The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 294. Eugenics: Flawed Thinking Behind Pushed Science | Alex Story

Episode Date: October 6, 2022

Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSXh Alex Story and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson discuss biology and overpopulation, the misguided thinking behind eugenics, and the tendency of politics to weaponize our totalitarian impulses. Alex Story was an Olympic class rower for Great Britain, and attended the University of Cambridge. There he set the rowing course record against Oxford in the 1998 Boat Race, a record held for multiple decades. After suffering a career-ending back injury, Story turned his attention to politics, and quickly became a notable voice in the Conservative party. He stood for parliamentary office three times, representing some of the poorest areas in the country. Today he works in the finance sector as head of sales for a US brokerage firm. He has also become a writer, seeing his articles published weekly in magazines such as the National Inquirer and Express. —Links— Books Discussed in this episode: Fabianism and the Empire: A Manifesto by the Fabian Societyhttps://www.amazon.com/Fabianism-Empire-Manifesto-Fabian-Society/dp/1375898779 The Descent of Manhttps://www.amazon.com/Descent-Man-Great-Minds/dp/1573921769 The Essential Keyneshttps://www.amazon.com/Essential-Keynes-John-Maynard/dp/1846148138  For Alex Story:  Alex Story on Twitter  https://twitter.com/alexpstory  —Chapters— (0:00) Coming Up(1:05) Intro(3:36) Fatherhood, Manning Up(10:05) Rowing, In Pursuit of Glory(17:05) Privilege and Marxism(22:51) The Motivation of Power(28:00) Love Elevates(39:32) The Issue with the Dominance Hierarchy(47:36) Stability and Transformation(54:06) Predators and Protesters(55:43) Eugenics and the Imposition of Power(1:15:22) The Connection with Marxism(1:19:49) Orwell, Socialist Overpopulation(1:28:54) The Four Pillars of England's Educational Framework // SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.com/youtubesignupDonations: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate // COURSES //Discovering Personality: https://jordanbpeterson.com/personalitySelf Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.comUnderstand Myself (personality test): https://understandmyself.com // BOOKS //Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-lifeMaps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-meaning // LINKS //Website: https://jordanbpeterson.comEvents: https://jordanbpeterson.com/eventsBlog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blogPodcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast // SOCIAL //Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpetersonInstagram: https://instagram.com/jordan.b.petersonFacebook: https://facebook.com/drjordanpetersonTelegram: https://t.me/DrJordanPetersonAll socials: https://linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson #JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

[♪ Music playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, born in France to an English academic, Professor Jonathan's story, and an Austrian artist Heidi, Alex grew up in Fountain Blue, France, where he was expelled from three schools for being turbulent. He was then introduced to rowing by his father to get some discipline. Alex left home at 17, moved to the United Kingdom to pursue his rowing ambitions, and was an Olympian in 1996, and a competitor in the World Championship in 1992, 94, 95, and 97, were replaced in the top ranks, and held the world record from 98 for several decades. Alex was then accepted at Cambridge to study modern and medieval languages. He stood for parliamentary office in 2005, 2010, and 2015 in the poorest parts of the UK, and

won the right to become a member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber in 2016, although he didn't take the seat. He attended the MBA program at Judge Business School in 2014 to 2016 at Cambridge and currently works in finance as head of sales at a U.S. broker. Alex also started writing publicly in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement during the COVID lockdowns and publishes weekly in the UK and US press for the express the critics spectator. Country Squire magazine, National Review, and American greatness. Today we're going to talk about a variety of topics including Karl Marx and John Maynard Keane's Charles Darwin and Thomas Malthus, who originated the hypothesis that

biological, politically minded political actors used to justify the claim that we are suffering from an excessive population. And so, while away we go without discussion, so very nice to meet you. And I'm looking forward to our conversation. That's my pleasure. So, we talked a little bit about where we might want to start. You had a bit of a biographical count that will lead us into the topic of today. So so I'm going to turn it over to you. Yeah, so I'm a father for my first son has Down syndrome. When something like that happens, things happen and the world is revealed in a slightly different way. When Joshua was born and we took him home, the initial question that anybody and everybody asked was, didn't you know?

And initially I just said, well, we didn't know. But it kept coming back and back and back. And eventually I just thought, what are you saying? If we had known what do you think we ought to have done? And essentially, what they were saying is it's unusual to have a, a, a downs baby. Of course, if you had known, you would have had an abortion or you'd have had a born to the baby, that's the, that's the thinking process. And obviously accidents do happen. But accidents sometimes can be very good for somebody in the sense that, Joshua, I think, may be a much, much better person than I was before.

Simply because I realized that in that day, on the day that I learnt about his condition, I thought the most important thing is living and life and it doesn't matter whether he goes to Cambridge or not and it doesn't matter whether he can speak a few languages and any of that actually became irrelevant. And as my wife was crying as she discovered this, I tried to not cry because I am the man of the family so it's really important that I don't and I stay stoic at these things. But I said to her, look, he's not going to be very good at maths. He's going to be like his dad. He's going to quite clumsy like his dad. There's all sorts of

things like his dad that he's going to be, we will love him. And I think that really brought our relationship even closer. And so this discovery that suddenly my son was the subject of speculation about whether he ought to remain alive or not made me think very, very profoundly in my view, perhaps not profoundly, because I'm thinking it felt profound. Right, right, right. Because I had to really go into the nooks and crannies of the thinking process. So this question, which keeps coming back even now, I think was the seed of some kind of

thought process that started and that led me to the field of eugenics and the study of eugenics. Or at least trying to understand where this ideology comes from. You said that one of the consequences of Joshua's birth is that you became a better person. And that your relationship with your wife deepened. And you mentioned that that was the benefit of the trouble, let's say, or the unexpected occurrence. And so, in what way do you think more particularly, in what way do you think having had this experience, having had your son has made you a better person, and why specifically do you see that it's deep

into your relationship with your wife? Because suddenly I had to man up and I had to take responsibility and I had to be there for her. And for her in a way that was different than before. Absolutely. What made it different? Well, because we were both together, and this

was our family that we were building, and everybody in that family would be my responsibility. And so it was something like the determination to take on a joint challenge. Exactly. And actually, when I heard that sometimes men leave their wives because of a birth like that, I was appalled, but also I thought, I'm not going to be like that, I will be something, I will be somebody else. And so, my life up to then had been relatively carefully, you know, I was also extremely lucky because I fell in love with my wife on the day I met her and I married her just a few weeks later. And so how long had you been married before the... Not very long.

We were married perhaps a year and a half. I see. So this in some sense was the first significant joint challenge or challenge that you had encountered. Actually, the first one was the discovery that you nothing about a lot when she had a miscarriage. It's complete. She had two. And I just stood helpless when she was screaming in pain. And I wasn't really sure what to do. And I felt and I realized how little I knew about things. And I had no idea about what to do. And I, apart from trying to say empty words, you know,

to try and... So you felt at that point that there was something missing from the way you were looking at the world? No, no, it's just that I was, my point is simply that when my wife and I tried to have a child the first two were miscalculated and I just I realized how little I knew and how how helpless I was to help her and so when Joshua was born the third I was determined to be a good old-fashioned, old-school father.

And I thought that there was much, much more important than what people thought about me or my political views or anything else. But I think it did determine a great deal about how what I became afterwards. Mm-hmm. And so when you said you wanted to become an old-fashioned, old-school father as a consequence of this challenge.

How did that manifest itself to you? What was it you said you strove to take on more responsibility and it made that clear to your wife and you also regard the decision to take on that responsibility as something that was transformative morally but also intellectually, which is what we're going to get into. And what did it mean to you to become an old fashioned, old school father, as opposed to, let's say, as opposed to what?

Well, by that, I mean, the thing that did rescue me was sports. I got kicked out of a few schools mainly because there was always challenging authority. And I think if you speak to a lot of my peers, in fact, one of the friend of mine, David, I won't say a surname because it might be upset, fine. If I tell you but I was with his son and his son asked the question about me and we'd been drinking a lot of really good wine at the time and David just said Alex is just unmanageable. And I think that this is something that had limited all, into lots of problems at school. And my father did the all-fashioned thing of saying,

you need some boundaries. You need a routine. You need to be able to work through a process in order to go from A to B. You need to be able to become good at something. Right. So the adoption of a disciplinary framework. Exactly, and rowing is brutal in that sense. I mean, we don't write to one another, but we lift a lot of weights.

