this direction in a big way. I mean, it was there in a few radical centers like Berkeley and the Toronto District School Board, Greater London Council. So you had these crazy places.

But what's happened is a scaling up. So what my book talks a lot about is these ideas actually go back quite a long way, but it's the scaling up. Now it's in every school. So I did a couple of studies with the Manhattan Institute. You know, 90% of 18 to 20-year-old Americans that I interviewed, you know, sent the survey to, said that they had encountered at least one critical race theory concept from an adult in school. In Britain, it was about, you know, it was a majority as well. Not as high, but a majority. So it's such...

It's hitting saturation level. So that's what women are getting in class, and then they see it in the institutions that may be in the workplace, in the government. So they're seeing this thing, DEI, everywhere. And so they think, yeah, this is the way you have to be a good moral person, and they simply reinforce those values.

So I think that is the biggest driver. And I don't think it's just self-interest. So if we take a question like, you know, should—one of the questions that I ask is, should J.K. Rowling be dropped by her publisher? Amongst young people, it's 50-50. Dropper, not dropper. Amongst anyone over 45, it's in low single digits. So we've got a big issue with young people. But what's really interesting—

is that if we take this sort of should J.K. Rowling be dropped by her publisher question, you know, women are considerably more likely to say that than men. Now, you might say, well, shouldn't women be sticking up for women and women's spaces and female authors? Well, no, actually. So women are actually going against their own interests as a tribe, right?

By supporting the gender, you know, the trans activist case on women's sports, women's shelters, women's prisons, you name it. Doesn't make any sense from a purely feminist perspective. So I just think they're reflecting these are the values that good people are supposed to have and we're going to reinforce them. So do you think, do you think, okay, well...

It's perfectly reasonable to suppose that something like the default young female ethos is self-sacrifice in relationship to the marginalized, right? I mean, infants are marginalized. They're in danger all the time. They have to be attended to. Everything they demand has to be granted to them. So,

Perhaps it's not surprising that women would sacrifice their own interests in relationship to the marginalized because that's actually, and certainly self-sacrifice is part of what you might regard as a core in relationship to any moral ethos. The problem seems to be that it can be gamed, and it's gamed so effectively now. And then...

You also talked about the fact that these young people have been exposed to these courses, so we could flesh that out a little bit. We did find in the study that I described, which was a very good study, by the way, it was only published as a master's thesis because my research career came to a rather crashing halt, but the fact that even one course had a significant effect over IQ and temperament and sex was telling, right? So now, I don't know if you know this, but you might know it.

You know that in virtually every state and province in North America, a teacher has to be certified, and that's basically the faculties of education have a hammerlock on that, which is appalling as far as I'm concerned, because I don't think there's a more corrupt branch of academia than the faculties of education.

terrible research, counterproductive research, whole word learning, self-esteem, social emotion, name a stupid fad, and the probability that it came out of an educational psychologist in a faculty of education is extremely high. Do you know that the...

K through 12 education system eats up 50% of the state budgets in the United States. So that means that 50%, sometimes more. So that means that since the 1960s,

We have handed 50% of the state budgets to the most woke graduates of the worst possible faculties. We've done that for four generations. And now, well, and as you said now in your surveys, you're finding that the vast majority of students have been exposed to, well, what's essentially, I don't know how to characterize it, postmodern metamarxist propaganda. It's something like that. Although, you know, you're stressing more the emotional side of it

And so, well, I guess that all, we'll discuss that a little bit too when we get to your, I'm so interested in discussing your solutions because, you know, I think the solutions to the universities is to let them perish by their own hand because they're certainly struggling mightily to do so. So, but you're more optimistic. And so I'd-

Okay, so that's the facts on the ground with regards to state budgets. 50% of their budgets has been handed over to these propagandistic institutions. Well, I think the schools are critical. So one of the things we're finding, for example, is that students largely are formed by the time they come on campus. And a lot of the studies of universities show people's views don't actually change a great deal between when they come on, step onto campus, and leave the university. However...

So we really have to focus on the school. So one of the things we found in the study that Zach Goldberg and I did was we looked at how much exposure to critical race and gender theory concepts students had had in high school. And we take, for example, somebody who didn't get any exposure to any of these critical race concepts like white privilege, systemic racism, unconscious bias, or the gender concepts, many genders,

patriarchy, for example. Someone who got no exposure to that is sort of 50 to 100 percent less likely to express, for example, white guilt, think that, you know, whites are racist and mean, to favor a racial quote as an affirmative action. All of these things jump 50 to 100 percent less. Yes. Wow. Mind-boggling. That's between somebody having no concepts and the maximum of six concepts.

Similarly, by the way, for partisanship, you know, someone with a Republican mother who is exposed to no concepts, there's essentially 60% of them identify as Republican. Exposed to six concepts, it drops to below 30%. So one of the points that I try to make in the book is that

K-12 education, public education is absolutely massive and must become a top priority for certainly conservative politicians. If you want to have a hope in the future in terms of turning this around, we've got to get at K-12 education. Okay, so let me ask you about that. I just saw a study the other day, just a graph of a study showing across a variety of different age groups,

when people believed that the culture, their culture, peaked in terms of quality, music, entertainment, food, peace, etc. And the general proclivity was for people to focus on the time between they were about, say, 15 and 19. And, you know, there's a tremendous amount of neural reorganization that goes on at that point. So there's a big die-off of neurons between 2 and 4.

Right? So you're born with more neural connections than you ever have again in your life. And a lot of what happens when you learn is actually pruning. There's a major pruning in late infancy, and then there's a major pruning in the teenage years. You kind of die into your adult personality. That's a reasonable way of thinking about it.

Now, people have known for a long time that if you want to get men into the military in the proper way, you have to do that when they're young adults. The earlier the better. By the time they're 23 or so, like, forget it. You can't tribalize them, right? So that we, and we don't know exactly the critical period for the establishment of tribal identity, but you're suggesting that your research is indicating that it's actually prior to university, right?

I bet it's the same time that people develop their musical preferences. Right, right. Right, right? Well, yeah. That's such a key point that you make about the neurons and brain development kind of ending in a certain way in the early 20s.

That tends to manifest itself. I mean, a political scientist like myself would tend to look at these as cohort effects. So you kind of, your beliefs crystallize to some extent in your early 20s, and you carry those through life. Because right now, I think there's a complacency amongst a lot of people who say, well, you know...

young people are woke, but they'll grow out of it. You know, they'll come back, they'll have kids, they'll own a house and they'll suddenly become conservative. And I think that's quite naive in many ways. I think that may be true in terms of self-interest paying taxes, but in terms of these core values...

I don't think that's likely. And you can see that, by the way, with religion. So secularism, non-religion started with young people, and those beliefs were sticky, and they maintained non-religion through life. And now we're seeing record levels of non-religiosity in the U.S. and Britain, for example.

