Modern Wisdom - #232 - Andrew Doyle - I'm Not Exaggerating The Problem

Episode Date: October 15, 2020

Andrew Doyle is Titania McGrath, a comedian and a writer. More clairvoyant prophecy today from Andrew as he reminds us all that everything he said in late 2019 has now come true. Expect to learn whether we need to decolonize Mars, who Andrew thinks will win the 2020 Election, why "whiteness" is a problematic term, what's happened with gay activism, whether creating a slave-themed workout routine is a clever idea and much more... Sponsor: Get 20% discount & free shipping on your Lawnmower 3.0 at https://www.manscaped.com/ (use code MODERNWISDOM) Extra Stuff: Buy Titania McGrath's new book - https://amzn.to/36KRNdd Follow Andrew on Twitter - https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com  Get my free Ultimate Life Hacks List to 10x your daily productivity → https://chriswillx.com/lifehacks/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Join the discussion with me and other like minded listeners in the episode comments on the MW YouTube Channel or message me... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ModernWisdomPodcast Email: https://www.chriswillx.com/contact  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi friends, welcome back. My guest today is Andrew Doyle, comedian, writer and moonlighting as Tataanima Graf. He joined us in late 2019 for some clairvoyant prophecy where everything that he claimed was going to happen has now come true in 2020. So today expect to learn whether we need to decolonise Mars, who Andrew thinks will win the 2020 election, why whiteness is a problematic term, what's happened with gay activism, whether creating a slave-themed workout routine is a clever idea, and much more.

Andrew is a big friend of the show. I really enjoy speaking to him. He has a wealth of understanding that helps to dissect what's going on politically and in pop culture at the moment. And yeah, I look forward to finally being able to sit down with improperly face-to-face. But for now, Skype will do as he's enjoying his time in the Malfi Coast. Don't forget, if you are enjoying the audio version of this podcast,

everything is available in video too. You can see the face of me and the face of the guest that I'm speaking to in all of its high-de high definition beauty over at the Modern Wisdom YouTube channel. Just search Modern Wisdom and it will come up, hit the subscribe button as it would make me very happy. But if you sort of stay listening, that's fine as well. I'm not discriminating. I just want to get two subs out of you. You know, so go hit the button if you have time. But for now, it's time for the wise and wonderful Andrew Doyle. Lovely to be back. It's been a while. How long's it been? More than a year. Just over a year. You were on route from London to the fringe, dropped in for a quick

coffee in there. That's right. That's right. Yeah. It was fun. It was good. None of that, none of that anymore. That's not how the world works now. No. It's all remote. It is. You're on holiday at the moment. Well, I'm not really. I'm working. I'm on the Amalfi coast. I'm staying in a small town halfway between Positano and Amalfi. And I'm I spent the day in Capri the other day. So it's been to Pompeii. So it sounds like I'm having a good time, but I am here to work. And so for the rest of the week, I'm not going to leave the flat. I'm just going to sit here and write because I can't work at home too many distractions. You're reading some future classes.

I'm not going to go away too. No, I'm not. I'm working on a new book. And because the last two books I wrote, I wrote in Sark, the Isle of Sark, but I can't get there because of the quarantine rules. So I had to come to Italy. So, you know, it's fine. Yeah, it's a tough life, isn't it?

Yeah. Yeah. It's good. I mean, I've got the space It's a tough life, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's good, it's good. I mean, I've got the space I need just to focus on stuff. I like it. So what have been the major developments in the walk world this year? I mean, where'd you begin? It has exploded.

When I last spoke to you, I was often accused of exaggerating the problem, and people would say, well, you know, you're just complaining about the behaviour of a few rogue students here and there on university campuses or a few nut cases on the internet. And well, I've been proven right, haven't I? Because now it's not that, it's demonstratively not that. The evidence of everything I've been writing about and talking about for the past five years is absolutely everywhere. It's incontrovertible and if that sounds arrogant, so be it. But there you go. The profit has arrived.

I fucking told you so you did nothing. And you attacked me. You just attacked me. I am Cassandra. You didn't believe my warnings. And here we are. Had you heated my prophecies, perhaps this could have been evaded. So other than you being one of the four horsemen,

where is the world of the four horsemen, where is the world of if there's trends, if there was like a trending in a world of woke sort of where's it gone this year? Yeah, so it's been a kind of just a concatenation of unfortunate circumstances. You know, we had the obviously the pandemic and the lockdown and this created the kind of tension and this kind of the sense of frustration. It meant a lot of people were spending more time on the internet, rather than the real world, which means that they have a skewed perspective of how things are going and and then all of a sudden It explodes because of the death of George Floyd. So there's this, you know, what starts out as very important legitimate protests against police brutality. I'm personally very

nervous about any kind of overreach of the state as as you know, because you know about my work. So I do believe instances like that do require rigorous response and rigorous protest. But very quickly it became quite clear that this wasn't about George Floyd anymore. It was about this whole host of other issues. And it was actually more a kind of catalyst for the Culture War to explode into the mainstream, which is exactly what happened. And then you have all major corporations, all major businesses, civic institutions, schools, universities, absolutely everyone in lockstep over,

basically issues they don't fully understand. I mean, when the BBC, for instance, and Sainsbury's as of this week, telling their employees to read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, which is a book which is, I suppose, the most popular example of critical race theory that we have at the moment, but it is a very, very shoddy piece of work, which has been widely discredited and doesn't have the kind

of academic respectability. Once you move beyond that sort of niche of the kind of postmodern offshoot such as, you know, critical race theory, disability studies, fat studies, gender studies, intersectional feminism. Once you go beyond all that, people don't take Robin Yandrel very seriously. Businesses do corporations do, they pay her thousands of dollars to go in and shout at their white employees and tell them how racist they all are. But it's such a dangerous, divisiveive backward philosophy of life. It's the idea

that you divide us into oppressed and oppressor irrespective of our personal circumstances and you, you know, it's racist in every way it is possible to be racist. It, you know, it degrades people of color by telling them that they're always going to be victims, that they never, they will never achieve anything that they deserve to achieve and it's racist against white people because it tells them that they're all oppressive on racist and in particular Robert DiAngelo, who will claim that if you deny your complicity in white supremacy, that just proves your white supremacist.

Right, so this, it's absolutely appalling and abysmal. And of course, because she's phrase, and well, people of that ilk use the phrase anti-racism to describe what they're doing. If you complain about anti-racism, and will make the case that anti-racism to describe what they're doing. If you complain about anti-racism, and we'll make the case that anti-racism is a bad thing, it sounds like you're saying that you are for racism. And of course, the reason for opposing anti-racism is if you are concerned about actual racism. That's the problem. So this gets very complicated. There's this whole lexicon you sort of have to master before you can get anywhere.