We train two or three times a day. It's complete and utter dedication. And this is, once you get onto that treadmill, what happens is that your body changes very quickly. The perception of yourself changes as well. You become big and strong and fit. Also because you don't do any of the things that your peers might be doing. Such as taking drugs or drinking wine or getting drunk at parties.

All of this is... All these landmines are avoided. So why did you do it? If you were unmanageable and you were a discipline problem in school, why were you willing to subjugate yourself to the discipline of rowing? Because of glory. I think glory is important. I think we live in a glory free world. In fact, when the Queen's passing, what was interesting was something that we started to hear beautiful and sublime language again, and it's in contrast to the very clunky, bureaucratic language that we now hear more and more. This idea of glory for me has always mattered.

So when your father proposed the rowing as an option, were you familiar with at all? No, not really, no. In fact, I was surprised that my father had been a rower. But then it turns out that my grandfather was a rower as well. And it also turns out that story is a Norwegian name, STO-Double-R, means big in Norwegian, and I'm six foot eight. And we have Norwegian origins. And I think if you trace the story family back, we are Vikings. So I think we were always boat people in a season. But now I... That's quite a transition to go from somebody who's making trouble like that to someone who's

disciplined and athletic. And you said, so how did you perceive the opportunity for what you call glory? Like, why did that back into you, do you think? And was it related to, in some ways, to that impulse that had driven you to cause trouble to begin with? Maybe. I got into trouble very often, I got into fights, but a lot. And I think the idea of being physically strong

mattered to me at the time, and it's something that I could control. I was impatient in certain things, but I liked the idea of feeling myself growing to a man, because I started at the age of 13, 14, and that transition, you know, I was six foot, I was six foot when I was 12. And so I, going to the gym, in fact, spending some time with my dad at the gym was important. So all of this was not subjugation, it was the desire to do it, it was the desire to be strong and it was desire to push myself and to prove to others that child that was

always in trouble could become something much greater. Well, it's a lovely way of conceptualizing the idea of the regulation of aggression, so to speak, because generally in our culture, we presume that a child's self-expression is limited in some sense by force by the external world, and so that there's an intrinsic conflict between the motivational impulses of the child on the hedonistic front, let's say, and also in relationship to aggression, and the force that society applies to inhibit that. But it's a much better idea to conceptualize that in the optimal sense as a kind of integration rather than as a kind of suppression. And so you could say, if you were a child, you

were physically larger. And so that is one of the predispositions to a more, that is one of the factors that predisposes to a more aggressive temperament. Because if you're aggressive and little, you tend to get pounded flat. But if you're aggressive and big, you tend to be more victorious. And so it maintains itself. But then you might say, well, what do you do in the situation where you have a child who's motivated, at least in part, by aggressive and competitive urges? And the answer should be that you sublimate that into something that utilizes those capabilities on the competitive front, let's say,

but also disciplines and harnesses them. And the thing that's interesting to me about your story is that for some reason, you laid out some of the answer to that, you were also willing to abide by that disciplinary routine. So did you start enjoying going to the gym rapidly? Like, how did that all occur? The gym was, again, it's an accident in a happy one. My father walked into a French Olympic gold medalist, who'd been a fencer of all things. And a gym had opened just close to where we lived. And my father got to speak to him.

And the coach was great. And he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he was very helpful. And he was, he also had a little bit of gold medals around his neck. Right. It was very, very considerate. And, and understood that there are certain things

that in terms of the, the training programs were, were set and they were,'re set and they were really clear, he's the one actually that told my father about the rolling clubs that I should be able, that I should join. So there was this fatherly nature to the coach and also it enabled me to spend some time with my father because my father was an academic and an insian and he would have worked 16 to 18 hour days and he was always writing and in those days smoking the pipe in his office. But so you had some good paternal role models both in your father, especially in relationship to the rowing and to his encouragement of you, but also with regard to this coach.

So then it also that seems to indicate to me too that when you decided to take on the challenge jointly with your wife, because you mentioned that you wanted to be an old school father that you already had a model for what that might look like in mind in some deep sense because you would have been socialized optimally when you were a teenager, even under relatively, you know, fraught conditions given the behavioral issues at that point. What's interesting is when people talk about privilege, I do claim that I have privilege. And my privilege is that my parents are still together and that the rock on which the story family was built was solid.

And that's something that I think is crucial when I was politically in Northern England, in Wakefield, for instance. Most of the trouble that you could see stemmed from the fact that lots of boys and girls had no father figure anywhere near the house. Right. And this is one of the things that we might be able to cover later, but there's a strong Marxist tendency. What we're witnessing is the implementation of Marxist policies. If you read Das Kapital, or sorry if you read the Communist manifesto, the most important point in the book is the destruction of the family.

It's the number one thing of the book. Nothing else matters as much as that. And that's standing in the way of the establishment of the communist utopia? Exactly. It's the destruction of the family, as Mark says it, is important because it means we want people to have no past. We don't want traditions. We don't want people to be able to remember certain things. Right. You will obliterate the traditions to rebuild, to build the man of the future. I mean, Mao did that during the Cultural Revolution when he had his gang of young people go around and destroy, watch, a tremendous amount of China's immense past in an attempt to wipe

the slate clean, which meant wiping a lot of people off the slate, by the way, to wipe the slate clean so that the new utopian man could be built. And that's also allied with that modern notion of radical social constructivism, which is that we're only what our socialization makes of us. There's no intrinsic nature. And so the idea, for example, that there might be multiple reasons for the absolute necessity of the nuclear family as the bedrock to civil society. That's just an arbitrary supposition as far as the Marxists and the construct radical constructivists are concerned. And so...

Yeah, so I mean that we saw it in the Black Lives Matter manifesto. That's the key point was the destruction of the Western family structure. But so my privilege is, if I have any, is that my parents were there. And it wasn't always easy because in those days, when you were kicked out of school, there was a 1920s style punishment that awaited me. I mean, at home. Yeah, it was really scary. And I remember, because in those days, it was just one phone.

And we had some gravel in front of the house. And me coming back, knowing that I'd misbehaved the teachers had already called, it wouldn't be welcome back at the school. And then I heard my mother pick up the phone, dial my father's office. She spoke quietly and I could hear on the first floor my father shouting down and it was petrified. So why do you think you have a positive attitude towards your parents given that they were because you could make a case that the school, you had multiple disagreements

with the school, and it's an open question in such cases, whether it's the school's fault for being arbitrary and not dealing with you properly or if it's a consequence of your misbehavior, and they report you to your parents, your parents don't take your side precisely, or that's one way of looking at it. There's punishment associated with that in some fear, but you speak of your parents with respect. And so why is that? Why do you think that despite your fear, as a consequence of the apprehension of the consequences of your misbehavior, you still have this overlying sense of the support and integrity of your parents?

Well, that's because I think they were right. I accept that I behave badly. I don't blame the school and I don't blame my parents. I blame my own behavior. And I think one of the interesting things about the life we live in is that the person who takes responsibility for his action is always more pleasant to meet than somebody who keeps blaming somebody else for his worries. It's also hard to change other people. Exactly. But it's also easier to blame somebody else.

And I think the introspection, and this is the sense of self-discovery, questioning what you've done and questioning how you did it, and what impact you may have had through your words and your actions onto others, I think, is a crucial aspect of humanity. Well, that's the confession, that's the prerequisite for redemption and atonement, fundamentally. Well, it is. I mean, that's the, you know, it's... You have to know what you did wrong, and you've come to terms with it, because how are you going to change it otherwise? Exactly.

And you have figured exactly what you did wrong and then you have figured out how you might change that if you could and then you have to be willing to. When you started rowing, when you started to discipline yourself, were you also do you think attempting to atone for your misbehavior? Were those things tangled together? No, I had, there's a very romantic side to the way I look at the world. So I'll give you an example. I had a job interview when I was much younger and the person asked, so what would you really like to be? And I said, is that a real question? The guy goes, yeah, I said, I would love to be a knight on a white horse with a shining

arm. Rescuing. How old were you? I was about 25. Oh. Rescuing, rescuing damsels and in distress. So I didn't get the job. But I just thought I'd let it rip.