One of my contentions is, yes, there's no question that Woke has kind of peaked. We've seen a rollback of DEI in corporations to some extent. We've seen, to some extent, reduced targeting. We'll see about that. Right. They're pretty slippery, man. Just because they don't have the same name doesn't mean they're not up to the same tricks. Exactly. But...

But be that as it may, in the New York Times and the Washington Post editorializing in favor of free speech and against mandatory diversity statements, what I say is that's true. And I think those senior liberals have rode back, but I think we've got to look at this in terms of cohort change, generational turnover. When the median voter and the median employee in an organization is a millennial or a Zoomer,

They're going to carry the beliefs they have with them into midlife, and that is going to change our culture. So, for example, if I say, here's a question that we asked, YouGov asked to hundreds of thousands of British respondents on its panels, do you favor political correctness because it protects people from discrimination, or do you oppose political correctness because it stifles free speech?

You know, in the British public, it's sort of 47 to 37 against Trump.

political correctness. Amongst academics, it's maybe 75-20 in favor. Amongst social science, humanities, academics. Young people take after that. They're about 2-1 in favor of political correctness. And what I would sort of predict is if we run the clock forward 20 years, the median in society is going to shift from essentially being opposed to political correctness to being supportive of political correctness. So something like speech codes, for example, in universities will have

majority support. And so I think we really have to turn this ship around while we still have a sensible population, because we can't guarantee that that's always going to be the case. And so that's why I think the schools, changing the culture in schools has to be so central. Yeah. So, okay. So you, I want to bring a couple of other issues here before perhaps we turn to your solutions. Now,

When we began our conversation, you said that part of this movement was the establishment of sacred identities. And I just brought that up because you brought up the religious issue as well. And I know you've done some writing about that additionally. So there's a variety. I like the idea of sacred. See, I think what I think religion, religious ideas are...

axiomatic starting points like the Euclidean axioms for Euclidean geometry. There's very many different forms of geometry, right? You just have to switch the axioms. The axioms of a cognitive system, I think the word sacred is exactly right, is that you have to accept a certain number of things on faith, and then you can build a logical edifice on top of that, maybe even a functionally logical edifice. But

There's going to be axioms at the base. And so I think that any assumption, for example, on the part of people like Dawkins, that we can replace the religious enterprise with something that's purely secular is nonsense. I think what we'll get is a different set of sacred axioms. And you pointed to race, gender, and sexuality. And so why do you, first of all, I want to know what you think about that and why you use the term sacred. But I'm also curious,

about your thoughts with regard to why it was that when we shed our previous set of sacred presumptions, let's say, that it was race, gender, and sexuality that rushed in to fill the void. So why them? Why those axioms? Right. Well, I mean, there is a sort of earlier history, which I don't go into as much in the book for reasons of space. So to some degree,

This was directed against immigrant groups were sort of slightly protected by the liberal progressives, not as extreme as race post-1960s. But I think to understand this, we have to go – and one of the reasons I make the argument that this is about left liberalism is that the civil rights movement –

Starting in the mid-50s, but really it's in the mid-60s, this occurs with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, which are things that I support. But as Shelby Steele in his book White Guilt, which I recommend to everybody, he's an African-American. He grew up in the South, experiences what he called a dramatic shift almost overnight where the cultural power goes away from whites, where Black people had to kind of

to whites to suddenly white people having to sort of virtue signal that they are one of the good whites to black people. So the cultural power flows to black people. That doesn't mean economic power initially, but cultural power. That's what he said. And in fact, American institutions, in order to, they lost their moral legitimacy by admitting that

that they engaged in the sin of racial discrimination. Once you admit, he says, you give up cultural power. Now, you have to admit because these were real things, but that loss of cultural power means that you now have to fight for your moral legitimacy. Now, how do you do that? Through virtue signaling. So you're kind of

Virtue signaling that you're one of the good whites, that your institution still has moral legitimacy, so you're going to have an affirmative action program, for example. You're going to have some kind of racial sensitivity training, which is the precursor to diversity training. So a lot of these things really begin in the 60s and 70s.

which is one of the reasons, and these are not Marxist things. This isn't Herbert Marcuse saying we failed on class. We got to move to identity because they might do the radical revolution. Those people were there. Don't get me wrong. You had Ruffo is correct and Lindsay that at least in terms of the ideas, those ideas were there, but really what drove this, you know,

President Johnson was an anti-communist. He was bombing Vietnam. This is not some kind of a neo-Marxist. What this was really about was kind of virtue signaling and saying, I'm not one of the bad people and we're one of the good people. So white guilt, guilt, compassion for these groups, and a certain fear.

exaggerated catastrophizing fear of the right of conservatives. They're going to drag us back to Jim Crow, back to 1933 Germany, that constant ginning up of that alarmism. These are the three elements of the left liberal stool that are developed. And so that's kind of the emphasis. So

I put the civil rights movement as kind of the big bang of our moral order, and it is sort of the center of our moral universe. Now, once you've got this sacredness around race that you have to very tiptoe around Black Americans because you've done wrong and you feel a bit guilty, then you sort of can take—

take that sacredness. It's a bit like kryptonite, and you can wield it. And if you're a feminist movement, you can grab a bit of that power and use it. If you are an indigenous movement, you can use it. And then you can stretch it. So it's now mispronouncing somebody's name or the Moynihan Report, 1965, about the Black family. That becomes a bit offensive, and you have to shelve it, right? So stretching, it's a bit like putty. You can then stretch it

cross to different groups, outwards to microaggressions. And this is where all the power comes from. If you're always trying to stay healthy while on the go, if you're on the lookout for products to boost your immune strength and gut health, you need to check out Armra. Armra is the gift that keeps on giving. It'll help strengthen your skin, lungs, and gut barriers, optimize your microbiome, and activate cellular performance to revive whole body health. Armra products are not just effective, they're also your trusted companions.

They're clean, safe, and have a solid foundation of extensive research. Manufactured under the most stringent testing and quality standards in CGMP and FDA-certified facilities, Armour is a brand you can rely on. Every day, chemicals, pollutants, pathogens, and processed ingredients pose a threat to our mental and physical well-being. The need for protection is more pressing than ever.

If you want to give Armour a try, they have a special offer for Jordan's listeners. Right now, you'll receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmour.com slash Jordan or enter Jordan at checkout for 15% off. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Jordan. Tryarmour.com slash Jordan or enter code Jordan at checkout.

Well, there's another interesting dimension there, too, that's worth thinking about that's more psychological than sociological. So there's a group of personality disorders that are extraordinarily resistant to treatment and should have probably never been medicalized, in my estimation, because they're not illnesses.