It also makes people rightly nervous. They understand that, you know. Most people very complicated, there's this whole lexicon you have to master before you can get anywhere. It also makes people rightly nervous. They understand that. Most people are concerned about the anti-racism in terms of unconscious bias training and implicit bias training, dividing people up. I mean, Saintsbury's literally created an online safe space for their black employees. I mean, how patronizing is that? So people are nervous about this, but they don't want to be seen to be opposed to anti-racism. It's a very clever phrase that they use, but what people have to understand is that anti-racism is a rehabilitated form of racialized thinking. In other words, it is a form of racism. And if you really care about combating racism as I do, then you will oppose anti-racism. And you'll go back to

the liberal approach, the liberal approach to combative racism and the reason for that sort of thing is you've got the past six decades of progress which prove that it works and sure it hasn't achieved a complete utopia where racism doesn't exist that will never happen because we live in a society of human beings and there's always going to be some nasty pieces of work amongst us, right? But the best, the absolute best way as has been proven by recent history, is the liberal approach, is that you attack or racism rigorously whenever it occurs. What you don't do is create this faith-based philosophy, whether a nebulous power structures that only people like Robin

DiAngelo are qualified to detect, and therefore you implement policy on that basis in the government, in the arts, in education, in the media, absolutely everywhere. And then you're solving problems that may or may not exist on the basis of this data that you've created. That's not the way to go about this. And we know this is the case. So people who do believe in those liberal values, those decent values of equality and fairness and looking at the people and ensuring that people aren't mistreated in society and discriminated

against, those are the people who need to advance the liberal agenda. The social liberalism that has served us so well for so long that is now being utterly demolished before our eyes. It seems, it feels a little bit like, you know, the God of the Gaps theory. This is kind of like the racism of the Gap's theory. Yes, that's right. Racism is the set point. And that is the elephant in the room with regards to the anti-racism movement. That it inherently further entrenched and splits us up into groups based on race, as opposed to the Sam Harris proposal,

which is a world where the color of someone's skin would be as important as the color of someone's hair. And we don't care that there's not enough gingers that are CEO's or brunettes that are working on the machine line or whatever it might be. One thing I've noticed this year, race really has sort of come to the forefront. What's happened with the gaze this year? Is gay activism still alive and well? The gaze, a new white man, aren't they? I think that people are quite down on the gays at the moment and there's all sorts of things that you've just kind

of touched on which are quite difficult to unpack. I mean, you're alluding to the the ideal of colour blindness which is of course the ideal, the liberal ideal which is that as you say the ginger hair analogy works well because it doesn't mean that you don't see race, it means that you don't care, you don't care that you don't see race. It means that you don't care. You don't care. You don't treat people differently on it on the base of skin colour, which is actually a beautiful ideal that we should all be striped. That's what we used to teach children. And all of a sudden, over the past six months, suddenly all of that needs to be unpicked and unpacked and revised based on this very reactionary agenda, I think that's absolutely heartbreaking

and genuinely tragic and yes, reactionary and regressive. It's taken us right back. And that's the thing, you don't need, you know, can anyone seriously, hand on heart say that what has happened this year has not inflamed racial tension and made it worse? And basically made our society more racist as opposed to less racist. I mean, can anyone seriously say that with a straight face? I don't

believe they can. So that's why we do need to do something about it. In terms of gaze. Where are the gaze, Andrew? Where are all the gaze gone? So that's a different issue. The problem with the gay issue now is that we have, issue, the problem with the gay issue now is that we have, there is a kind of fission within the LGBTQIA plus community, right? So even using the phrase makes me laugh, I think we need to totally just abolish it and move on because the truth is, let's take Stonewall, Stonewall which is the sort of major charity for gay people in the UK, which has done some incredible work over the years. And has now changed its entire philosophy about sexuality.

And it believes, for instance, that gay men are, it's redefined, it's not, homosexuality is known on the same sex attraction, it is same gender attraction. But of course, gay men are not attracted to people who identify as men. They are attracted to people who have the bodies of men. And that's actually quite a fundamental distinction. Elisbian is not going to be attracted to someone

with a penis simply because that person with a penis identifies as female. And because that person says that well, it's a female penis. That's not because we're dealing with people's biological inclination, sexual inclination. It's quite deeply rooted, shall we say. biological inclination, sexual inclination, it's quite deeply rooted, shall we say. So when Stonewall effectively adopt a homophobic policy and I use that word with caution, insofar as I don't think the people that Stonewall are homophobic, but I think they're new philosophies

underpinned by homophobia. In much the same way that I don't think fourth wave feminists are misogynists, but their philosophy is underpinned by homophobia. In much the same way that I don't think fourth wave feminists are misogynists, but their philosophy is underpinned by a misogynistic idea that women are weak inherently weak and always victims in the protection, right? So it's perfectly possible for this to happen, as we have seen.

So Stonewall now are obsessed with the trans issue. I mean, they're right to be concerned whenever a trans person is discriminated against. All right, that is something. Again, we go back to the liberal standard, which is that everyone should have equal rights, irrespective of who they are or how they identify. The liberal perspective is that you should be able to call yourself whatever you want, you should be able to do whatever you want to your body, you should have those. And of course, trans people have every right to be treated exactly the same as everyone

else. What they don't have the right to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. What they don't have the right to do is to force other people to use the language that they want them to use. And that's really the sticking point. And there is this, of course, conflict of rights now between feminists who, for the most part, particularly second-wave feminists, and they're after believed in the idea of gender being a social construct. And of course, the trans movement, particularly the militant trans activists believe that gender is a, they have a biological essentialist view, which is why you get this idea being born in the wrong body. So you get this fundamental contradiction.

You also have feminists who are concerned about single sex spaces, such as domestic violence, refuge centres for instance, or prisons, which is a lucrative concern to have. And they do not believe that biological sex is a fantasy. And as Blair White, the trans rights through the Americas pointed out, if there's no such thing as biological sex, there's no such thing as trans people. So all of this is going on. So you've got Lesbians and gay men

who are being pitted against trans activists, and it's not really fair, because the majority of trans people don't have these views. lesbians and gay men who are being pitted against trans activists and it's not really fair because the majority of trans people don't have these views. This is a minority of activists who for some reason are able to sway Stonewall's entire policy and thinking on this and Stonewall in fact has completely stopped listening to gay people and is completely and feminist and completely overall their viewpoint. I'm not suggesting that any particular person should just be deemed to be correct in this. I think we need to have a debate, right? I'm perfectly willing to be challenged on anything

that I've said and for people to say I'm wrong. I almost certainly am wrong about a number of things that it's got to be the case, right? So having the discussion is important, but when you have someone just charging in and saying trans women are women, well, there's a lot to unpack there. You know, what do you mean by woman? What does woman mean by your definition? What if I don't share your definition of woman? What if I think that sex is biologically ingrained and that you are fundamentally incapable of changing that, however you can identify and you're free to identify however you want, which is by the way is what an awful lot of trans people believe, right? According to this new rubric, a lot of trans people are very transphobic.