I'm just, I don't need to be. Where do you think that image came from for you? I don't know, it's an interesting one. I mean, I started reading a lot about medieval history, and the more I do read about medieval history, the more intricate and beautiful it becomes, because there are lots and lots of things in the tapestry of history that are worth looking at. And so it's not just that once you get involved in that kind of universe, it drags you all the way to the beginning of time and away, because you keep thinking that one occurrence in, let's say, 1190 was actually based on a presupposition on a philosophy for 500 years before.

And then you start to dig into this really, really incredibly rich soil that's our history. Yeah, well, you can see the lingering attraction of such things in the popular, in the grip of the popular imagination by, well, you could say, the Harry Potter series, which has a real medieval element to it, and also buy a series like the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit. I mean, that's a fantastically popular modern myth and it's set in a medieval ethos in some sense. And that's also associated with that idea you had. But it seemed attractive to you about glory, which is also kind of an inachronistic concept. Well, it is, but I think, I don't know if it is. In fact, anachronism is an interesting word that we,

if we have time, we could perhaps... Yeah, it wasn't the criticism, just the observation. No, no, no, no, but I mean, it's an interesting term because we're the Queen's passing. All those people who were saying that the monarchy was an anachronist, an anachronism, and now proven completely wrong. It's not an anarchonism. The simple reason that it lives, it lives, it's dynamic. She helped ensure that it didn't become a

mirror-an-achonist. Exactly, but the point is that that's what families do, and of course, a monarchy has a very simple concept to understand my son Josh understood that when she died, is a very simple concept to understand my son Josh understood that when she died Charles would become king if you tried to explain the French Constitution to him you'd find it much more difficult. Right right. So she embodies something that echoes very deeply for everyone. Well absolutely and it's a very simple she's the top of the family that's essential or she's the, she was the matriarch. And a lot of people, a very small number of people have been talking about the demise, the eventual demise of the monarchy. But actually, you realize that the support is very, very, very thin. And what you realize,

it's not just on this topic, it's on every single topic that they push through. And the reason for this, in my view, is the fact that it's not anchored in anything, it's anchored in theories, and the theories that they then try to impose these theories on a very complex reality. They're always wrong because the one thing that they don't do is try to understand the humanity. Well, that's why they deny that a priori structures exist because that enables them to remain invisible. If I start with the presupposition, that you and your family are nothing but what would you call a relativistic manifestation of the arbitrary social contract, then there is nothing to understand. You can just replace that with another arbitrary construct. And the danger in that, I would say, apart from the fact that it's incorrect on multiple grounds, including biological grounds, and much more than that.

But it also justifies your use of power, and that might be the underlying. It's so interesting, because the Marxist types tend to claim that power motivates everything. And I always think of that as more of a confession as an observation. It's like, well, your ideology sets you up

such that you're tempted constantly to use power because you believe that people are infinitely malleable and they should be made over in the image of your ideology. And since you believe that there's nothing but power, that opens up the door for you to use power to obtain your whatever it is you're attempting to do, hypothetical utopia, usually results in the destruction of many people instead, which indicates to me that maybe that was the point to begin with. So, okay, so back, if you don't mind, back, back to your son, you said,

and we delved into that quite deeply, that his birth and your decision to take responsibility for that, which I suppose was being a knight on a white horse for a damsel in distress, let's say, also catalyze an intellectual interest, and you started becoming interested in eugenics because of the comments that people were making to you obliquely about why your son was, let's say, allowed to be born. And so maybe we could track that a little bit. Yeah, so I think the most shocking part of that was when I was walking with my son, it was only two, very small. And this woman came along and she said, you know that your son will be a burden on the state. Oh, yes.

And yeah, well, you know, when the Nazis started there, before they launched their full scale genocidal movements, they started to clean up the mental institutions and the old folks homes and so forth. Any people who were in long-term care, let's say, who were a burden on the state, and they definitely regarded them as a burden on the state, and they further pushed forward their pre-genicidal movement by making the case that, well, not only were these people a non-productive burden, but their quality of life was so low that it was actually more merciful to dispense with them altogether.

And that really, in a very serious way, went out of hand very, very rapidly. People don't understand the genesis of these sorts of movements, but a lot of the Nazi eradication policies had their origin in public health policy. It's quite frightening. And it's interesting to realize that the Germans, in fact, considered it a, if I'm correct, considered it the eugenics as a medical, as a medical solution, and that was in 1913s. So I think the law was passed in 1913, so way before the second world war. So this concept was already there, and this is the interesting thing that we witness at

the moment. And I think that's the reason why my son's down syndrome, I think has been such an interesting catalyst, is the fact that we seem to live in an era where our betters and leaders, whether they're political or corporate, are increasingly anti-human. Mm-hmm.

And initially you reckon, it's a bit like the glitch in the matrix. You see something, And initially you wreck it, so bit like the glitch in the matrix. You see something, you wake up a little bit, and then you keep pulling on that string, and then you suddenly realize that there is this massive effort to try to depopulate the world. You know, Freud described what came to be known as Freudian slips. That was exactly the observation.

He made, he listened to someone talk and there'll be a disjunction in their speech. Something will emerge, right? If they say a non-sequitor, or they make a joke that's slightly off-kilter and there's some emotional awkwardness, there's something that just doesn't flow. And Freud and you learned that behind that that there was an assemblage of complex

subpersonalities that in some sense part of them had grip control of the speech flow for a moment and then if you delved into that you'd start to see all sorts of unresolved conflicts and pathologies that characterize the person's personality and so that's all there in a Freudian slip. And people will reveal themselves in some sense. And you said when you were taking your son for a walk, this woman was a woman who came up to you and said that he would be a burden on the state.

It's like, you know, what happens is the person of falls in a situation like that. And you see something utterly monstrous reveal itself, and then it snaps shut again. And generally what people will do is they'll just, they'll just jump over that and continue on. But you weren't able to do that because you had this relationship with someone.

Yeah, because I think the reason why I wasn't able to move away from it and ignore it is because it was a daily occurrence. I mean, she was the worst one. But again, this idea of, didn't you know, it kept becoming a heavier and heavier sentence for me to hear and to carry, because I kept thinking you are asking me whether I should have, we should have have brought it our son before, we even gave him a chance to live. I mean, that's the...

Great. Yeah. And you had his like living, breathing reality right there, took contemplate while that was occurring. No, I noticed when my, when my wife had, when we had little kids, I lived in Boston, and when I was in Boston with my wife, we were the youngest parents we knew with the oldest kids. And we were young. My wife and I didn't start having kids until our late 20s. And so we were already pushing the envelope in some sense, but in that community at that time, we were still the youngest parents with the oldest kids.

And one of the things I really noticed was that my wife was often not treated well, especially at restaurants, but often shops too, when she entered the shops with our little kids. And our little kids were very well-behaved and we had helped them learn how to act properly, let's say, in a restaurant. They didn't cause trouble, but they weren't treated well. And I thought, there's something very pathological going on here because there's my wife and she's a perfectly pleasant person, although she has a bite, and she has these children, they're very cute and they're well behaved.

And yet, when she goes into a social situation with them, she's immediately treated like a second-class person, and she's treated like, in some sense, she and the kids have no right to be there. And I thought, that's a hell of a way to treat a young woman with children. It's not only wrong, it's the opposite of what it should be, and that there's something very dark lurking under there, which is also associated with the reasons why we were the youngest parents with the oldest kids. That's part of that anti-human proclivity that you were outlining. So you were experiencing this, you said on a relatively daily basis.

Yeah, because it was obvious, interestingly enough, I couldn't see that he had downs, right? So I just was the proud father of a good-looking child, as I saw it. And I asked my friends, but can you see that he has downs? And they went, yeah, I see, because I can't see it. And they used to think it was slightly mad or... Right, denial. But it wasn't, it wasn't, it wasn't, I was just thought, but I can't see it, really, it's weird. Okay, so how do you, how do you, how do you, and how did you account

for that? I mean, obviously... Well, no, just thought he was, he was, I said to my wife, Nadine, who has to venue, so she's, she's a saint really. She, I said to, youine, who has to bear me. So she's a saint really. I said to her, you know, he's going to be the best-looking downs. There's ever been, it's going to be a good-looking one. It's going to look just like me. And she obviously cried, she didn't laugh. I was hoping to try and make a laugh. So you saw that you were able to see the person behind the syndrome, let's say. Well, I was just, I don't know. I mean, I knew and I thought, actually, it's amazing. He's quite, he looks good. He's very strong, he's big, he's fine.