So, antisocial personality disorder is one of them. Criminality is not an illness, even though it's diagnosable. The associated pathologies are borderline personality disorder, which is perhaps the female equivalent of antisocial personality disorder, although I would argue it's even more toxic.

histrionic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, that kind of fleshes it out. Now, so those, the people in that cluster, let's say, the personality traits they show are, they're Machiavellian.

So they use their language to manipulate. So if someone like that is talking to you, the only thing they're using their words for is to obtain power over you for their immediate needs. That's it. There's no dialogue. There's pure manipulation. They tend to be psychopathic, and so psychopaths are predators and parasites. They are...

histrionic, so prone to high levels of emotional display, especially negative emotion. They're narcissistic, which means they want unearned social status. And just to top it off, because that's not bad enough, they have a proclivity to be sadistic, which means they take pleasure in the undeserving suffering of others. Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is because that group of people uses

claims of victimization to harness guilt to obtain power. So there's an additional twist here that I think is stunningly dangerous. And you see, it's tied in with your notion that the progressive liberals have enabled the radicals. Because here's the problem: if you're empathic and progressive, you don't believe that cluster B people exist.

But because everyone's a victim. But the problem is they do exist and it's in times when that small minority of people, maybe that's 4%, something like that, when they get the upper hand, and they do, they got the upper hand after the French Revolution, they got the upper hand after the Russian Revolution, it is no fun for anyone

Because they're chaos, they're chaos worshipers. Their best means of obtaining power and even reproductive opportunity is in the ashes. And so I've spent, I spent five years working with Democrats in the US and it got frustrating and so I stopped doing it. But part of the reason it got frustrating is because I could never get any of the ones that I worked with, and that was a lot, to say to me,

When does the left go too far? And I would point out the dangers of the cluster B psychopaths, and they just hand wave. It's like, oh no, they don't really mean what they say. They don't mean what they say when they're talking about equality of outcome, for example. Kamala Harris, she doesn't mean equality of outcome. She just means equality of opportunity.

And it is stunning the degree to which that's an axiomatic belief of progressive liberals, that that radical left fringe doesn't exist or they don't mean what they say. That's universal.

I've literally not talked to one of them who, including Robert Kennedy, by the way, who was willing to say, for example, what you said in your book, which is that we better watch out for the demand for equality of outcome. Because I do think that's where the pathology really manifests itself. It's like, really, you want equality of outcome, do you? Along all dimensions. How are you going to obtain that exactly? Except by force. Well, maybe we want force. It's like, yeah, yeah, maybe you do.

Yeah, so there's this interplay between sociology and thought and psychopathology that people aren't attending to, and it's very dangerous because the other thing that's terrible is that social media seems to enable the cluster B types because

In normal conversation, they're subject to the restrictions that face-to-face interaction carries with it, like the possibility of getting hit, for example. But none of that is there on social media. And that enables, as far as I can tell, that enables this psychopathic manipulation to have essentially free sway.

Yeah, I mean, that's really an interesting set of observations. I think you're right. And I guess we're agreeing, but from different ends of the telescope, because I think that what's happening is this large group. So in a university...

The median academic is liberal left, soft left, not far left. It's 50 to 60 percent of the university. And this is why, for example, by a two to one ratio, social science academics and elite universities support academics.

mandatory diversity statements. This is not something they're being forced to do by a few crazies. But of course, as you say, there's a symbiosis between the authoritarian left and this large group of liberal left. So my view is if we could work on at least convincing some of those liberal leftists to

to change course, then that will reduce, you know, it's like unplugging a guitar from the amplifier. The liberal left is the amplifier and the radical left is the guitar player. So how do we, but you make another good point, which I've heard before, which is when does the left go too far? The unwillingness. And

And there's really a couple of strands to this, and we might call them equal outcomes, diversity is another, and inclusion is another, the EDI triumvirate. And I would say that on all of those dimensions, left liberalism really has no boundaries. So left liberalism is, in my view, cyclical.

sane on the economy. It believes in a mixed capitalist economy. And so left liberalism really emerges as the victor through two world wars and the Cold War as the ideology of sort of the elite cultural ideology. It's not communist, actually. I don't think it is communist. I think it believes in maybe a higher tax rate, perhaps, than the free market right. But I'm not really that concerned about the economy. It's on the cultural side. There are really no guardrails at all. It's just there are—we're not diverse enough.

We're not inclusive enough. We're not equal enough. There's no bound to that. So whenever someone comes along and says, we should be more equal, it's like, yes. So what we have is this ratcheting. And that's really where, I mean, Hanania's book on affirmative action in the United States moving to this idea of, well,

It starts out as, well, we want equal treatment. That's what affirmative action meant. Pretty soon it was goals and timetables. Then there was disparate impact. Well, you know, if you have a test like the SAT and certain racial groups are not represented, then that's a kind of indirect discrimination. So what we can see is this kind of evolutionary ratcheting. Now, that's quite different from...

a neo-Marxist takeover of institutions, a kind of vanguard march through the institutions argument, which I think is, I'm not as persuaded, but I think there's some of that happening. But I think it's really this sort of evolving, ratcheting left liberalism because it has no boundaries. As you say, when is there too much diversity? And we know from the studies, Robert Putnam, for example, or Easterly,

That too much diversity actually has negative impacts on, for example, economic development, on various kinds of, for example, trust in your neighbors. And this is now a finding I would call a consensus finding. How can you have trust without cohesiveness? Right. How the hell can you manage that? Right.

Yeah, but there's no limits and there's no willingness to recognize we don't want to maximize these things. We want to optimize them. That is not the way the liberal left thinks. They just think more equality, more diversity, more inclusivity. Now, of course, inclusivity means we got to have speech codes. We got to clamp down on speech, which might be offensive. So people don't feel included, might damage their self-esteem. So this is getting at free speech to get inclusion. And I just don't know what...

Yeah. Self-esteem. Well, I've been watching these pathologies grow in psychology for 30 years. And the social psychologists in particular, they've irritated the hell out of me for like three generations. And so self-esteem, people still use that word. So here's what self-esteem is. Self-esteem is trait neuroticism.

minus extroversion. There's no such thing as self-esteem. It's a complete bloody lie. It has no construct validity whatsoever. It's an index of your temperamental proclivity to negative emotion.

And women have lower levels of self-esteem because they have higher levels of neuroticism, and that kicks in at puberty. And so this is a good example of how the educational psychologists and the social psychologists have actually perverted the whole culture. Because we actually believe in things that don't exist so deeply that people use them in their speech as if they're actual facts, maximizing self-esteem. It's like, it's trait neuroticism.

It's extremely difficult. It's very much set temperamentally. It has a very powerful genetic, what would you say, foundation.