And that's going to be very complex. So what do you do? Game men are not, game and game women are so... It's so... ...then lower down on that higher level. The pecking order, yeah. So because of intersectionality, which effectively, I know the original intention wasn't this, but what it has morphed into is a kind of exactly that,

a kind of a hierarchy of grievance and gay people are dropping down the charts all the time. Is there any further for them to go? Oh, relegated to the voxel conference mate, you know? By the way, I don't know what that means. Really? I just heard a man in a pub say it once. The reason I used that is because when I was at school, it was so because I was never a gender conformist kid. I didn't like the stuff that the boys liked

and I wasn't into football and everyone was so beautiful I had to pretend that I'd supported a team and I chose a Yoval town so that I had something to say and apparently they got relegated to the voxel conference and I've always remembered that phrase. I didn't even know if the voxel conference is still a thing. I don't think it is but you've managed to pull out a like couple of decade old reference that's still in there. It's still in there. Oh yeah. Well it's very traumatic and scary. You know, if you were a boy at school, at your primary school and you're secretly doing ballet in the evenings and you're having nightmares

about them seeing you in your tights and you're getting bullied at school and you're not considered very masculine and traditionally masculine. Yeah, those things stick, I think. I've been... I played cricket in a state school in Stockton, sub-Area of T-side Middlesbrough, who's claimed to fame up until recently was only that it had the highest teen pregnancy rate

in the UK. And I was playing cricket, which was like just the bourgeois arrow of the top of your head for this guy need to kick in. Oh, cricket. Cricket is basically PG Woodhouse and that kind of. Precisely. Quintessential old school Englishness and Newtonian kind of. Yeah, that's very, very, very wonky.

Did you see the campaign to decolonize Mars? I didn't. Well, it hasn't been colonized yet, has it? Let me lay this one out for you. Okay. Okay. I haven't come across this one. decolonizemas.org, an unconference on Mars. decolonizing Mars, an unconference on inclusion and equity in space exploration will bring together a diverse group of individuals working at the intersection of astrobiology, anthropology, social justice, and space exploration. The format of the event will feature a discussion

as its primary objective. While there will be time for brief presentations, a significant fraction of the programme will be devoted to group discussion around pressing themes which will be determined by the symposium participants themselves. The term decolonizing, decolonization refers to the undoing of the legacy of colonialism. Many people are used to hearing about colonizing Mars to talk about humanity living in space. Here we examine how using a colonialist framework in space reproduces past harm from humanity's history on Earth. This event is about envisioning fresh pathways for thinking about space exploration by stepping away from the ways we usually talk about space, which is by definition

decolonizing the topic Helens decolonizing Mars. And as you've quite rightly identified in James Lindsey brought up, there is an entire conference dedicated to decolonizing a planet that hasn't been colonized yet. Are you sure this isn't a joke? I'm just putting that out there. I mean, that is that not the sub title, almost everything that's happened this year. This is the problem now, is that whenever I see an article like this, or something, I have to verify it. Do you wonder sometimes if you wrote it? Yeah, exactly. If you've trolled yourself.

Yeah. I mean, it's so on the face of it just insane. And you want to be, I've always been banging on about, you know, how I want to give people the benefit of the day. I want to be respectful to all opinions. I don't want to be able to discuss them. But some, the problem with this social justice ideology is it is at heart so infantile that it's very difficult not to start sounding like you're throwing at hominemes, you know, once you start, but it just is,

this isn't how adults who are educated well should behave. Let's not forget as well. We're not talking about, if you want to have those conferences that happen in Portland where everyone calls each other comrade and has a point of personal privilege, that's fine. No, no, no, this is fucking space. Right? There's no, there's, you know, to vacuum out there, it's really, really scary and dangerous. And Mars is far away.

I don't, what, the astronauts that are going over there, there should not be an inclusivity officer on board. The first shot of Mars. Once they've decolonized maths and science and then engineering, and then they can build the rocket that goes to Mars, I'm not gonna be on that rocket, I tell you. Because it's not gonna get very far.

And if they're obsessed with this stuff, I mean, I hope we do meet in alien race, because these people, their first concern is going to be about whether the alien race is sufficiently inclusive and don't lose. And and they'll just shoot them when they were their laser guns and that'll be the end of that. And that'll be fine. And we'll that's what we need. We need a fucking invasion. Don't we? I just don't I don't know what else to do. I am I'm kind of because I'm writing about it at the moment, I'm writing a book about it as well. And it's just, it's reminding me of all the stuff that's going on.

And while I have been for the past five years, trying to get into the head of these people. And there comes a point when you realize it is just a fundamentalist religion, that's what it is. And therefore, it's like trying to pick apart any kind of rigorous theology. You know, it ultimately, you hit that brick wall, you know. We're ultimately just want to say, but actually I don't believe there is a multi-headed hydro.

I just don't, you know, I'm not going to accept the premise from which we build your entire esoteric religion. You know, I'm just not going to do that. And that's what we're dealing with here. And it is a worry. And I don't know what the solution, I think we need to, we need to rinse, stay up to the liberal world, but we also need to re-react liberal education. People need to learn things again. You know, these people have been failed by education, I believe.

And I don't know what to do about it. I'm concerned. And I brought this up with Douglass. When he was on the show. My concern is that the smartest minds of our generation are being, are having their mental ram taken up, trying to argue the fact that men and women are different. And if the great filter exists, which is a theory put forward by Robin Hanson that explains the answer to the Fermi paradox why there are no aliens out there

There is a particular barrier that all Civilizations need to get over perhaps it's not Do having aggressive global warming perhaps it's Having correctly controlled and aligned artificial general intelligence perhaps it's you know any any one of the number of other things like if that great filter exists and the reason that we don't get past it is because we're playing these childish, like absolutely infantile games of your hierarchy versus my hierarchy, and I'm going to do moral grandstanding because it's a state, a signaler, and blah, blah, blah. Like, we don't deserve to colonize the galaxy.

Well, the problem is that it's such a small, I think we do deserve it's it's a small minority of people who just taken over academia I mean that's really all it is and and and people go away to universities and they are pump full of this stuff which is stupid just stupid I mean the number of the arguments I've seen on Twitter and it's it's blue-checked academics saying the most ignorant stupid things and you just think well those are considered the most educated people in the world aren't they? And that's you know and yet normal people know that they're full of shit and that's a worry. That's a worry isn't it? I don't know and I don't want to say I'm conspiratorial

and I know that this idea of the long march through the institutions, the Graham's Guardian is kind of considered to be conspiratorial, but certainly it wasn't from the outset. I mean there were people, there were Neil Marxists who were concerned about the failure of Marxism to stir up a revolution and they wanted to know why and they believed that the way to do it would be through this kind of inch meal approach where you do infiltrate the church, say, universities, the major institutions. So there was that blueprint in place, there wasn't attempt and that's not conspiratorial because they were so open about those intentions. They wrote about those intentions and it did happen. However, I think largely it happened by accident, more than anything I think it happened by accident. I just think those sort of

original thinkers of the Frankfurt School, you know, the whole Kheimers and the Adorno's and the and and the and the French post-Monday so the 1970s were coming from a different branch, but they have these sort of overlapping concerns. They just took hold and I think it happened by accident more than anything else, but it just took hold. I mean, certainly when I was studying at university, that sort of food code, an idea of the world, you know, the power structures that we now hear about all the time, it was just completely compulsory that this was just taken as a given. And then it went out of fashion weirdly. So this obsession that we now have with language, I mean, you know that social justice activists, they're all obsessed with language and policing language and you mustn't say this and the reason they think that

is because they think that reality is created by language. Effectively, if you can police language, the world becomes better and people think in the right way. But all of that stems from this postmodern over emphasis on language. It's why the postmodernists have no clue about the visual arts. They were totally ill-equipped to assess the visual arts, right? They couldn't do it because they just

think linguistically, obsessively, the deridars of the world, the Jean-François Liatards of the world, it's just obsessing with language. And that, we now have the legacy of that. But I should say all of this stuff went out of fashion about 10 years ago, 15 years ago. It's just for some reason. It's gone. It's gone. And you've got those sort of, you know, the worst kind of no-nothing academics who are holding onto it and the reason they hold onto it is because if you believe in this belief system, you don't have to do any reading.