But I couldn't, I couldn't, I couldn't really explain why, or exactly why I couldn't see it. But it was just an observation. And I used to, you know, when I used to ask my friends, they probably thought I was perhaps denial, or if you're a psychiatrist, you might go deeper into it. But I just...

How long after he was born, do you say that you loved him? Oh, as soon as I saw him. And so it's interesting that you were able to manage that despite the challenge, let's say. Yeah. So, and I mean, it seems to me that that's something that you're relating, is that you had a relationship with your son immediately that superseded the condition. And then, and you could think of that as a form of blindness. That's one way of thinking about it. But I've often thought about this with children, because everyone thinks their child is special.

And of course, there's millions of children. And you don't necessarily think that every child that you encounter on the street is special. And then you might say, well, are you blind about your child? Or are you blind to every other child? And I would say it's the second that's true, is that you can actually see your children,

but you don't have enough mental energy, or maybe enough breath of character to see all other children. And so maybe, I've thought to that love in some sense is the grace of God, you know, is that if you're in a relationship with someone that's characterized by love, you see each other in some deep sense.

And you can't see other people like that because you don't have the ability. But it's not like the love is a delusion. It's the opposite of delusion. Exactly. And that's the interesting thing, perhaps, is the negation of love by imposing and very smart people who tell you that love is nothing but a chemical. Yeah, right. Well, that's it.

And so it produces a delusion and tell the hell of it a way to look at things. I know, and of course what they're robbing people are of is the most beautiful thing, which is the ability to emote for somebody else and to invest yourself in something. Well, and also to live in that condition, I mean, if you're around someone that you love, and that love defines the relationship, there isn't any better thing you can do. And so then to minimize that, to call it some sort of biological or biochemical aberration, which is the worst form of unconscionable reductionism, is to reduce the highest possible goal to something that's nothing but like a trivial consequence

of some underlying materiality. It's appalling and it's really demoralizing. Yeah, because the thing that elevates everybody that enables you to sacrifice for the greater, you know, good of your family or whatever it is, is that notion of love. It's what gives you is that notion of love. It's what gives you the ambition, it gives you the motivation to do greater things. And once you start to get into that thinking process, you realize just how established in institutions, this idea of lack of love has become. And so, and I think that's the, again, it's the denial of the human being. And it's the heart of stone versus the heart of flesh.

In order to be a good human being, you don't go through a tick box exercise. You have to be, you have to emote for the other person. And this reciprocity is essentially has been dismantled. It's no longer, you know, so that you love your neighbor as you love yourself. You treat everybody equally. Everybody has worth. Now all of these things are reciprocal. And I think that's the beauty of the old religion that we've lost, the new religion, which I... You know, this is a bit of a sidebar, but not really.

So there's a Dutch primatologist, Franz DeWall, who's a brilliant primatologist, and along with Richard Rangheim, those are probably the two top primatologists in the world. And Rangheim has been studying chimpanzee behavior for decades at the Arnhem Zoo and also in the wild. And there's this idea. I had a graduate student once who's now a business colleague of mine, very smart guy, because it doesn't say much. But when he says something, he's thought about it for like 10 years.

And he thinks all the way to the bottom because he's also an engineer. And he told me once that I should stop using the term dominance hierarchy. And it took me quite a back because I understand and believe that social animals organize themselves into hierarchical structures. And I'd never really considered the implications of the term dominance hierarchy. And he said, there's a Marxist element to that terminology that you're not taking into account. And I said, well, what do you mean? He said, well, it's predicated on the idea that the fundamental process that arranges the hierarchies of social order is the expression of power. And I thought, oh my God, that's true. And I thought really that that strain of Marxism

had invaded biology to such a degree that that became an axiomatic presumption. It was really shocking to me. And then I started talking about hierarchies of competence and more recently of hierarchies of voluntary play. Now, Duol, and this isn't just an arbitrary, reconfiguring of my thought, as a man named Yacht Panksett, who studied play behavior in rats, and he showed quite clearly that if you paired juvenile rats together and allowed them to play, because they wrestle, that in the first contact, the bigger rat could win over the smaller rat, 10% weight advantage would be enough to guarantee victory.

So if you just studied one play about, you could derive the conclusion that the bigger, stronger, and more dominant animal won, and the play it was based on domination. But he paired them together repeatedly, and this is key to the issue of reciprocity. He paired them together repeatedly, and rats live in social groups. So they interact repeatedly. Once they have established that initial hierarchy of ability, let's say in the wrestling ring, it's incumbent on the little rat to invite the big rat to play. But the big rat, if the big rat doesn't let the little rat win

at least 30% of the time across repeated boats, even though he could win every single time. If he doesn't allow the little rat to win 30% of the time, the little rat will stop asking him to play. That's a stunningly brilliant observation. And then DeWal has shown, you know, you have this notion of the alpha champ, right? And everybody has kind of a caricature in their mind of the alpha champ. It's like chess, bumping, playground bully thug rises to the top has preferential sexual access and thus

is more reproductively fit. And DuWal has taken that idea completely apart. It's simply not true. The first thing he's demonstrated or one of the things he's demonstrated is that some chimps do rise to positions of sexual predominance and social authority positions of sexual predominance and social authority through the use of physical intimidation. But they tend to have short-lived rules. Their troops tend to be very fratcious and emotionally unstable and rife with conflict, and they tend to meet a very sudden and violent end. Because if they ever weaken, then two of the chimps that they've intimidated will band together and tear them into pieces.

He's documented that quite continually. And then he showed, too, that in many of the troops that he studied, sometimes the smallest male has the highest social status, particularly if he's extremely good at reciprocal interactions and peacemaking. And he showed that the stable alphas are the most reciprocal animals in the troop, male or female, and that they cultivate reciprocal social relationships and mutual grooming constantly and track their friendship networks and are extremely reciprocal. And so the wall has shown, like Panks said, that the true basis of stable social organization is reciprocity, fundamentally.

And consent as well. Well, voluntary. Exactly. And that's voluntary reciprocity. And this may, if we go back to sports, that's the voluntary investment of your life in a discipline. It's voluntary. You want to do it. And because you think you can get

something out of it, but the consent bit is an interesting one because we live in an era of revelation in my view. Things have happened where suddenly we've opened a world for those who want to see that the idea that we were living in a system where consent needed to be sought actually has been dismantled. How did we see it? Now in the UK, we had Brexit, for instance. It took six years. We still have these battles, but what you see is more and more people on the remains side of the argument denying That the vote nearly took place or attacking those people who voted in the wrong way The idea the notion that you should seek consent or consensus is Completing one and then bottom up and the reason for this is because as we said humanity if you think about this

the And the reason for this is because as we said, humanity, if you think about this anti-human nature, you can say, my opinion is worth much more than yours. We are not the same. There is no reciprocity. Well, there's no reciprocity of the fundamental basis. The power. Exactly, but that's the interesting thing about the alpha mount because I completely see, and I think most of us see, that without consent, there can be no stability. You cannot create stability out of perpetual warfare. But the thing about perpetual warfare is that

it enables dilatons to think that something is changing. So in other words, they require discord in order to have meaning for themselves. So hatred is a powerful emotion that replaces everything. That's in my view, one of the things that we're witnessing at the moment, where you have one group that's hoping, doesn't matter how many they are represented, the numbers they represent. But they are quite happy to impose their worldview because they're righteous. So your theory is something like the generation of chaos produces a landscape where the

narcissists are more likely to thrive. It's something like that. Because it's a question of self-importance. I asked my wife because she's from East Germany, and East Germany was an extremely unpleasant place. You know, one-third of the people there were government informers. I know, and we don't have the time to go through it today, but some of the stories that my parents in North Germany were quite interesting.

But what she said is, I just want stability. In other words, I don't want perpetual revolution. I want stability. And if you think about societies, most people, and most of us here, want stability. And yet what we keep being sold is change. Change is abscess, change changes the only continent. You need to go for change, change, change. You have to put it in the faster, the better. Yeah, exactly. Especially in the face of an emergency.