Neuroticism doesn't differ between boys and girls. It doesn't kick until puberty. It's different between men and women all around the world. And, you know, so we can't lower people's self-esteem. It means we're aiming at a target that doesn't even exist. And we're using ideological means because we've got our measurements wrong. So, all right. So one of the things that was striking about your book, and I don't know how to rectify this apparent paradox, you make the case that

We've raised a cohort of kids who've been thoroughly propagandized in high school, let's say, because that looks like about the place where it's occurring. And your belief is that that's pretty sticky, although there'll be some movement in a conservative direction. People get more conscientious.

As they get older, they get more agreeable. They do tilt a bit more towards conservatism. But you believe that a lot of those ideas will be sticky. And that means that that's going to dominate, let's say, in positions of power 10 years down the road. But by the same token, you also believe that there's time to turn the ship around. So let's talk about that. You have 12 ideas, and I'm really curious to see you go through them.

So, well, you lectured for us at Peterson Academy, right? That's right. That's right. Yeah. Right. Right. But so that's one of our answers to the problem. And that's launching, by the way, at the end of the month. Fantastic. Yeah. And it was a very enjoyable experience. I didn't teach anything particularly controversial, but still. What I would say is there's really two different approaches to dealing with the issue. I mean, one is what I might call libertarian.

And that's using market-based solutions. And the other is interventionists using government-led solutions. Now, I actually lean more towards the second than the first, which may jar against some of the libertarians in the audience. So, for example, I think when it comes to the battle of ideas in the media, there I think it is the barriers to entry are quite low. You can set up a podcast. You can have the impact that you're having, that Joe Rogan is having.

But when we're talking about universities or tech firms, particularly search engines, there are natural monopolies and there are sort of market failures. So there are first mover advantages to being Harvard. It's going to be very hard for Harvard's reputation. I know it's dropped a little, but it's going to be hard for that rank ordering to change a lot. And similarly with school. So the view that we should simply have is,

school choice, and that's going to fix the problem. I think school choice is great, but I don't think it's going to make much difference. Surveys that I've looked at, for example, show that kids who go to private school, to parochial school, who are even homeschooled, actually don't differ very much in their views. And in addition...

The amount of critical race and gender theory that they are being exposed to is relatively similar. If you think about universities— Even in homeschools? Very, very—it's a little bit lower, but in the data that I've seen, which is at the FIRE Foundation, Individual Rights and Expression, and also, we also asked the school questions on our 18 to 20 survey. Now, we didn't get a ton of variation. Now, it could be that the homeschool kids, we got a selection.

of those homeschool kids which wasn't representative. I don't know. Maybe that's the case. But... Well, is it a curriculum issue? Like, well, how do you account for that? Because on the face of it, that seems... I believe it with the private schools, because my experience with private schools is that they tend to be as woke as the public schools. Maybe not quite as much, but pretty much. The homeschool one, that's more complex. But...

It's not that easy for parents, for example, to set up a curriculum and the curricula are well dominated by the ideology, let's say. But how do you make sense of that?

Right. Well, I think there are some differences. So on the gender ideology, there's a bit less amongst the homeschool. Now, we don't have a massive sample, but there looks to be some effect, but it's not massive. And my point is, you know, if you are a really switched on parent, you could send your kid to a classical school if you have that option nearby. That may make a difference for you. But the number of parents who are like that is quite small. Most of them will just say, what school is going to get my kid ahead into a top university, gets the best results? Right.

even if they have a choice. And so most kids are just going to be put through the sort of indoctrination machine. And that's my concern. It's not the freedom of a very, you know, switched on parent to actually avoid these things, which is important. But it's most of these kids are being put through the same system. So we've got to, I think, get at the public school system. So for example, I think something like what Ron DeSantis is doing, sort of essentially banning DEI,

sort of getting indoctrination out of the schools, monitoring that. Okay, let me ask you about that. You know, because I really have mixed feelings about this. And I'll tell you why. I like Chris Ruffo. I've enjoyed talking to him. I think him and DeSantis have done very interesting work in Florida. But I have a concern. And the concern is that once you establish the precedent that the universities can be directly involved

can be directed from the top down by the politicians particularly to set their curricula straight. You set a vicious precedent. And I believe that the work that Rufo is doing in Florida, setting up the new university, for example, and pushing back against DEI is laudable

Partly because all the universities to speak of are woke, with the possible exception of like Hillsdale. And so even if there is a risk of overshooting on the conservative side, they're at such a disadvantage that practically speaking at the moment that might be necessary. But like...

Sleep is a foundation for our mental and physical health. In other words, you've got to have a consistent nighttime routine to function at your best. But if you're struggling with sleep, then you've got to check out Beam. Beam isn't your run-of-the-mill sleep aid. It's a concoction carefully crafted to help you rest without the grogginess that often accompanies other sleep remedies.

A bunch of us here at the Daily Wire count on Beam's Dream Powder to knock us out and sleep better through the night so we can show up ready for work the next day. Just mix Beam Dream into hot water or milk, stir or froth, and then enjoy before bedtime. Then wake up feeling refreshed without the next day grogginess caused by other sleep products. Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of reishi, magnesium, L-theanine, apigenin, and melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed.

And with it now being available in delicious flavors like cinnamon, cocoa, chocolate, peanut butter, and mint chip, Better Sleep has never tasted better. And today, listeners of this show can get a special discount on Beam's Dream Powder. Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash peterson and use code peterson at checkout. That's shopbeam.com slash peterson and use code peterson for up to 40% off. If the universities are incapable of governing themselves, and that would go along with the faculties of education, and we turn that

We move that responsibility up the political hierarchy to the elected officials. We open the door for mass intervention in the education system for ideological reasons. And that's like... So I just can't see that as... I see that as a solution with a lot of attendant danger. So I'm wondering...

Like I said, I understand what Rufo is doing and why, and DeSantis as well, and I think they're both sensible people. But that doesn't mean that it'll always be sensible people doing such things. No, so I would draw a very stark distinction between K-12, between the school system, where you've got minors who are captive. They have to be there. They have to parrot back what the teacher says in order to get a good mark.

With the universities where academics have academic freedom, for example, so at university level, I would be opposed to critical race theory bans. I've taught critical race theory. I think you've got adults, they're choosing which courses to take. Now, I do think, however, that state governments or the government has the right to defund, not ban, but to defund, say, well, we're not going to fund this kind of course.