You don't have to know anything. You don't have to spend any time in the library. All you do is read a few sort of these textbooks, these foundational texts and you're good to go. It's why it really makes me laugh when you hear that phrase, educate yourself. And the activists always say, educate yourself. Well, they don't actually meet, first of all, they haven't read Fruco and Derrick. They haven't read the things that they cite.

When they say, educate yourself, they mean read the one or two books they've ever read, which are probably white fragility, but Robin Jameslow. Get white fragility on an audible free trial, that's what they mean. Yeah, or how to be an anti-racist by Abraham X, Kendi, they've basically got those two, maybe the Rene Edo large book, maybe an app. What does the X stand for in Ibrahim Kendi?

Is it a name? He's changed his name to that. That's not his birth name. Ibrahim X, Kendi. So it's that. I can only assume birth name. E.B. I.X. Candy. So it's that I can only assume it's an allusion to Malcolm X and to the practice of black activists in the black power movement changing their name to to an X. I don't know enough about him. Me neither.

All I know is I don't like that book. And I have to read these books. I mean, this is the thing that bothers me. I you know, he's just a one called anti-racist baby. I don't know if you saw that. It's a scene. It's gone out. Yeah. Well, is it like a pop-up? Is it pop-up? It doesn't have pop-up. No, it doesn't have pop-ups. It's a thick, it's one of those, it's aimed at very small kids. So it's one of those ball-card boards. Big, big, big, thick. So there's only about seven pages. You can read in two minutes, and it's thick, illustrated, and it's thick illustrated, and

it's talking about how babies, I'm not kidding, it's something like babies need to be able to confess their racism and all this sort, you know, I mean, it's just, it's funny, it really is, but these books, I mean, I keep getting them sent to me as well, and there comes a point where they're just repeating themselves. Gifts are pieces of art. I mean, is there anthrax in them? Yeah, I feel like it's a curse. But of course, I also know I have to read them because I can't be in the position of talking about them

and criticising them unless I'm familiar with them. I read more of that stuff than the stuff I would like to read. Or having said that, I mean, Italy, and I've been reading some more interesting things that are not to do with it, which is probably not what I should be doing, you know at the moment. And try and try and try and try yourself in, yeah. Can you take us through what whiteness means? Okay, so the notion of whiteness, I suppose the best way to think about it is a system of power, right?

So it's, and this is coming from critical race, this is the phrase that they always use whiteness. It's been analogized with the Augustinian idea of original sin. It doesn't actually specifically pertain to, well, there's an ambiguity. It doesn't specifically pertain to the color of your skin, the whiteness. It more pertains to a complicity in a system of whiteness,

a system of oppression on the basis of race. So for, this is why, for instance, very confusingly, when there was that story in America when the Asian boys, I think one of them urinated on a black schoolgirl and attacked them, it was a horrible attack. They were described because they weren't white perpetrators. They were described as enacting whiteness. In other words, whiteness is a way that you oppress people of color, a system of oppression.

And that you don't necessarily, therefore, have to be white. You could be white adjacent, which is the phrase, that I started using last year as a joke through to Tarnia, and now people are using it, and I started thinking, did I invent this, but I probably didn't. I probably was just there in the ether.

You know, it's because- Undiscovered knowledge. Yeah, I mean, you can, because you can't anticipate this stuff. You can't, that's the problem. And because fascist adjacent, it becomes so popular. I just thought I'll start calling black people who are conservative, say white, adjacent,

as a joke. And now I'm actually seeing it everywhere and it's really bothering me and I want to work out if I did invent that. I hope so. But yes, so that's what whiteness. So therefore to give you another example. And of course there's also books and tracks written about whiteness and trying to give it the illusion that this is something that is thought through and sophisticated.

It's sophisticated. They load it with this jargon in order to give the impression that it's too complicated for you to understand. So you better just accept it. Hand it over to us. You made the analogy that the same reason as to why the church didn't want the Bible translated into common parlance back in the Middle Ages. It's why they burnt Tinder at stake because you translate the Bible, it means that all of a sudden the power is devolved to the masses. It means they can interpret scripture for themselves and that matters. You can't just say, well, you can't have a priest just say, well, you've got to do what I say because I'm the only one who can read the sacred texts. That is the equivalent of what's

happening here. So the academics are saying, well, and you see all the time when people get into one, when your average person gets into an argument with one of these crazy academics on Twitter, they'll say, well, actually, I'm an expert in this, and they'll throw all this jargon down, and they'll frighten people away. And if, you know, actually don't worry about it because they're talking bollocks. They really are. All this comes from is these things are slogans that are used instead of serious thought processes. And they are, they're not to be taken seriously.

So don't worry about it. Just get them. Also, you should remind them that if they're unable to express their point with any degree of clarity, they're not expressing their point well. That's the other thing. But just to come back. It's the mark of a genius to explain a complex thing in a simple way. It's the mark of a charlatan to explain a complex way.

Very nice, did you just come up with that? No, I found it on Twitter probably, but not in your well. So yeah, you were saying, another example of whiteness. We're just to give another example of the way in which the social justice people and the critical race people play on these ambiguities. They can say that all white people are complicit in whiteness by virtue of the color of their skin and they can also say that people who are non-white are also complicit in the system if they are not actively anti-racist. Remember for these people isn't the dichotomy of

racist or not racist because if you're not racist that's another form of racism. The dichotomy is actually racist or anti-racist which means you are proactively conceding your own complicity in these systems and, and attempting to decolonize these systems, right? So it's not good enough just not to be a racist person, to be good, to be a good person who doesn't ever say or do or support anything racist. That's not enough. You've got to be an anti racist, right? So you've got all that going on and them, but then they will play on and make it racial. So then you've got like the

resisting whiteness conference that was at Edinburgh University, where they said explicitly that in the Q&A section at the end, white people were not allowed to put their hands up and ask questions. So, well, in that case, you are making whiteness explicitly about skin color. And in that circumstances, what do you do for mixed race? Can you speak in a low-spot?

How much whiteness are you allowed to have? Yeah, do you get like half a question? Or how do we... I'm also... We're all mongrels of various races. So how much do you get to speak? Do I have to have DNA tests to decide how much I can speak? So on the one hand, they like the fact

that it alludes specifically to race and skin color. And on the other hand, they will deny that it does and that races are social constructs and all the rest of it. So it plays on the ambiguity, it plays on it. It's in the same way that they play on the idea of social justice and liberalism and they play on people's good natures and good intentions in order to get what they want. I think it's absolutely, it's absolutely ghastly. So you can have, for instance, academics who talk about how whiteness is evil and we must abolish whiteness is evil, and we must have

abolished whiteness, as we've seen from a number of, I think there was a Cambridge academic who said exactly that. But of course, what she's doing is she's enjoying the fact that she can have a pop at white people. But then she can defend herself by saying, yes, but when I say whiteness, I'm talking about this oppressive system that I've sort, that I believe in this magical system that we all us fellow academics talk about amongst ourselves. So you can have both ways. It's really, it's really bad. It's like the old school closet racist comedian

that would make overtly racist jokes and then say, just a joke mate. I'm only joking. I'm only joking. Or the same as the guy who is vehemently anti gay, but if you watch watch put some gay porn in front of him and sticking in front of an MRI, he's got much more of a rouse or response than anybody else in the room.