Well, exactly. And so, so what does that lead to? It leads to a confusion. It can only lead to confusion. If the one thing that you go for is change. And if you completely disregard stability, stability, whether it's in society or in the family, within the family setup, is the thing on which you build everything else without

it's even the thing within which so you know there are two fundamental personality traits. So there's five dimensions, but they clump, and one clump is stability, and the other clump is plasticity, and people are higher in plasticity, tend to be the entrepreneurs and the artists and the entertainers. And so they are agents of transformation, but both of those personality elements working in tandem are necessary for, let's call it, the most stable solution to emerge across the longest span of time. And so you have the proper elements of order and stability with an interleaving of necessary transformation as

the environment transforms. And you dream sort of do this. So imagine that during the day, when you're conscious and awake, the parts of your brain that are responsible for that operation are imposing a stable order on the world despite its aberrations because of course you don't know everything so you don't map everything accurately. There's another part of your brain that sort of keeps track of the things that don't fit in and then when you go to sleep at night you become more plastic and your brain starts to try to make order and sense out of the things that don't fit in, and the monstrosity of your dreams, and what would you call it? The cherubic and monstrosity, like imagery and dreams, is an attempt to aggregate those

aberrations and to start feeding, updates slowly into the system that regulates stability. Artificial intelligence engineers have found, too, that in order to build a system of apprehension that doesn't collapse, you need part of the system to impose something approximating regularity. And then you need a separate system to keep track of deviations and slowly update the first system, because otherwise it will precipitously collapse. And so there is a balance. And here's another, this is something very cool too. So imagine that there is a balance that needs to be maintained constantly between the forces of stability and the forces of transformation. And then it's an open question,

how much stability you need and how much transformation, because it depends to some degree on how rapidly things are changing around you. And so it moves with the situation. And so you need to be able to mark the shifting boundary. Well, one hypothesis that I think is a very good hypothesis is that the spirit of play emerges when the balance between stability and transformation is attained properly. So imagine, so if you're in a team or you're even competing against yourself, you're pushing yourself to the edge of transformation, right?

And if you're playing properly, you're pushing yourself, so you're transforming as rapidly as you can without exhausting or undermining yourself. And that manifests itself as a sense of deep, and maybe as the sense of deep engagement that you found when you just started to start rowing instead of misbehaving. Right? So you hit that point of optimal play, and that also catalyzed your development, and you could say that play is reciprocal in the most fundamental sense. And to play with other people, or to play against yourself in some sense,

and the sense of meaning that emerges is a signal that you've balanced the necessity for transformation with the necessity for stability. It's a lovely idea, right? Because it gives some real deep grounding to the notion of existential meaning. Yeah, and I think also in order to the stability presupposes something else as well. So the modulation, the way that things modulate, in other words, you've got new technologies,

new technologies, don't necessarily mean that we as human beings are better or worse. But we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, we have more, expands for trouble and opportunity. So it's not technology is, obviously, changes all the time. We can see it, but actually the reason why you and I can read the Odyssey and feel for Helen and is that we can read a story from two or three thousand years ago, and the arc of the story remains the same. The tragedies on the ground. Well, that's sort of the fundamental religious claim,

in some sense, is that the arc of the story remains the same. Exactly. And so there's the eternal, and there's the ephemeral. And that's the, so what is immovable is the thing that I think a lot of our leaders refuse to accept. So what they're trying, so in order to, what presupposes stability is the desire to keep them something as it is, it's your respect for something. If you keep selling the change story, what you're essentially saying is that you want to dismantle what is there because obviously in this particular context because it's bad. Well, if you're low status, let's say within the current hierarchy, one medication is to advance yourself according to the rules of the current game, and maybe you can't because you can't fit in, but maybe you can't because you're unwilling to be

able, let's say, and then you take the path of false presumption, and that's a narcissistic path, but then your best bet under those circumstances is to destabilize things, because that way you destroy the order that implies that your particular contribution well, that there is a contribution at all, and that implies that your contribution isn't appropriate.

So I hadn't thought through exactly the idea that the sowing of chaos by what would you say overvaluing transformation is another trick of narcissists and psychopaths and mark your values to gain the upper hand. But that's highly probable. You know, I've seen, for example, I've had a lot of demonstrations levied against me a lot, and some of them were very intense and unpleasant, like very intense and unpleasant. And they were often, they were mounted against me by people of the left, although that happens on the right as well, and it's happened to people I know by

radical right wingers. It was very interesting for me as a clinician to observe the people who are fomenting the protests. In my case a lot of them were female, about 60% probably 70% and a lot of them were left-wing activist types, university students. And so, but intermingled with those women were a handful of men and in Toronto in particular, in Ontario, I encountered a lot of protests. And at a number of the protests, the same men showed up. And as a clinician, I could just spot who those people were immediately, like one of them, for example, stood with a girl about two feet behind me at, I think it was

University of Western Ontario. It's one of the worst protests that I was in. And they had an error horn. And error horns are plenty loud enough to damage your hearing. And they were blowing that error horn right on the edge of where it was damaging to me. And I looked at the guy, the girl, well, I thought, yeah, well, I don't know what you're up to. But he was, I could tell what sort of where it was damaging to me. And I looked at the guy, the girl, well I thought, yeah, well, I don't know what you're up to,

but I could tell what sort of person he was. He was their top set thing, so he could pray on the women in the crowd who were the protesters. So he was coming to advance himself as well. I'm on your side, I'm one of you. And it's like, he was 100% a predator. And I saw him and his ilk

at all sorts of different demonstrations. And so he's the sort of person, if he's so chaos, it gives him opportunities. But he wouldn't otherwise have, because he had no competence in any real sense. He was a, those sorts of men are so appalling that you can hardly even imagine what they're like. Unless you're very unlucky and have had the opportunity to get to know someone like that. So that notion that chaos can be so, so the

narcissists and Machiavellians can flourish. That's a very interesting idea and highly probable. You certainly see it on the protest front. So, okay, so back to your son. People were protest front. So, okay, so back to your son, people were questioning the ethics of your decision to continue with his life, essentially. And also questioning you about the blindness that you had that in some sense enabled that. And then you said that gave you an insight into something that was deeply anti-human going on underneath the surface. Exactly. And so I like reading. And so I read the Ebagrophy of Keynes.

And the Ebagrophy of Keynes is all about Keynes as an economist. There are some segues into his politics. He was liberal or labor, certainly of the left. Can you fill people in a little bit? Tell us a little bit about Keynes and the figure and they are positioned, occupies now among economists. Keynes is the cornerstone of the Western economic

thinking infrastructure in a way, because GDP is essentially the way that we calculate our wealth across the world is an equation that he came up with. So he stepped the matrix? Yeah, he was extremely influential. What was interesting about Keynes is that he is the one that negotiated the reparations that Germany had to pay with the French after the First World War. So he was a very, very influential character already. In the 30s and 40s, he obviously was an asset manager, but he was also very involved in politics and in the field of think tankery. In other words, he was very close to Mosley, interestingly enough, which he was our fascist leader, and Mosley

had been... In the UK, the fascist leader in the UK, right? And he had been, unsurprisingly, a very prominent labour MP. And he was also very interested in sociology. So he was part of the Bloomsbury group that was very close to the Fabian group and the Fabian group became the Labour Research group. And this is Cain's specific, not mostly Cain's. I'm explaining the kind of groups that you had. So Keynes was part of the Bloomsbury group, but it was very close intellectually to characters like Sydney Webb, Beatrice Webb, Bernard Shaw, and all these people who were extremely influential. In fact,

the LSE is a product of... No, London, the score of economics. Exactly. is a product of... No, London, school of economics. Yeah, exactly. And so, when you read the book, it's nicely written, and obviously it's substantial amount of research, but the thing that completely goes by the wayside is the most important part of what Keynes himself believed

about society. And you can only see it in a... in an asterisk, it's a little asterisk. And as I said, you read the sentence and it says, you know, John had to go to this place and the the slight description below is he went to speak to the eugenic society. And of course, that is exactly. Exactly. And so again, it's the the glitch in the machine because you're going, Hannah, it's 1943. We have a war going on with somebody who's very, very poor, eugenics. We are at war.

We're sacrificing the entire British Empire to defeat that man. And that man's cornerstone ideology is eugenics. What is somebody as substantial as John Mainland Keynes doing at a eugenics dinner? And it turns out that he was the president of the British eugenics society from 1937 to 1944. And his last speech at the Galton Institute, Galton being the cousin of Darwin. Importantly, Galton was a very, very prominent eugenics, eugenicist. At that speech, he stood up and he said the most important field of social endeavor is eugenics. And so we should do a sidebar quickly so that everybody understands what the field of eugenics proposes.