Now, that's a political decision, but it's not to say it's banned. You can cross-subsidize that from your more profitable faculties. And I think that will just – it will allow it to be taught if people really want to take it. But – so I don't think this is practical for universities. Universities, I think there's a different set of solutions. But I think for the school system, it is perfectly legitimate to say we're going to have a politically neutral space –

More important than that, sorry, I just want to say one thing, which is you have to teach about the past and the war, slavery, genocide, conquest, but I don't think you should be allowed to teach about American slavery without teaching about, say, indigenous slavery or Ottoman slavery. You shouldn't be able to teach about- Or Roman slavery or Greek slavery. Yeah, or stolen land, the Americans stealing land from the indigenous without talking about

the Iroquois stealing land from the Huron and the Comanche committing atrocities against the Apache. So what I mean is we need to have a fully contextualized discussion that all land is stolen land in a way. Because I think part of what the problem is, 70% of 18 to 24s in the United States believe that the Native peoples, quote unquote, the Native Americans lived in peace and harmony forever.

prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Right? So this is exactly the problem. We have a very incomplete... They were all wise stewards of nature, and everything was peaceful and harmonious. Yeah, right. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 101. It's so pathetic.

Yeah. So I think that kind of really, that sort of attempt to forge the curriculum. And now if you look historically, Canada, the US, Australia, Britain, conservative parties have tried and failed. They've essentially been outdistanced by the education establishment time and time again on this stuff. That's going to have to change. They're going to have to get hold of the curriculum and insist on a balanced curriculum and political neutrality.

Britain has a law on the books that schools cannot politically indoctrinate. But what they do is they say, well, critical race theory is not political. They get around that. Yeah, right. So then, okay, so that begs the next, well, that begs the next question. It's like, once the institutions that we're discussing, the faculties of education, let's say, once they're universally corrupted, right?

Who the hell has the wisdom or the time in order to manage something like curricula analysis? You know, like I went to the Republican Governors Association meeting, which was an interesting thing to do. I did that last year. And one of the things that really struck me and kind of strikes me in general about the Republicans, it was a rather dull meeting.

they were trying to appeal to their donors, so I expected a bit more spice, but it was dull in a kind of competent administrative manner. So the governors would get up and they would talk about what were essentially local micro initiatives that were sensible and practical, but they weren't the sort of

cultural transformation vision that's necessary for people to sit down and say, okay, well, the faculties of education are propagandizing. What do we want our children to learn? Like who in the, Rufo is an exception to this maybe, but he's a singular sort of person. I don't see widely

You know, I spent a lot of time talking to political people all across North America, and it isn't obvious to me that I see anywhere the kind of expertise or even the time that's available to manage such a thing. So how do you envision that happening? Well, I think there are groups. So the National Association of Scholars has model curriculum, civics curriculum that they're developing. Some of the think tanks, Manhattan Institute as well.

So there are now model curricula, and Britain History Reclaimed is working on this. So we actually have got...

model curricula that, say, conservative governments could adopt. They have to have the fight with the educational establishment, which, by the way, they have had and lost. Now, you look at, for example, DeSantis, the African-American, the AP, for example, I don't know if you recall where DeSantis rejected the AP for African-American studies, was filled with critical race theory, forced the critical race theory to come out of that.

That's an example of what I'm talking about is you actually have to get into the weeds of this and you have to insist and you have to do inspection. You have to mainstream it into the inspection regime. All this very boring technocratic bureaucratic stuff. I just think so it's a bit I use the analogy of Elon Musk taking over Twitter.

had so much more of an effect than Gab Parler. You know, those are important. To have these alternatives are important, but I just think we're going to have to get our hands dirty, get into the weeds of the details of the curriculum and insist on a balanced curriculum and actually have that fight. Okay, okay. Well, let's... Fair enough.

I'm going to point out a couple of problems again. It's not because I don't agree with you, it's just like you said, or implied at least, the devil's in the details. I mean, the person who took over Twitter, that was Elon Musk. And he's a complete bloody monster, and he's run many difficult corporations and done impossible things. And so he's like, there's one guy like that. And he fired, what, 80% of the Twitter staff? And nothing happened except the place got better. Now,

The Pareto distribution for large corporations or large enterprises kicks in very viciously. And so the Pareto distribution, what would you say, mathematical equations indicate that the square root of the number of people in a given organization do half the work. And so if there's 10,000 people

educational bureaucrats, then 100 of them do half the work. And that basically means you could fire 80% of them. And if the whole place is corrupt, you probably have to. And like, I just can't see how the hell the Conservatives are going to manage that. Because it could easily be that 80% of teachers need to go. Now, I know there are places like the Acton Academy and so forth that are setting up educational institutions where

Teachers, for example, are much less necessary because the students take a lot of the work on their own. And I understand, as you pointed out, that there are places that are producing model curricula. But I've talked to Republican governors, for example, who've tried to take on the teachers' unions in their own states. And

you know, failed because they have 50% of the state budgets and they're insanely powerful. They're much more powerful, generally speaking, than the governors are.

Right. Well, so you talk about Florida, and Florida's a good model, but that's one state, you know? And so lay out some more of your ideas for how these things might change. Well, I do think—so it's already having an effect in Florida. I mean, the chilling effect on the CRT bans. And those are being now—I think there are many red states, and I've lost track of the number. It might be approaching 25,000.

that are rolling this out. And actually, there is compliance. It's not perfect. But I think if the Republican Party in these states is serious, it will invest political capital and it will demand accountability. It will ask people to sort of, you know, what are the inspections saying? You know, you have to report to the legislature on progress. And I actually think that process, because I also think most teachers are

I think a lot of teachers are flexible and actually teachers are not quite as left-wing, believe it or not, as academics. So there is actually, I think, more receptivity. Now, you also need to open up new avenues into the profession so you don't have to require an education degree. There's all the things that you need to do. So there's a whole set of things we can do as liberal democracies today

Likewise with the government, getting CRT and DEI out of government is something I think we can do. I think you can, so through political appointments, you have to, you're probably going to have to fire some people. You might have to set up

new agency. So on the UK, we have the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, where there is a new 10-person academic freedom directorate. That's a new institution. Now, I actually think that's a good thing. Now, it could be that Labour comes in and defangs it. Fine. I mean, perhaps to some degree, this becomes a matter of political contestation. Because really what all of this gets down to is the only institution—

that the sensible majority on the cultural side can control is the elected government. That is the only institution that we have. We haven't got the schools, the universities. We haven't got the civil service, the cuengas. What we actually need to do is to use elected government to reform...

all of these devolved bodies and also institutions relying on public money. We're not trying to indoctrinate them. Our goal is political neutrality and balance. That's it. I think that has to be the goal. And that's maybe where I disagree a bit with Rufo and some others who want to put in a different ethos based on Christianity or Yoram Hazony. I don't believe that. I believe we can have political neutrality and actually you can chill and

within the academic sector. Okay, so let me ask you about that because the postmodern rejoinder to your claim is that while you claim that your anti-DEI stance, let's say, is politically neutral or that there's even such a thing as political neutrality, but really all you're trying to do is...

what would you call it, sneak in an alternative ethos of power to replace the one that is highlighting the victimized and the marginalized and, you know, pushing things back 50 years into the hands of like white Christian conservatives. You know, because for the postmodernists, there's no neutrality. There's only...

a battleground of power. That's it. And they believe that, and they believe it technically. And certainly the radical leftists not only believe that, but revel in it because it allows them to use power with no guilt. And so why are, on what grounds are you convinced that the claim that institutional neutrality, for example, could be instituted and that it actually constitutes neutrality? What's your philosophical justification for that claim?