Right. The lady does protest too much. I'll just trick in the book, isn't it? The bullies always use to say it's just a joke, you know, and that's, and, and of course, real comedians think through their jokes carefully and decide whether or not they are justified or not. And so, yeah, that's absolutely, it's a good analogy, actually. Good, Chris. Did you see it?

Thank you, man. I'm just loading the flattery on today. I feel great. Did you see the gym, I think, in Portsmouth, had done it. I did see the gym. At 12 years of slave Course yes because because being a slave was a joke didn't it being a slave was hard and so is this workout that's a quote

Yeah, I mean being a slave is hard And I'm sure working out as you know more than most people is is tough It's not the same. There is it But I I did wonder about that, whether that was some sort of joke, turns out it's not. No, really. It's sadly not. It's just horribly misjudged. Well, look, people are going to make these poor judgments at the moment because the whole discourse is so crazy. And I imagine that was actually quite well intentioned. this is something else that I brought up with Douglas that I'd had this conversation with Carl Benjamin Sargon.

And I got so nervous during the process of talking about it was slap bang when Chad was happening, so like peak race tensions. Yeah, yeah. And I got so nervous not knowing what I was supposed to say, not knowing what wasn't acceptable speech, and I'm someone who does this every single night, like four or five nights a week I have a conversation about this.

So my ability to deploy precise speech should at least be better than the lay person. And I was nervous during the day before this ambient anxiety, then after it had happened, I was listening back to it. Oh, should I have, would I have, could I have said that a little bit more? Of course. Because we are living in this culture where people will pick apart.

And you can miss speak, if you miss speak even slightly, it can be used as ammunition against you. It is what we call council culture, which does exist no matter what, Owen Jones claims. And the problem is that you, you know, everyone's worried about what they say. Now actually, being concerned about what you say and trying to aim for precise speech is a good quality. It's something that we should all do, but we should also be recognition that

all of us will not always express precisely what we mean because we're human beings and we make mistakes. And also particularly dealing with such sensitive issues and complicated issues, we should have the freedom to make mistakes. I think it's very liberating to just not care, to just think, I am going to make mistakes sometimes. And if I do make a mistake, I'll just say, well, I made a mistake. That's not quite what I meant. And even though you've got this kind of retributive unforgiving armies of activists out there who will use this against you, just ignore them, just do that. The publish and be damned idea. I've made a mistake, I've said it, I'm not going to apologise anymore about this.

In fact, don't even apologise to them. Just say, well, okay, this was a conversation we had. Something was someone mis-spoke. Maybe they didn't. We're trying ideas out. We're trying to thrash through these very complex thoughts. And if you can't accept that human beings don't speak like robots, then you're not really a human being at all. I learned this year for the first time from Ben Shapiro, the term semantic overload. Are you familiar with this? Well, I can work out what it means from the meaning of it. So it was yeah. And he's been using it to describe the words, Black Lives Matter.

And that semantically overloaded, it can be multiple things at once. It's this thing where we want it to be, are you against Black Lives Matter? It's very difficult to say that without sounding like you hate Black people. So it's back to the anti-racism. It's something that can have more than one meaning. And certainly, it's a very clever rhetorical trope, It's back to the anti-racism idea. It's something that can have more than one meaning. And certainly, it's a very clever rhetorical trope, because of course, as you say,

you cannot disagree with the phrase, black lives matter. No one would. This is the weird thing about it that, people, using that hashtag and that expression, because they believe that unless they do use that expression, we're going to assume they don't believe that black lives matter. It's similar to, I mean, this just goes to show how much things have escalated so quickly, right? There was a thing about five or six years ago where people started wearing safety pins as a gesture to show that they weren't racist.

It was a very short-lived thing, right? So you Google it, I'm not making it up, and it got ridiculed by everyone, including people on the social justice side because, of course, the default assumption in a society like ours is that people aren't racist, right? So if you're wearing a safety pin and saying that anyone who isn't must be a racist, but this is absurd, right? But we are now in safety pin world, where basically unless you're saying black lies matter, you assume that black lives do not matter. Well, that's not true. I still stand by the point that anyone who, any decent civilized person will obviously believe the Black Lives Matter.

You should never assume that someone doesn't believe that unless there is incontrovertible evidence that they don't. But that's the problem. It goes back to the critical race theory idea that racism is present in every possible human interaction. They don't ask, was this situation racist? They ask, how did racism manifest itself in that situation? And that is the problem. So in other words, the entirety of society is underpinned

by racism. It's such a bleak, nihilistic world view. It's so horrible. So yes, semantic overload, when so I suppose, something that can have multiple meanings. And certainly, are you talking about Black Lives Matter? Are you talking about the group? Are you talking about the concept? Well, I would suggest, now, whenever I hear someone using that phrase, I'm always going to assume you're talking about the group. Because why would you make the statement? Have you noticed now that people are starting to use Black Lives Matter and BLM? They've bifurcated. Yes. Well, that's the way you, I think that started early on as a way to get around it because we need to be able to criticize BLM because as a movement, it has all sorts of ludicrous aspects to it. For instance, it's believed that we should dismantle

cisgender privilege or attack the Western nuclear family or all of which perfectly push forward the benefit and the well-being of black people. Well, look at their intention to defund the police as well. I mean, which of course would affect areas that are working class and there is a hyperportion of black and ethnic minority people in working class areas. It's not going to do them any favor. So this stuff, yeah, exactly. I don't think dismantling cisgender privilege is something that's going to go down too well in certain Black communities. I would suggest.

Okay. Well, I mean, if you know anything about the history of Black gay people, they have had it tough in this country, in their communities because of cultural issues, religious issues, and all sorts of things, I don't think dismantling system to privilege is gonna go down wealth. So you're right, BLM, and of course by saying BLM, you're avoiding having to say,

I oppose Black Lives Matter. You can say I oppose BLM, right? And I think lots of people do. I think the idea of demolishing capitalism, right? I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with. I don't understand why schools across the country, schools like Eton are putting out statements in support of Black Lives Matter private schools, right? When if you took the Black Lives Matter agenda and applied it

to society, Eton would be raised to the ground. It wouldn't exist because it charges extortionate rates. It is the hub and training ground and cradle of capitalism, right? So to have them support a movement that wants to see them abolished is utterly retarded, right? And I know I'm not going to use that word, I'm using that word in its literal meaning of to go backwards before you start complaining. Yeah. But even I'm doing it now, even I'm worried about what this is. So this is, this is the thing that semantic overload and this It's even tropey now to say it's so it's so 1984 isn't it, you know Or well, we're prophesized all of this. I'm like I'm so bored

So so but and I can't imagine what it's like for you who's further entrenched you know really really sort of swimming through the muck and the feces and the blood and the straw. And just desperately trying to get out the other side. So yeah, it's um, it's, yeah, it's, it's, what can you say? It's depressing. Do you not get depressed by this? I mean, I'm suddenly, man, this is why I brought up with, with Douglass as well. I was like, mate, I want to know what you've got to say about how to lead a good life, about what it means to have human flourishing and fulfillment. I want you to dip into your bottomless back catalog of literature and understanding of how the renaissance and the enlightenment

and all these, that's what I want to learn from Douglas Murray. I don't want him to write fucking madness of crowds,, wonderful book and the titanium agrarst of that you do is fantastic. But as he brings up like when the barbarians are at the door, we'll be debating about what gender they are whilst we get Kalashnikov'd in the head. Right. See, this is it.