And the idea is it's an offshoot of a pathological streak of Darwinism that claims that it stems in some sense out of the claim that the fittest survives. But then there's a twist on that to imply that the fittest are therefore morally and physically superior in some moral sense, and then which is not an implication by the way of standard modern biological evolutionary theory. And then more that you can identify those who are fit, let's say, by looking at those who are currently successful in society, and you can infer their moral and physiological superiority, and then you can rank order people by that superiority, and you could improve the race by not allowing those who

were substandard, let's say, to use the Nazi terminology to multiply. And that's technically wrong from the perspective of evolutionary biology because it's a tenant of modern evolutionary biology that you cannot select for fitness. So you can select for a given attribute and you can presume that that attribute is associated with fitness, but you have no, there's no justification whatsoever for that claim, because what constitutes fitness, in some real sense, varies unpredictably as the underlying landscape transforms. And so there's no basis for eugenics claims in modern, in the tenants of modern evolutionary

biology. But that didn't stop hypothetically, biologically oriented thinkers who were saying follow the science to lay forth a eugenics movement that did capture much of the left wing and the right wing in very many ways, all through what from about 1892 about, well, till 1945. Well, actually, I'd go much further than that. Eugenics is now the core of our modern societies. I think it's eugenics has seeped through. Don't forget that Keynes was one of the drivers

of the formation of the United Nations and giving the pound of sterling supremacy to the American by allowing the dollar to be the only currency pecked to gold. All the other currencies in the world would have to translate or exchange their currencies into dollars and then from dollar to gold. And that's a really important point. So in other words, he was already going for this idea of one global government.

And there are some really interesting books that you can read else. I'll send them to you because they're so interesting. One of them is Fabianism and the Empire. And in there, the pamphlets that states very quickly, very clearly, we start with national socialism, we will then go to international socialism. So this idea that you consolidate socialism at home nationally, and that's important because the national socialists and the international socialists, the communists, essentially not on different sides of the equation. It's just a progression,

one is national, and then it goes into the international space. It's a progression towards radical centralization. Exactly. Predicated on the idea of implicit superiority. Exactly, but it's always done with the imposition. Force is always needed. You can see that you can read that. Everything's power, you know. Well, that's right. And if you read my account, for instance,

what happens is that Adolf is very, very clear about his views, you use power to impose. And you don't dwell too much in the detail. That's what he says in his book. He says, I don't want to be criticized because of my policies. I just want you guys to understand the broad picture. Right. So in other words, it's a repeat. Well, yeah, well, and Hitler definitely led by inference because if you look at his statements, the statements of

the sort that you described, he would lay out a low resolution vision and insist in some sense that other people fill in, let's call them the glory details. Exactly. And so the idea, when you start to think about what it implies, that booklet is so interesting because they talk about the idea of free trade as being an imposition on less culture nations and that book says that China will have to, we will have to impose free trade on the Chinese. It's 1902 at the time because these people, because their culture doesn't, hasn't moved on and therefore because it hasn't moved on, it's,

it's subject to Darwinian eradication. Exactly. And so you've got, so the reason why that's so important is because if you then bring it to the United Nations and what Keynes' view of the world was, you can see. Yeah, so there's a strange implication in that phrase survival of the fittest. Yeah. Because in some sense, and this is this is the case scientifically, the Darwinian proposition is a tautology because it really means The Darwinian proposition is a tautology because it really means those who survive, it doesn't mean those who survive are most fit except if you jerrymandered the meaning of the term fit. You don't know what it means, right?

Well, it changes too. So the way mosquitoes solve that problem is each mosquito is not a lot of variability in mosquito behavior as a consequence of socialization. So mosquitoes have a lot of offspring, you know, maybe who knows how many tens of thousands of potential offspring per mosquito. And there's some biological variability across the set of offspring and almost all of them are eradicated before they reproduce. Otherwise, we'd be need deep in mosquitoes in no time. But you can't predict a parririe, which of the variants that are produced by a given mosquito paring are going to survive.

You can't predict that without running the process. So you cannot, again, you cannot define what's fit before it manifests itself. And so in some sense, the notion of fitness was a bad verbal choice because it implies something like moral superiority, or superiority, even on biological grounds. sense the notion of the notion of fitness was a bad verbal choice because it implies something like moral superiority and there's or superiority even on biological grounds and there's no there's no evidence for a kind of ethical or value-laden superiority. Yeah, so what's interesting about that if we start to go deeply into this is the is the fact that once you once you start to repeat that slogan, the survival of the fittest, all sorts of politics,

all sorts of things become doable. The one thing that is removed is the emotional aspect of humanity because you can be cast aside, because if you don't survive, as you said, it's because you're not fit. And so... And if you're not fit. And so... And if you're not fit to survive, perhaps you shouldn't be allowed.

Exactly, and that's what this is, what happens when you start looking into the think tanks of the Fabian Society from 1884 to just after. And they were precursors to the modern socialists, the Indians. Exactly, and within the English twist, it marks the is socialist precisely. They were their own brand. Exactly. But the template is the same. So Mussolini was good friends with Lenin. It's really important to realize that he was the head of the Italian socialist party and then he became a fascist because he was of the opinion as was Lenin that you could use power and force to take the reigns of government. And catalyze the revolution.

And so, but Mussolini himself says it as well, take nationalism first and then international socialism. That's the way we're going to do it. And so this idea of using regulation and global laws in order to impose on weaker states is completely, you can see it now. The template was set, and it's been a process of establishing through the offices of these international institutions, a world which would be governed centrally through the offices of the United Nations, or the World Health Organization or all these

bodies that strip you or me and anybody in this room of any actual rights. And you could see it in places like Austria where the vaccine mandate is imposed. And suddenly, suddenly the state tells you it is unconstitutional, but we'll do it anyway. And the reason why is because there's a scientific body of opinion that says that you ought to have drugs in your veins. And a scientific body of opinion never says you ought. As soon as someone says that the science says you ought, they've made the gap, they've made the leap from his to ought, and science concentrates on is not on ought. And so the idea that you can somehow blindly follow the science

and also that you're moral by doing so is about the most anti-scientific proposition that there could be. You know, and that the COVID mandates as well in Canada have precipitated what I think will be a constitutional crisis there too. Because Trudeau is being taken to court right now on the grounds that his travel ban, which had no scientific justification whatsoever, even by the admission of the health personnel

in Canada, that he attempted to compel to produce a post-hawks scientific justification found that the grounds for his actions were so threadbare and directed towards ensuring his hypothetical electoral victory in the last election that they couldn't even fake a scientific rationale post-hawks when they were demanded to by their bosses. But Canada is in such rough shape conceptually at the moment that a scandal of that nature, I think a scandal of that nature is so preposterous to Canadians that they can't even apprehend it. But I think what's really difficult is that these scandals are coming thick and fast. Nothing changes. So the one constant that we were talking about, which has changed, the one thing that is not changing,

is the fact that these characters who are intellectually bankrupt are brazenly get out. Yeah, well, they don't change all that. As soon as energy costs hit mortgage rate levels in the UK, then that game is going to be up because it just won't be sustainable. But that's true, and that's why the interesting thing is that, I mean, we probably shouldn't spend too much time on the political landscape in the UK because it's complex and it's probably not that interesting in the long term. But what's interesting here is that some big things are happening, which prove to us to

the observers that the current leadership and the current leadership structure and the current thought process has led to complete, has led us, or has been led by people who are constantly wrong. They're wrong about everything they do, they're wrong in everything that they say. The wrong vision, the wrong strategy, the wrong in their use of power. But in particular, because what we've seen in Europe over the last, let's say, 200 years, is a desire through the

Fable and it's interesting. I will send you that book. Who's very important? Fable andism in the Empire. What you see is people despising people who work for money. Right. Right. The markets are... No, it's like the Dutch not paying attention to the farmers or the or the Tudor government

demonizing the truckers, but it's deeply set. I mean this and the the the reason why the Fabians decided to permeate the institutions that's the terminology that you should perhaps keep in mind when you read these books, the humiliation of institutions. So that's where the Longmerge for the institution is from. Exactly. That's the idea. That's where that's where the development is. So it's really it's a very interesting bit dry But it's an interesting book and then suddenly what you what you see is that they notice very quickly in the early 1880s that The working man doesn't vote for them or for the policy right right and they're really upset that they really liked this chap called Israeli because Israeli was a very, very erudite, smart, funny kind of species.