Well, philosophically, you know, what I approach the whole book with is this idea of human flourishing, a kind of utilitarian argument that says we want to have a certain amount of equality, a certain amount of diversity, a certain amount of inclusion, but only the amount that is optimal to maximize human flourishing in the system. I think we've overshot on those three, and we have to sort of move it back, not back to where it was in 1950, but back.

back a little bit further. And so the idea there is institutional neutrality is critical for people to have trust in the system. Now, we already have, for example, the civil service in Britain is supposed to be neutral. We already have this aspiration. And I think a lot of people, even left liberals, will actually be convinced by it. They're not

postmodern in being radically cynical the way that I mean some of them are but I think many people will be won over if you say look what we want is neutrality you know you've talked about you know American slavery we want to talk about Ottoman slavery I think that making that argument can win over some people and I think a neutrality argument is more winnable than to say we're going to replace your ethos of woke with our eco ethos of public religion to use Hazoni's argument

Right, okay, so you still think that there's enough of a centrist consensus around what neutrality constitutes for that to still be a compelling argument to people, even the more liberal progressive types? Well, you'd think at least they'd be self-interested enough to understand that neutrality...

throughout sequential elections might be a hell of a lot better than domination by the radical conservative right, which is certainly a possibility. And that's certainly something that's emerging in Europe and could easily, well, who knows how things will play out, but it's popping up its head in many, many places in Europe, right? The last country to go was the Netherlands. So that's what Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, most of Eastern Europe, like this is starting to happen very, very widely and could certainly continue.

So neutrality, you'd think across sequential elections would be the best policy for everybody if we had enough of a consensus to define it.

Starting a business can be tough, especially knowing how to run your online storefront. Thanks to Shopify, it's easier than ever. Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. From the launch your online shop stage all the way to the did we just hit a million orders stage, Shopify is there to help you grow. Our marketing team uses Shopify every day to sell our merchandise, and we love how easy it is to add more items, ship products, and track conversions.

Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout up to 36% better compared to other leading commerce platforms. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash jbp. Go to shopify.com slash jbp now to grow your business no matter what stage you're at. That's shopify.com slash jbp.

Well, I'd also say, too, that right now the public, if you take a look, and I've done surveys in the U.S., Britain, and Canada, the public in all three societies leans about two to one against what I would call the woke position. And that could be teaching kids that Canada is a racist country or, you know, that there are many genders or whatever. So it's roughly two to one against across 50 questions, let's say.

In a democracy, the democracy gets to set the curriculum. I think the majority of the population would be on board the idea of political neutrality and balance, as they see it. And I think we have the numbers to institute that now. I mean, one of my pleas—

in terms of the 12-point plan, is that the conservative politicians really need to upgrade the focus on culture because you have a two-to-one majority. These are clear wedge issues. They divide the left and they unite the right. A question like, you know, should Winston Churchill's statue be removed from Parliament Square? You know, if you take conservative voters, they are, you know,

overwhelmingly strongly opposed to that. If you take Labour and Green voters and Liberal Democrats, they're kind of splintered. Some are strongly in favour, but many are not. So these are obvious issues to go after. Why haven't Conservatives gone after them? Because they're scared of being accused of being a racist. I'll give you another example, which is affirmative action.

Red states, only four red states have got bans on affirmative action, 13 have bans on abortion. Now, abortion is a relatively unpopular, and bans on abortion are relatively unpopular. They may have a one-third support across the U.S. population. Bans on affirmative action might have a two-thirds support, and yet there's very little of it in

red states. How do we explain that? Well, we explain it, first of all, by the fact that this issue has not been important enough for conservative politicians. Hanania does a good job of talking about that. And also that the abortion lobby, the gun lobby, they're very organized. You know, they put pressure on Republican politicians between elections.

The anti-affirmative action lobby is totally disorganized and cannot hold conservative politicians' feet to the fire if they do nothing about it. That has to change. That organization between elections, we have to be putting much more pressure on our politicians to

raise the importance of this issue and to deliver on that issue. Now that may be changing. Well, I've seen in Canada, well, I talked to a lot of conservative politicians in Canada and a fair number in the US, although I think the proclivity for this is much more market in Canada because it's more left-leaning. Ten years ago, the typical conservative was terrified in Canada of saying anything that smacked of social conservatism. And there was a very specific reason for that. And the reason was

If any one of them came out publicly and said anything socially conservative, then the woke psychopathic mob would take them out on social media. Like, as an individual.

Right, they'd be targeted and destroyed. And that was very effective. And the conservatives who are also very guilt prone, like that's the other thing too, is that the left has this, radicals have this tremendous advantage because, especially the really psychopathic ones, because conservatives feel guilt.

But radical leftist psychopaths feel none. And they can use guilt as a weapon. And conservatives are very sensitive to that. So you get that combination of clear threat, because it is no fun to be mobbed. It's really, really hard on people. It drives them to not only to distraction, but often to suicide. You lose your job, you lose your friends, you lose your reputation. No one has enough courage to

to stand up beside you. The radicals had the conservatives cowed completely. And affirmative action is a real touchstone for that because to even question it, well, it's changed to some degree now, not that much, but to even question it meant the probability that you could be accused of being a racist was like super high. It's going to happen instantly. Right.

Right, but I think this is where you have what political scientists would call an Uverton window of acceptable debate, right? And if you're outside that window, you can be cancelled. But you can be attacked by the press. But what we've actually seen in Europe and in the U.S. is you take an issue like immigration, that was a taboo.

In many European societies, that's no longer a taboo. So Sweden, for example, you could not, the sort of establishment conservative party tried to, one of the ministers tried to raise levels of immigration as an issue in Sweden in 2014. He was attacked in the media as a racist. Okay, he shut down. But then what that means is the next year, the Sweden Democrats swoop in on 12 and a half. And of course, they've reached 25%.

US, Trump was the only candidate of 17 primary candidates in 2015-16 to make the border a signature issue. He was willing to go there. Now, once you break the taboo, all of a sudden, as in Sweden, now all the parties are talking about immigration and the taboo is, it's not gone entirely, but the Overton window is open quite a bit. And so in Canada,

Likewise, we're going to need that. Now, we've seen it a bit on the gender issue, Premier Higgs in New Brunswick. We've seen Scott Moe in Saskatchewan. That's the beginning of an opening up of a Congress. You need a brave politician like Higgs to break the ice. The next...

thing that we need to see from a Canadian politician is to break the ice on this hoax of the mass graves. Somebody has to sort of say the emperor's new clothes on this thing because there is no evidence of this, and it underpins an entire garment-rending attack on national history, on the founders of Canada, etc. Now, who's going to throw the first stone in that? I don't know, but it has to happen.