I want to be able to do other things. But I mean, I like, so I love it when I get to write an article about some of that as absolutely nothing to do with this, you know, and that's always good fun. And, you know, obviously, because I write other things, I write plays, I write musicals, I do all of those things, and I'm still doing that, you know, I just finished a new musical. But you just, it does dominate, unfortunately, and the reason it does dominate, as you pointed out and as Douglas has pointed out, unfortunately, unless we, unless we win this, nothing else will matter anyway. So actually, it is quite important. Here's what else I think. Another reason that I think you guys are so compelled to do it.

And James Lindsay is a really good example of this. It's a man with a PhD in pure mathematics. Yeah. James, mate, you should be getting Mr. Mars, not doing fake intersectional studies on dog parks, but what I think it is is a little bit like a more incredulous version of TikTok for academics. Imagine what TikTok must be like for a 13-year-old. You just can't stop watching it. It's so compelling, but there's a layer of indignation as well because it's self-contradictory and the hypocrisy is there and we need to but there's a layer of indignation as well because it's self-contradictory and the hypocrisy is there and we need to, there's a level of virtue as well as you've said,

we need to win this war, so on and so forth. But I really do think that it is the low hanging fruit, like woke bashing is kind of the low hanging fruit that constantly, I can't believe that they've done this again and then there's a new one and there's a new one and there's a new one. And there's a woman in a car key one piece with her PayPal address up on a whiteboard telling everyone in the room that they're racist. And, you know, and of course, the risk is always that you're going to focus on the more extreme manifestations of this phenomenon. And that is a risk.

But the, and if it were just that, I wouldn't care, honestly, if it was just a few nutcases doing their thing, I wouldn't care. It is not that. It is not that. It is institutional capture. That's what's happened. So that does matter. It matters because these are the people who make our laws. These are the people who will arrest you for quote unquote hate speech. These are the people who will educate your children. These are the people who will decide whether or not you are eligible for a degree or not based on your fieldity to a particular religion, basically.

So that is, it is in that sense, a civilizational threat. And in that sense, it needs to be counted. It isn't the idiots on Twitter with the pronouns in their bios who are just shouting insults at absolutely everyone. You can just block them and move on. And they have limited power. But the people who have attained such clout in things like the civil service, in things like the Kwanvos.

You know, that's in the government even in Parliament. You know, these people have clout, as I say, they have power and they need to, it needs to be addressed because it has an impact on all of us whether we like it or not. So, you know, I mean, I did, I wrote an article this week actually about this which was on Spike, which talks about this problem of the culture war. Is that there really, there are two versions of the culture war out there. And I call it the tabloid version and the substantial version, for one to have a better term. And so far as the tabloid version is like snowflakes and anti snowflakes and cucks and, you know, the lib tards and all the rest of it. So you get all that going on. Now,

why don't you engage in any of that business? I don't call people snowflakes, I don't call people lib tards. I'm not interested in any of that stuff. I don't want to own the lib because I consider myself a lib. So all of that stuff, I don't get involved in. But then there's the substantial version of the culture war, which is what it really is. And the culture, what it really is, is a view of society where you value liberty or you value authority. It's liberalism against authoritarianism, and that's the culture war. But the problem is that by pushing back against these really important issues, legitimate grievances, where you're saying the state shouldn't be overreaching to police what people say right you pushing back on that stuff and then you get this characterise by people who

play on the ambiguity and say oh you're one of these snowflake bashing culture warriors know we are critical of the culture of that kind of culture and want to hasten its demise. That's not the same thing, right? We are critical of those things. What we're actually concerned about is the soft authoritarianism of the social justice ideology, which does require a serious pushback. So people have to be very careful, don't let them do this. Don't let them sell. You're just another PC-GOM-Mad brigade type of person. You'll just like, notice how I put on a stupid voice when I get involved in it. So you really did. But it is a form of stupidity and don't let it happen. These are things that we need to address and we need to do so seriously and collectively. And we shouldn't be put off by people trying

to mischaracterize what we do as being this tabloid version of the culture war which isn't really what it is. The left has won the culture war and now they're just driving around shooting the survivors. Who said that? Naval Ravacant, who's an angel investor from America but the left has won the culture war and now they're just driving around shooting the survivors. Holy shit, if that's not true. Well, it's difficult. And again, we get back to the slip-renus of language. And so far as I do not believe that woke activists are left wing in the slightest, because they are not remotely concerned with economic inequality or class inequality, which is at the heart of what

it means to be left wing. It's a very bourgeois movement, the word movement. And so therefore, it's not really, it's no surprise really that it It's a very bourgeois movement, the word movement. And so therefore, it's not really, it's no surprise really that it's the more elitist universities where the posher kids tend to go that have more problems of this kind. Because of course, if you can't afford anything, you're not going to be interested about whether or not you're going to be in this gender, right?

I think you're going to be interested about where you get your next plate of food from. So that's, so it's very difficult, but we have to say, I mean, when I get into this all the time, am I left wing, am I right wing, what the hell am I anymore? Because people on the left hate me so much now, and that's because I believe the left is shifted to such a degree that it has become obsessed with identity politics. Well, the overt and window of what is centrist left right, all of that has been... I just don't buy into ideology full stop and that's why I feel perfectly comfortable

in saying this right wing. Say someone like Roger Scruton has some excellent points about certain things and there are some things I don't agree with him on. I don't need to be the sort of person who thinks, well, he's a right wing person so if I'm on the right I have to agree with everything he said or Tony Ben is awing person, so I must agree with everything Tony Ben says. Right, because that means you're letting someone else do your thinking for you. I think there are good elements, there are impressive thinkers on the left and the right and everywhere in between, and we should be able to select and consider which elements are good and which elements are bad, or which elements we agree with and which we don't and it and and and that does not mean that you suddenly become

left or right wing the problem is of course that as you know the idea being conservative or right wing is just become a slur doesn't really mean anything I actually don't think I've stopped even worrying about left or right everyone thinks I'm right some people think I'm far right some people think I'm extreme Marxist left I'm getting that a lot I get trolled by Some people think I'm extreme Marxist left. I'm getting that a lot. I get trolled by alt-right people. I'm also called alt-right by the way, but they are actual alt-right, absolutely hate me, and troll me, and they call me a Marxist or a communist. And then like, so no one knows what the fuck I am.