And the working class is intractable and it's refusal to see its own best interests. Exactly. And so that's part of the process. So they decided we cannot win. But what we can do is become experts and through our expertise, we go through the channels and we enable politicians to implement our policies because we will advise them on the solutions.

And that's detailed out in it. Yeah, it's in a book. And so once you start to look at these things, you realize that the enemy of these people is the person that says no to them. So you need force, you need to... There is no consensus to be had. And therefore, what we were talking about, which is this relationship between you and me, this reciprocity. This is a sign of respect. It's our human nature. Can sustainable.

Absolutely. So if we are, lots can change, technology can change, but if we as human beings choose to accept that we are the same in terms of value before God. If we choose to accept that for my actions, you might, there are certain things that they will have an impact on you advice person, then we create a society that actually is quite stable and worth living in. If the moment you accept the Fabian premise that there is a small group of people who are right and therefore the others are wrong, that's when you start to create a site.

It's not justified by reference to expertise. Exactly. And so there is a, there is a quake quote in the book where one of the Fabian says, we are aim is to make sure that when the people come to the barricades to, to, to make all the change, the constitutional changes, so that the moment they come to the barricades, to make all the change, the constitutional changes so that the moment they come to the barricades, we will be able to crush them. In other words, you use the constitution and the law, you change them through the experts

and you strip the masses of their frightening power. Once they get to the barricade, it's too late. That was the idea that they were developing. And so all of that becomes, I think, with hindsight. That's the reason why we live in this era of revelation, in my view. So much if we choose to see what these discussions and where these ideas come from, and really just try to map them on today's world.

We see lots and lots of strands that lead from the 1880s to 2022. Do you have any sense? You talked to me before we started the podcast about the entanglement of Keynes ideas with those of Marx and Darwin and Malthus. And you talked about this profound anti-humanism that you saw manifested, say, in relationship to your personal life because of the existence of your son. Now, and we talked about, we took a pathway through the notion that, that top down force is justified by the existence of a privileged and fit elite with the rest of the people, let's say, being in some real sense, necessarily expendable.

So I would like to know how you think that the Marxist ideas is the connection with Marxism, the notion that the masses need to be transformed in their conscious apprehension by the elites, is that the fundamental point of contact? So in the Communist Manifesto, both by the way, Mindcampf and the Communist Manifesto, both by the way, Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto say the same thing. One of them is we will lead the revolution. There will be a small group of believers who will lead this world as well, these people to the promised land. So it's again the experts.

It's the reason why Marx is part of the picture, in my view, or the ring as it were, is because he sees humanity through the lens of something that actually doesn't exist, which is class. I don't think that people see themselves as part of a class. They might have said it, they might say it in their speech because it's a shorthand for somebody who's here, somebody who's there, but actually conceptually, there is no such thing as a defined class. And you can see it in elections.

I mean, lots of politicians make mistakes and a mistake they make is that they assigned somebody's views about something on their political or on their social. They're supposed to close consciousness. And this presupposition leads them to making the wrong decisions or to be taken by surprise

because the assumptions they made are not based on anything observable, but they're based on their own decisions. You could see that in the US with the Democrats surprised that they're working classes no longer on the side of the Democrats. And then, and of course, they're to blame because... Right, right. Well, you see this in Canada, do you?

That's what I'm going to say. If the populist was just as enlightened as the leaders who were working on their behalf, they'd obviously be supportive, let's say, of Trudeau's radically socialist policies. They're not enlightened enough for that. Well, no, of course, because they've got real jobs and real jobs as we know. I worked in a restaurant when I was a kid that was Well, no, of course, because they've got real jobs and real jobs as we know. I worked in a restaurant when I was a kid that was run by a couple of small businessmen, a guy who I worked directly for, his name is Scotty Kyle and Scotty was a rough guy.

He was about 32 or 33. I was about 14 and he'd had most of his teeth knocked out in fights and he'd been in the alcoholic for years. He quit drinking about five years before I knew him. Unbelievably funny person and very, very bright. And I was working for the socialists in my town at that point when I was 14. And they had a pretty good small business policy at that point in my province. Alberta, there was one socialist and like 200 conservatives, that was it. And the socialist was an old labor leader and he has actually a pretty good guy. In any case, and people voted for him in this small town, not because he was a socialist,

but because he was a good guy. In any case, the socialist, the new Democratic Party, had a pretty good small business policy. And so, but the guy worked for and the owner of the restaurant, who was also a working class guy, they didn't have anything to do with the socialists. And I asked Scotty one day, I said, why in the world don't you and Ken support the NDP? They have a way better small business policy. And you're a small business. He said, yeah, but we don't want to be a small business.

Said people vote their dreams, not their reality. I thought that was so bloody smart, you know? And I think that's part of the issue that's problematic with regard to class consciousness is because a lot of people who are in the lower strata, let's say, of the socio-economic hierarchy, don't identify to use that horrible word with that strata. They have aspirations, and if not for themselves, for their children, and they would like to set up a world where the successful can thrive partly because they would like their children to be successful. And then, so that's a great reason I never forgot that.

And then, about the same time I'd been reading George Orwell, and Orwell talked about the Fabian types a lot, even though Orwell had some socialist sympathies being what would you say, an avatar for the working class. The Roots of Wig and Piss. Yes, yes. And Musri. He said in that, he said that he couldn't understand the middle class. The Roach of Wig and Piss. Yes, yes. And Must Read. He said in that, he said that he couldn't understand the middle class, you know, shoulder or elbow patch wearing socialists who identified with the working class but was not certainly

not part of it. His observation was part of the reason that socialism failed to grip the working classes because those socialists didn't love the poor, they just hated the rich. Yeah. And I also think the working class has a real instinct for that working class. But that's, you know, it's, it has an instinct for that and distrusts that sentiment of envy, you know, masquerading as compassion for the poor.

Yeah, and that's a really interesting one. So the, the interesting thing about the dislike of the rich is, of course, they are themselves rich. And there's a great, there's a great description in the book when they start off, or the Fabian Society first meets about 15 or 20 people. And the guy just notes that there's only one guy who could feasibly call himself working class. Right. And he was always thought, there's a guy called Stan, who went there by a mistake. He just turned it over. It was the last time he thought, maybe there's some clients from you later.

Right, right. But the interesting thing is the one thing they despised in particular was the land owning class. And so what I think they were trying to do is to find a way to become the new aristocracy with the same privileges and to find ways to be permanently funded. And that required the ability to find pockets of capital. And what's the best place to seek permanent funding, where that's the government. And so the interesting thing is that they did everything they possibly could to, and you'll see in the writing, the aristocracy was part of where they came from, very often, but they wanted to be able to be in a position where they couldn't be removed from earning good money. And at the same time, they also wouldn't

have the ties to the working population that you need when you're in landowner. Because of course, when you're in landowner, you work in agriculture, you work with people who are dirty, you've got dirty fingernails and all sorts of things like that. Because they're in touch with reality. Exactly. And so what's interesting about the vocabulary used by the Fabians is extermination. It's everything that has to do with commerce is evil and bad and dirty and everything else. And you can see the language already being extremely wild. That's disgust language, not fear language. So if you read, I read a book called Hitler's Table Talk, and I had learned at that point that

there was a large connection between certain forms of extreme political views and the emotion of disgust rather than fear. And the table talk is a collection of Hitler's spontaneous utterances at mealtimes collected over about four years. And all of the references to the people that he wanted to exterminate are discussed, language, not fear. But that's what George Rolwell talks about. He says, it's the smell.

They smell bad. Yeah, yeah, right. And there's a result. It's very visceral of me. Yeah, it's the worst. It's the worst that you can possibly say. Right, right. That's what he describes. But yes, so to Marx fits into this, because like all of these guys, you're atomizing humanity

in artificial, what's the word of the word of the word of the word of the word of the word? Categories. And I think that that's what we are witnessing. And then you put Malthus in there, that lays in nicely. Well, Malthus was the reason why Malthus makes sense is because he's the first one that starts to go for economic reasons, in other words, for an abstraction. Yeah.