And I think I would argue that, in fact, the population will follow you. Because, for example, in the surveys I've done, by two to one, Canadians do not want Sir John A. Macdonald statues removed. They support the idea, yes, he was a creature of his time. No, this idea that the residential schools are genocide, etc. I mean, I just think somebody needs to go after that. Have you—

Have you had a chance to talk to Pierre Polyev, the new leader of the Conservative Party in Canada? I haven't. I'm a little concerned. I mean, I certainly think, obviously, that Trudeau was a disaster for all the issues we're talking about. But I'm worried that Polyev has only largely talked about economics and only reluctantly about any cultural issues. Now, I get it.

He's well ahead of the polls. Why endanger that? Yeah, yeah. Priorities to get Trudeau out. There is some of that. Yeah. My sense is, though, you know, my sense is in Canada that the Conservatives are a lot different lot than they were 15 years ago. Like, Daniel Smith has a spine. Scott Moe has a spine. Higgs has a spine. So does Polyev. Polyev isn't pushing the cultural issues at the moment, and I think it's partly because...

And I think this is actually wisdom to some degree. If your opponent is busy slaughtering himself, you might as well just stand and watch. Well, seriously, there's no sense causing a tremendous amount of trouble while that's occurring. But the Conservatives are much less intimidated in Canada than they were 15 years ago, like a lot. And they'll certainly make an issue of the sorts of things that we've been discussing in a way that wouldn't have been conceivable in, say, 2010.

I think that's right. But I do think it's important for the grassroots to some degree hold Polyev to account when he's in office. If, for example, he backtracks on defunding the CBC, if he doesn't do anything, say anything on immigration, on culture wars. I think that, you know, and my worry, having seen it in Britain where the conservative government came in

with the support of Brexit voters and essentially did not deliver, hoping that the voters wouldn't notice. So that's my worry, but I don't know is the honest answer. I don't know him or his cabinet. So let me ask you a more personal question, maybe, and

And then I'll see if there's anything else you want to talk about on the YouTube side of this discussion. Does it, like, would you characterize yourself politically? Where do you characterize yourself politically, first of all? That's the first question. Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, I don't think I'm down the list. So I think economically I'm sort of centrist, you know. I have many centrist views, I believe, in the welfare state. I actually think tackling climate change is actually a worthwhile thing to a degree and using nuclear and using a whole bunch of other...

However, on the cultural side, I think I'm very much a conservative, and I think we are in danger—

of losing free speech and truth. We're in danger of losing national cohesion. And so in a whole series of issues, I'd say I'd probably lean conservative for that reason. Okay. Is that a surprise to you? I mean, you're a rare academic, right? I mean, it's not like there's no people like you, and there are a lot more of them than there used to be. You know, I'm in touch regularly with a group that we communicate by email that's got like 100 people on it. And there's more people who've been

Well, many of them kind of slipped surprisingly into the conservative camp over years, but it's rare. It's still comparatively rare. And it's particularly rare in your field, I would say, although that's also the case in mine. So why is that the case with you? And how did you come to these conclusions?

And how did you manage any degree of success while having them? Yeah, it's a tough one, as you probably know yourself. You know, I mean, we're anyone right of center is 5% perhaps in the soft social sciences. And that's what the surveys seem to show. Now, I haven't changed my views, really. Not really. I can't think of any major change that I've had in my views. I'd like to talk to you about a new book, Full Time, Work and the Meaning of Life by David Bonson.

In a time where work is being heralded as the cause of societal pain, depression, and anxiety, full-time is screaming the exact opposite, that we're created to work and that our work provides unique meaning and purpose in our lives. We are living in a crisis of apathy and ignorance regarding work's existential nature. There's no shortage of books telling people to work less, to find balance, to think less of career, and more of things that bring them happiness.

In full time, Bonson makes the case that our understanding of work and its role in our lives is deeply flawed. He argues that the time has come to stop tiptoeing around the issues that matter, that separating one's identity from what they do is demonstrably false,

and that a low view of work is leading to disastrous policy proposals and cultural attitudes. It is in work of every kind that we discover our meaning and purpose. A significant and successful life is one rooted in full-time productivity and cultivation of God's created world. A life of meaning is right under your nose, and with it, the joy and peace of a life well lived. Available for purchase at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Visit fulltimebook.com for more information. That's fulltimebook.com.

since I was in my 20s. But yeah, you keep your head down, you write, you sort of write things that are not controversial, that are in fields that are not political. And that's what I did for many years until about 2018 or thereabouts. I was a full professor, I was head of department. I felt that I kind of did what I'd wanted to do in terms of publishing. I published in the major university presses and journals and

And so I just thought now's the time to actually, you know, with the populist moment and the rise of Brexit and Trump, I sort of, you know, I was talking about why I think these things happened in a different way. And I was also more openly critical of the social justice movement. And that is really what got me involved.

under attack from Twitter mobs, open letters, internal investigations, right, which are prompted by people inside the university and outside who simply have to bombard your Twitter feed and, you know, put in a complaint against you and then you have to...

Okay, well, I think what we'll do, and I'll let everybody watching and listening know this too, I want to talk to you for another half an hour on the Daily Wire side. Unless, let's not step into what happened to you personally. Let's do that on the Daily Wire side. And I guess what I would like to do, are there other issues that you're working on now?

or that are germane to this new book that you would like to close with, let's say? Are there some other things we haven't talked about that you'd really like to bring to the attention of people on the YouTube side?

Well, I just say a couple of things. I mean, first is that I think that woke and cancel culture are connected to many different issues that are very pressing to a lot of voters. And one of them is, you know, the populist right is going to do very well in Europe in the European elections coming up in a couple of weeks or thereabouts.

This is really a—so it's not just about free speech and truth when we talk about cancel culture. It has downstream effects. If you can't talk about immigration, you're not going to get control of your border. You're not going to get to—you're not going to be able to deport people. And then you're going to have populists rising up because the mainstream won't touch it. I use the example of Soviet department store. You can only sell black pants. Well—

then you're going to have somebody popping up and selling blue jeans. So if the mainstream parties are only selling one immigration policy, then the political entrepreneur, which is going to be UKIP or the Sweden Democrats or Donald Trump, is going to pop up. So if you care about polarization and populism, you have to have free speech, which means we have to deal with woke. And I should just say one other thing, which is I'm trying to, both with this book and with a new course that I've run this year on—it's an open online course on woke—

trying to get people to understand what's led to this problem and why so many of the things that we argue about and talk about, crime, healthcare, education, they're downstream of this. So we can't, one of the things that I fear is that the culture wars get siloed into this narrow campus bubble and people think it's a minor thing and they forget that it has many, many effects on

on a lot of issues that a lot of voters care a lot about. So I just think it's a much bigger thing. In a way, it's the future of our civilization. It's not just a little culture war.