To think that I don't even know what the fuck I am, it's fine, doesn't matter anymore. Forget it. I mean, that was, again, that loops back to the challenge I had when speaking to Carl. That was like, I don't know. The goalposts are moving so quickly that I thought I was playing chess and now I'm playing rugby. Like the whole, all the rules of the game are now out of the window and I'm going to

clear what's going on. Did you see the, when Durham University went back, did you see that a group of freshers had created a group Snapchat chat and were playing a game of who could sleep with the poorest fresher. Okay, that doesn't surprise me. But that is that's proper right versus left stuff. All about classic quality, all to do with. Exactly, yeah. So that and I just I was it went sort of semi-viral appear in the Northeast of England, group chat of freshers saying, can we have a, you know, it used to be like,

pull a pig back in university, but apparently if you go to Durham or Pax, like one of the other red bricks, now it's who can sleep with the poorest fresher. Which is like, it goes back to the old Bullington Club thing of the initiation ceremony included burning a 50 pound note in front of a famous person and that kind of thing. Yeah, I mean, it obviously, obviously this, you know, that that that is yeah, you could say that's a class-based issue, isn't it? That's not true. What's what's your prediction for the end state of all of this

activism? Is it inherently self-contradictory and splinted in groups that don't agree to the point where it's going to eat its ontail? It is self-contradictory but it embraces the contradictions and that's why it's impossible to reason with it. And that goes right back to the postmodernist as well. And you know someone like Derri Dahi who was very playful and self-contradictory so often deliberately so. And that means that actually it's sort of built into their system. It doesn't matter that they have contradictory thoughts and they can hold those contradictory thoughts at the same time. It really doesn't, you know, it doesn't matter that they will say that, well, to give the

example of the, to go back to the trans example, that they say gender is completely a social construct except for trans people who are born in the wrong body. It doesn't matter that that can't, that doesn't make any sense because they can do that. Whereas everyone else relies on the idea of rationality and rational thought, but the problem is that they would perceive that to be a sort of heterosexual, patriarchal construct. So, you know, you're back to square one.

So what's gonna happen? We roll this forward. What's the end state? What do you foresee? Look into the crystal ball, Andrew, and tell us what you see. Yeah, you know whenever I do this, I get it wrong though. Well, there's a lot of stake. So I think, well, Ultimate is going to go one one of two ways, isn't it? Other, I can't envisage that this can just rumble on as it is anymore. I think there were a lot of people who were sort of saying

before the explosion this year of the culture war, there were a lot of people who were just saying this will always be the way. There will always be the sort of extreme culture warriors pushing their agenda and most people will just gently push back and we'll constantly be having these these spats and these disputes. I don't think we can say that anymore. I think one side is going to have to win out. So if the culture warriors went out, if the social justice left, or the identity arian left, or wherever the fuck you want to call them, win out, we will be living in a form of authoritarianism, right, where people are not allowed to say certain things, will literally be arrested for saying the wrong thing, and it will be very scary and dangerous.

Education will be decolonized to the point where it won't mean anything anymore. Artifacts from the past, monuments from the past, a recognition of history will be swept away. And we're already seeing that happening. But as I say, not in a crisis point, it's important not to inflate these things. I don't agree with Mobs deciding which statues day up

and which don't. But ultimately, that statue of Edward Colston, you know, I don't think they should have been able to just arbitrarily decide and tear it down, but it doesn't amount to a crisis. It doesn't amount, you know, we're not talking about, as you said, the Orwellian principle of literally revising history throwing things down the memory hole yet, and that's the qualifier. It's that the problem is that these are the seeds of that, and you have to be vigilant against this stuff. And particularly when it comes to free speech, you have to be incredibly vigilant. It's not something that is the default of any given society. It's something that has to be fought for with each successive generation,

and people need to be reminded of the validity of it and the importance of it. So I think if, for instance, a government were to get in that was identity obsessed as the current Labour Party is, but they had maybe a more zealous, identitarian leader. I mean, Kirstaama wouldn't be that person as it happens. I know he sort of toys with it a little bit, but he wouldn't be that sort of extreme zealot, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, zealot, a, a, an enteritarian type. If you had a government like that, then you have a very dangerous situation, and you have a society that is going to go backwards very, very quickly.

All the alternative is that we reach the point where what I'm hoping is, in about 15, 20 years time, we will have restored the idea of liberal values and free speech, and everyone will just go back to just accepting that, yes, that's, that's the default, that's what we're're having. And they'll almost look back at these years as like what happened there, there was a kind of hysteria, there was a kind of weird mania that happened. And they'll probably say, but it wasn't really a big deal, was it? Because

it just sort of went away and it was fine. But of course, it only went away because people like us are pushing back against it, but we will be considered the nut case. Like why are we even worried about it? It just where? Yeah, I think that's what's going to happen. I think I think that that really dovetails quite nicely with something I've been thinking about this year, which is been reading a lot of existential threats and existential risk work like Toby odds, which is what prompted my concern to do with the academics and the low hanging fruit and the TikTok and This year we got a pandemic

It's been anyone who's looked at existential risk or anything coming out of the future of humanity's institute knew that this is one of the big ones the control problem for artificial general intelligence is another one of them But we got delivered Touchwood we got delivered such a like, piss week pathogen, the mortality rate on it is, it's just not the incubation period and the transmittability are all okay ish. The R number could be, you know, if I was designing it, one to end the human race, the R number might be a little bit higher and the incubation period where you race symptomatic

also might be a little bit longer. But we got delivered. Here's the beta test, here's the demo version of what happens. And maybe this is the ideological conceptual equivalent where people are trying to hijack all of the institutions that mean the most like education, like children education, higher education, the arts, popular culture, politics, all of that stuff, but they did it with the Marxists that some people speculate are the conspiratorial pushers of this that are in the background, that are the Trojan horse that this particular ideology is trying to deliver. They chose, they got on the wrong horse, they chose to get into the wrong thing. And it was just so inherently

ridiculous that we are now inoculated in the future moving forward. Maybe. I hope so. I think you might, there might be something to that. And so far as like, I suppose the analogy is if we have a much more serious pandemic, we'll be better prepared for it, if we live through this And similarly, with the social justice stuff, maybe I don't know a bit, but the problem is that they're pretty well ingrained in these institutions now. This isn't something, it feels like it's just happened overnight, but it hasn't. It's been percolating. It's like a day. Yeah. So it's, it is about, and again, I don't think the responses do we do we have a long march in the through the

institutions the other way that do the liberals find a way to infiltrate. I don't know if that's the right approach either, but it's going to take an awful lot to undo. But yes, I think that that could be the case that that enough people are now pushing back on this stuff that that when the big wave comes, maybe we'll I think so. Well, be less tolerant of it. Precisely. Because actually, this has only really happened not so much because of the screaming activists. It's not really them. It's not the people with pink hairs screeching and setting off fire alarms.