Perhaps we should have fewer human beings, right? Too many of us. And then the concept of a life worth living, in other words, if you're poor quite clearly, your life is not going to be fun, right? So in other words, it rather than say that humanity is sacred, and the person who is born ought to be able to live until his dying day. And it might be tough, but actually, if he is the more of us there are, the stronger and

more powerful, we are the more solutions, we can create more brains. They are the more dynamic things become. He was one of the first ones who just said, well, let them die. Or that that will inevitably occur as population exceeds its capacity to produce. And he was proven wrong. Or that's right, continuing. He's being continually wrong.

And yeah, well, the way the the the Melthusian biologist deal with that is they say, well, you just got the time frame wrong. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. And he said that's 200 years of being wrong. And so, well, no, it'll take 500 years. But eventually it'll have this notion then that we hear more and more often is that the world is overpopulated.

Yeah. OK, so what does that mean? I know the planet has too many people on it. So the the the the the corollary there is, there are too many people, and what does that mean? Yeah. Well, we need to have fewer, and how do you have fewer? Well, we're working hard on that right now.

Yeah, exactly. We'll create a humane policy. It's a little bit like one few of our coocuses and ask where you take out the, where you just get, yeah, where you just take out the, where you just get, yeah, where you just take out the brains and you just dismantle the guy because he's refusing to accept what I was saying. Well, I just did a criticism. I wrote it for the telegraph of a Deloitte memo that was published in May.

Yeah, no, no, no. Deloitte, you read that. The Deloitte consultants claimed, well, we're in an ecological crisis, and of course, that's of indeterminate magnitude, but it's an emergency crisis, and it's such an emergency that no measures are too much. And if we don't take the measures, things are going to be much worse at some unspecified time, future according to our models. And so the solution to that right now is to get everyone to tighten their belts, not us, of course, because we have ample girth. But all those without any apprehension or with

complete blindness to the fact that if you take an economic hierarchy, there's always people at the bottom that are barely holding on. The poor that will always be with them. Yes, exactly. And there's, let's's say several billion of them in the world right now And then if you add what to the top echelons is a 5% burden Let's say you take out huge swaths of the people who are at the bottom But if it's but if the O notion is well, we have to do that because the utopia won't arrive If we don't and things will be worse then of course you can justify that continually And if it's also driven by the ethos that, well, you know, if those people were as good

in some intrinsic sense as we were, then they wouldn't be in the position where they would be dying as a consequence of our necessary actions. And I see all of that lurking behind the fact that in the UK right now, your energy prices have already what doubled, tripled. Well, they're saying, yeah. Yeah, yeah, and they're nowhere near as insane as they're going to get. And so while you know, you should just tighten your belt,

you don't need to drive, you don't need to heat your house. Switzerland, turn your thermostat beyond 19 degrees, three years in jail. It's gonna be a, yeah, it's gonna be a very cold winter. Yes, it certainly is cold, dark and hungry. Yeah, and so, so, Malthus is essentially saying there's a price to living. So, the human being can be discarded.

It's the concept of a population becomes an academic topic and that's taken seriously. So it becomes ingrained in... Right, and then some moral necessity to bring depopulation about. Exactly. And so we're hearing people in positions of power talking about the fact that we need to retreat back to a world where we had 500 million people. I know. I know. I mean that's 7.5 million billion people that you're trying to get rid of. They're trying to beat the communist

record for extermination. It's insane. And yet these people have, and I think the reason why I think the, so let me just go through. Can you have any idea who came up with a 500 million figure? Well, I forgot her name, but it was during a WF. Oh, there's a shock. Yeah. Yeah, so they just threw that number out. Well, we think it's about 500 million. But who? It's only 500 million. It might be a billion.

It's only 500 million difference. It's always people like them that will survive, of course. I mean, that's the... Well, that's what people think. Yeah, of course. But as we say, the thing that we know is that they're always wrong. And the reason why they're always wrong is because the premise of the argument is not based on observations. It's based on wishful thinking.

And so... Self-serving, narcissistic on wishful thinking. And so- Self-serving, narcissistic, wishful thinking that comes along with the privilege that's always what criticized. It's really quite something. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, Malthus is very important. Cain's, so Malthus is important because he says too many human beings. Canes is important because he's the leading member of the British eugenic society. Then Marx is important because he, just like Canes and Malthus, says that people belong in boxes.

In other words, they're not humans. They are what we say they are. No, what the human being himself thinks he is. That's biological, essentialism, right? Or religion? And then you're the masters? Exactly. And then you've got Darwin that comes in. Darwin writes in particular about race, and there are some very interesting quotes with him and parliamentarians, where he explains geopolitical changes, including with the Ottoman Empire through the lens of race.

And one of the last sentence of dissent his last book is essentially, I would rather be a descendant from a monkey than a savage. And so the reason why these four people matter is because they are deeply rooted in our educational framework, whether it's in Canada, the US, France, Germany. These four characters represent biology, economics,

politics, and what else, sociology. And so, for me, that's really important because that framework is essentially where most of our leaders have grown up intellectually. And so, what's important about this is that we have to escape in my view, or we have to try and at least become really aware of what these ideas were in order for us to be able to extricate ourselves. And so one of the, this is the reason why I get very uncomfortable and I have been, let's a bit again, that glitch, this sentence extremes extremes meet in the middle. For me, is, is, ineligent. And it's ineligent

because extremes cannot meet in the middle. It's either science is right or politics is right. And if politics is driven by the leaders we have now, they're certainly not right. So extremes are what they are. In other words, extremely hot, extremely cold, extremely large, extremely small, they can never meet by definition. So why is the issue of extreme and the middle relevant in the course of the conversation? The reason why it's important is because we have to be able to understand the world around us. And we keep being shifted from, we keep talking about extreme right, extreme left. But actually, we need to understand that there is no difference between one and the other.

And that's the reason why this framework intellectually, I think, is a nice way of explaining it. The, when... It's this proclivity for centralization... Exactly. The human beings... Small minority of people, human beings are... You can jettison them. They are irrelevant of people, human beings, you can jettison them. They are irrelevant class matters, race matters, or your capabilities, all of this, your

humanity is completely stripped. Right. So actually what we see when we think about this like a stadium or an arena, is that Adolf is to Stalin, like the bronze medalist, is to the gold medalist. They are standing in the same arena, competing in the same sport, facing in the same way. And so what they have is that they are all the recipients, whether it's Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Paul Potten, all these guys have all the same ideas. So it's that field that is so important in my view. And what's the, what is the extreme opposite of these views?

Yeah, right. That is a question. It's love your neighbor. As you love yourself. I thought about it as the spirit of playful reciprocity. Yeah, it's, wait, that's the opposite of power. Exactly. It's love your neighbors, you love yourself.

It's we are made in the image of God. Yeah. reciprocity. This is what we've been talking about. And can satire and voluntary associated. Absolutely. And so there is an extreme, but the extreme is not either left or right. We have to, so if what I'm saying makes sense, it's a bit long-winded, I

know, but it's because sometimes we have to unpack certain ideas and everything else. I think the important thing there is to realize that, whether, to tell it to ourselves, or operate under the same presumptions, that's what we're facing. That's what we're facing. And technology gives them a power they didn't have before. But there is hope, as they always is, the hope is that we rediscover our humanity. And there is a body of texts that says just that. It's just that we need to rediscover it. And we need to be very clear about the roots of these ideologies. Well, I've been talking today to Mr. Alex's story about, well, his personal experiences

on the familiar front and the rabbit hole, let's say, that let him down morally in relationship to his wife and also intellectually. And we've attempted, as a consequence of this conversation, to draw parallels both biographical and conceptual between what he stumbled across or what was placed in front of him in the, what would you say, in the form of a challenge and responsibility that he accepted. And some visions he had about the,

part of the underlying spirit, pathological spirit of the totalitarian impulses of the present age. And so thank you very much for speaking with me and also for providing these readings. I will make a list of the books that we discussed, Fabianism and the Empire, and Darwin's descent as well as John Maynard Keen's biography. I'll put those in the links and thank you to all who are watching and listening. Siddelsky is the author. Lord Siddelsky. Of the of the of the Keane's and how and Siddelsky. You're putting me on the spot. That's okay. That's okay.

That's fine. We'll put it in the link. Well, so thank you very much. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah. Hello, everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com.