Yeah, right, exactly. Well, that's the thing is you've got to see what the source is. And it's, well, it certainly seems that the source of much of the trouble is, well, I think it's the higher education system. And then it's more specifically the ideologies that have gripped the higher education system, that people have allowed to grip it, I suppose, and also enabled. And so, yes, you're absolutely right, in my opinion, that

It isn't about economics with the culture war being a distraction. It's partly, too, you know, one of the things I've come to deeply understand that wealth is a consequence of an ethos.

It's not a consequence of natural resources. In fact, the natural resource curse is one of the economic facts that seems to disprove that entirely. Countries that are rich in natural resources are often, in fact, statistically more often, not likely to be rich because they become corrupt, for example. You need an ethos.

And an ethos makes you wealthy, and that's what happened in Japan, for example. And the default interaction between Japanese citizens is one of trust and honesty. And so Japan can be filthy rich in the absence of any natural resources at all. And so there's no culture war independent of economics. That's foolish.

is if we get the culture war wrong, we're going to destroy the economic system. And that's actually the stated goal of many of the real deep radicals. And so that actually should come as no surprise to anyone who's listening. And so this, and I think you're right in consequence about the libertarians. It's like you need a certain kind of cultural consensus so that less government is even an issue. And

it's not going to be less government, it's going to be better distributed responsibility. And that's not the same thing at all. Because the libertarian ethos only works when you have a citizenry that's capable of picking up governance on their own, to take that responsibility. Then libertarianism is fine, but if the culture war has destroyed that responsible ethos, less government is not a solution. It just lets the ideologues win.

Well, exactly. I mean, this is sort of a point Tocqueville made as well, is that that sort of layer of civic trust is vital for the functioning of freedom. If we have more polarization—

polarization means you can't enact the right economic policies because each party is sort of wrapping that policy into its ideology. People can't be rational and detached, right? And this is one of the things I think that the left loses sight of is that if you try and infiltrate institutions and politicize them, civil service, schools, corporations, you are actually going to cause half

half the citizenry to lose trust in those institutions. And therefore, without trust, I mean, as Putnam's work, a lot of people have done work on the salutary effect of trust on entrepreneurship and innovation. Without that basis of trust, if that's being torn apart, as you say, by culture wars and polarization. And so I just...

I'm trying to appeal to the sane left to say, look, you cannot just conduct your politics by infiltrating institutions. If you want to win that battle in the court of public opinion, that's fine. But to try and do it surreptitiously by infiltration is actually eroding the trust in society. And by the way, you can see it on the right, too. The right has kind of won over more positions on the Supreme Court. So what do we see? The left's trust in the Supreme Court as an institution falls.

And that's what happens when you politicize. And so I just think we've got to solve, and when people say it's just a little culture war, no, these are critical issues that we have got to come to a solution on if we want to overcome this polarization. Yeah, yeah. All right, sir. For everyone watching and listening, I'm going to continue this conversation on the Daily Wire side. I'm going to talk...

to Eric more about what happened to him personally with regard to his experience with cancel culture, because while these things are made much more realistic when they're nailed down to, to actual experience. And so if you'd be willing to join us there, please feel welcome and invited to do so. Thank you very much, sir. Be nice to talk to you again. At some point, I'd like to delve into the, the,

the issue of fundamentals, like your take is something like, as far as I can tell, that there's still enough centrist consensus so that we can adopt this stance of neutrality and use that as a, what would you say, as a conceptual structure to push back against the woke nonsense. And, you know, that seems plausible to me, possibly. There might be enough trust left for that. I'd like to have a conversation with you at some point about

what the sacred fundamentals perhaps actually have to be. You know, what are the ones that are lurking underneath that residual consensus? Because I think you can be utilitarian when the implicit consensus still exists. But the question is, you know, are we so fractionated that that's not the case anymore? Hopefully not. Yeah, I think that we do have to sort of try and

Just as we fought the Cold War, it was economic utilitarianism and well-being against economic socialism. What we have now is we've got cultural socialism, and we need that sort of cultural wealth perspective. It's a bit like the economists always talk about the pie pie.

The more equally you cut it up, the more it shrinks or the less it grows. So you need an optimal balance between equality, redistribution, and growth. I think likewise with the culture, we have to have a conversation about the more we push equal outcomes by race and gender and other things, the more that cultural pie isn't going to grow. So maybe a white man can't write about a black woman, and that impoverishes literature. You can't borrow...

That's cultural appropriation. So essentially, we get a poorer culture the more we push cultural socialism. And so again, I think we need this sort of new vision, which is really about human flourishing and overcoming cultural socialism. We'll have some concern with equality, as we did with economic equality, but it's not going to dominate the whole thing. Right now, I feel we've got cultural socialism unbounded with no guardrails, and that's something that we're going to have to address.

All right, sir. Thank you, everybody, for watching and listening. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I'm going to continue talking to Dr. Kaufman on the Daily Wire side. Please feel free to join us there. To the film crew here in northern Alberta, thank you very much for your help. Where are you, Eric, at the moment? I'm in London, actually. You're in London. Yeah. Okay, well. You're in northern Alberta. Whereabouts in northern Alberta?

I'm in a town called Fairview, which is near Grand Prairie. It's about 400 miles north of Edmonton. Right. I lived in Peace River for you. I think I mentioned that once. Oh, okay. So you know exactly where it is. All right. All right, sir. Well, thank you very much. And good luck with your book and with your continued efforts. And thank you to everyone watching and listening. Thanks, Jordan. Thank you.

© transcript Emily Beynon

Ever heard of a data broker? They're the middlemen collecting and selling all those digital footprints you leave online. They can stitch together detailed profiles which include your browsing history, online searches, and location data. The data broker then sells your profile off to a company who delivers you a really targeted ad. No biggie, right? Well, you might be surprised to learn that these same data brokers are also selling your information to the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS.

I, for one, don't want the taxman showing up at my door because of some search I did on my phone. So, to mask my digital footprints, I protect myself with ExpressVPN. One of the easiest ways for data brokers to track you is through your device's unique IP address, which also reveals information about your location. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, which makes it much more difficult for data brokers to monitor, track, and monetize your private online activity.

ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network traffic to keep your data safe from hackers when you're on public Wi-Fi. ExpressVPN works on all your devices, phone, laptop, tablet, you name it. Just tap one button to turn it on and you're protected. It's that easy. I use ExpressVPN because I don't like the idea of some big tech company profiting off my personal data. Talk about a violation of privacy.

Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com slash jordan. That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com slash jordan and you can get an extra three months free. expressvpn.com slash jordan.