It's the people capitulating to them. That's the problem. You see, what should have, like let's give an example, the rider, the Royal Academy of Geratic Arts, issued a statement saying that they are systemically racist and institutional, as everyone is saying at the moment, which begs the question, why would anyone want to go there? I'm not, I'm not going to support a racist institution. I really love the fact that Princeton made that confession and was then investigated by the Department of Education because it was called racism is illegal by the way. So, you know, I don't trust it. I don't trust it when I see companies saying you have been working hard to dismantle our white supremacism. Like, why are you telling

me you're a white supremacist organization? You don't really, but you don't say in sprees, right? If say in sprees is white supremacist, I'm going to waitroast. You know, like, I'm just not having this. But you were educated at Oxford's, Andrew, so we'd only ever be between waitroast and Marx and Spencer, right? I know, I'm quite like little. What little has good wines, by the way. Don't let anyone tell you different. Fine. So listen, I would suggest, and because they don't really mean it, do they? There's no way that things be think they're a racist organisation.

Of course they don't mean that. So don't say it. You utter idiots. Don't say it, right? So I can't remember what my trainer thought on this was. I can't even miss it. Oh, right. So, right.

So, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right,

so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, so, right, right, so, right, right, so, right, so, right, so, so, right, so, right, right, so, right, so, right, so, kidding, right? It's online. You can you can feel it. It is the most insane, unhinged document on awful long time. It is so entitled. It wreaks of entitled. It's like we get to decide absolutely everything. We believe in these power structures. Everything is racist. Your institution erases everything, you know, it's absolutely insane. It's like the it's like the ravings of a madman. It's like Jack Nicholson in the shining writing all those pages of the same sentence over and over again because that's what it is. It's the same demand phrased in different ways a million fucking times.

So there's that going on, right? And the response to that should have been that the heads of Rada should have said, thank you for your concerns. You're perfectly free to leave because we're not going to capitulate to your demands. Bye-bye. Bye. Go and do your crazy shit elsewhere, right? Because we've got to teach people how to play Yago or whatever.

Right, so that's what people should be doing, right? But what they don't, what they do is they say, oh, absolutely, they bow down and say, because they don't want, they don't want the scandal, they don't want the Twitter storm, they don't want, so they capitulate, they capitulate. So capitulation is the problem, not the activists themselves, because the activists are always a minority, there's not many of them, but now they know they can get their way, just by,, they're like toddlers. If you screech enough, they get their way, right?

You've got to be disciplined with toddlers. You've got to smack around the head and say, no, actually, no. Don't see that again. I could get in trouble for that. I'm gonna stick by that. You can get Andy nod. Andy nod. Final.

Beat up your children, beat them up. Hit them, come on. I'm withicking with that. Hit them with anti-racist baby. Hit them with anti-acopie of anti-racist baby Hit them with anti a copy of anti-racist baby. That's because it's hard. Yeah, thick board book You could do some real damage to a talk. Please do not obviously we're joking final question Oh, why would you get demonetized if you leave this bit in no not all I don't I Managed to get I have no idea what YouTube YouTube loves me at the moment, but I managed to get, I have no idea what YouTube, YouTube loves me at the moment, but I managed to get Saigon of a Cloud comment on the media's view of blackface monetized.

Brilliant. And that was monetized. Brilliant. It's quite inconsistent. I mean, even though we were just joking about Hingichal with the book, if you wanted to and if you were of a certain mindset, you could take that literally because that's face at the social justice aren't very good at humans working out when you're not being, and that wasn't even sat

out, that was just being flipping and stupid, right? But they can choose to take a stupid comment literally. The problem is that human interaction is foolish, stupid comments. That's part of the fun, you know, we shouldn't have to worry about saying something that might offend someone, you know, it's, and I have to say that YouTube's of the world, the Facebook's, the Google's, they're not good at this, you know. But if you've escaped the demonetization, then good for you.

So far, so far. People who have very few, have no controversial elements. You know, didn't they even demonetize, I think YouTube demonetized Diamond and Silk, who were Trump supporters, but they're just, they're two black women who are in effect, they never swear. They never even swear. They don't say anything. They just have political views that the social tech giants don't like and they

demonetize. Is that outrageous? Dangerous man. Final, final question. Who is going to win the 2020 election? Either way we are in trouble because either Victor will make the culture worse, not better, right? And the reason for that is Biden has completely brought into identity politics, 100% and is allowing himself to be guided in that way. And Donald Trump also has his version of identity politics, which is the sort of more sort of nationalism style version, and is is not let's face it, particularly

well equipped to deal with this kind of crisis, right? He tends to inflame things rather than make them better. You know, fundamentally Donald Trump likes people who like him and dislikes people who don't like him. So, and everyone knows this, it comes back to this, this essential narcissism, watching those two debate was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. Neither of them are equipped to be president and I just I don't think either side is going to quiet and down because it trump wins and the social justice group will take that as further evidence that they live in a neo-fascist society. And if if Biden wins, then I suppose they will be emboldened to persist with these kind

of demands, such as the students at Radar make, and to reshape society according to the principles of their faith. So either way, we are fucked. Have you got a prediction? Do you think, I know that you're not your special area, but what do you think? I think Biden is going to win. I think, for a long time, I thought Trump was going, I'm sure that Trump would have won, we're not for coronavirus. I'm pretty because the economy was doing so well, and because it just didn't seem as though, I think though his handling of the coronavirus combined with this kind of general fatigue with his his behavior and the way that he tweets. He

needs to get off 20. You know, if you want to. Very nice. Yeah, it's, um, if the election was about Trump, verse, if it was just a personality contest on Biden, if that was the competition on Biden, Biden would lose, but sadly Trump continues to make it about himself, which I think is inherently dangerous because his personality rubs people up even his own support is the wrong way. Oh it does, I mean Biden has no charisma whatsoever, but then Trump, you know, is not, let's put it delicately, is not statesman like, is he? You know, and no one can have looked at the debate that they had the other week and say that that was a presidential way to conduct yourself. I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them, but luckily I'm not in that position of having to make a choice. You don't. Yeah, no, I, um, I don't, I think, I think you're right. I think at the

beginning of 2020, it would have been Trump to continue, especially given that all of the harbingers of the apocalypse that everyone had predicted were going to occur in 2016. Didn't happen and he did some good stuff with the Middle East. That was only this year, I think, when he... That's a major deal that the left-wing media are not covering at all, they're saying, well, quite an astonishing issue. Unbelievable. So all of the stuff that was supposed to happen didn't happen, and the economy was doing good, and I think it was it black schooling that he'd contributed more

money to than any other president ever, including the only black one. It's not about that anymore, This has become the cultural election. I'm afraid that's where we're at. By the way, my battery is about to go and I don't have a... We're going to leave it there. Tittani McGrath's little book of intersectional activism linked to the show notes below, including some of her favorite characters from history

and how you can teach your children to... That versus anti-racist baby and that's you perfect. I think I think get to time to time in Macrath's book, give that to your kids. That's the way to go. It's funny because I sent it to a friend of mine and it looks like a kid's book and her husband thought it was for their four-year-old daughter and gave it to and she was delighted and then of course you have to explain actually it's not for you.

Sorry, which is heartbreaking. Take that back little Susan. Look, Andrew, actually it's not for you. Sorry, which is heartbreaking really. Take that back a little Susan. Look, Andrew, man, thank you so much. It's Tony McGuath's Twitter, your Twitter, everything else will be linked in the show notes below. Enjoy the remainder of the Amalfi coast, mate. Thank you very much for having me. Yeah, I'll fix.