Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 273

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Friday. I hope everyone has had a wonderful week. I

00:00:16.900 cannot believe that we are already in the second week of July. That's crazy. That's

00:00:22.880 crazy. This year has just gone by so fast, but at the same time, it's been like crawling

00:00:27.020 by with everything that has happened. This past year has been just such a reminder for

00:00:31.900 all of us that we cannot predict the future even a little bit. That verse in the book of

00:00:37.760 James that talks about rather than saying, you know, I'm going to do this tomorrow, I'm

00:00:41.720 going to do that tomorrow. We need to be saying, if the Lord wills, we will be doing X, Y, Z.

00:00:47.880 Well, I used to think, okay, maybe that's not really necessary to say. Of course, we're

00:00:51.600 deferring to God's sovereignty in all things. And I think I've talked about this on the podcast

00:00:55.600 before, but now I've really started thinking that way even more. And I think that's a good

00:01:00.300 thing. There are very many wonderful blessings in the midst of all of this craziness. And

00:01:05.360 one of them, I think, is that God is not just calling us to himself, but calling Christians

00:01:11.840 who are already with him more deeply into his word and actually applying it because we are

00:01:17.080 realizing the urgency of the moment. Today, we're going to talk about a lot of things that

00:01:22.720 inspire urgency and concern inside of us. But I'm going to finish on a very, I think,

00:01:28.640 encouraging and motivating note before I get into talking about culture wars, which we started

00:01:33.820 talking about on Wednesday with Black Lives Matter. And we're going to continue to talk

00:01:38.060 about today as well as the deconstruction of language and the ignorance of objectivity or

00:01:46.700 the purposeful abolition of objectivity and what all of that Orwellian nonsense means for

00:01:53.180 us and how we can combat it. Before we get into all of that, I would love for you guys,

00:01:57.300 if you love this podcast, to leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts. That would just mean

00:02:03.520 a lot to me. You don't have to write a whole lot, although I love when a lot of you do. But

00:02:09.140 if you love this podcast, please give me a five-star review. It helps our show out a lot.

00:02:15.080 We have several thousand, I think, at this point, reviews, and it really does help our show,

00:02:23.820 and I really appreciate it. So thank you guys so much. Okay, so today we are going to talk about

00:02:30.700 the parts of the culture wars that are particularly problematic and counterproductive to having any kind

00:02:38.920 of unified or thriving society. We talked about on Wednesday how BLM, the organization,

00:02:45.880 has infiltrated all sectors of society, corporate America, social media, news media, academia, the

00:02:52.160 entirety of the Democratic Party. This right now is kind of the center of the culture wars. They are

00:02:58.380 controlling these sectors of society to the point where people are getting bullied for their beliefs

00:03:03.640 online, fired for their political opinions, doxxed and ruined for not falling in line with the

00:03:10.360 orthodoxy. And they do this by collapsing two categories. Racist, that's one category, and

00:03:18.380 disagreeing with Black Lives Matter. So if you disagree with Black Lives Matter on ideological grounds,

00:03:23.760 like I and a lot of other people do on both sides of the aisle, by the way, you are considered by the

00:03:29.800 cultural powers that be a racist. And no one wants to be a racist. That's the worst thing that you can be

00:03:36.440 in America in 2020 or be associated with racist. So you've got a lot of bullying. And because of that, also

00:03:42.460 a lot of capitulating as just a way of self-preservation for a lot of people. And if you bring up the fact

00:03:47.980 that, hey, Black Lives Matter wants to break up the nuclear family, according to their website, they call

00:03:53.220 themselves trained Marxists. The founders have loudly supported the communist regimes that have ravaged

00:03:59.180 Venezuela. They're anti-capitalism. They're pro-abortion. They ignore the thousands of lives taken by other

00:04:05.440 Black people every year and focus on the few instances of Black people, tragically, by the way, being shot

00:04:11.820 and killed by the police. We talked all about that in detail on Wednesday. So if you haven't listened to

00:04:17.000 that, I encourage you to do so. If you bring these things up, even if you agree with the phrase Black Lives

00:04:22.080 Matter, which I think everyone agrees with that sentiment, even if you too care about injustice,

00:04:28.700 if you want police reform, if you care about racism where it exists, but you just believe that the

00:04:34.760 organization BLM is counterproductive, then you are considered by, again, the cultural powers that be

00:04:42.340 a racist. So people are fired for saying things like all lives matter. Grant Napier was an NBA

00:04:49.340 announcer who tweeted that all lives matter, not even as a disagreement to the phrase that Black Lives

00:04:55.540 Matter, just saying all lives matter, every single one. He's an older guy. I highly doubt he knows

00:05:02.220 that some people who use all lives matter are using it as a counter to Black Lives Matter,

00:05:07.560 but he was fired for that. He apologized, but his apology was not accepted, of course.

00:05:12.900 Now, I personally, just to make a note on this, I personally don't go around saying all lives matter

00:05:18.220 as a response to Black Lives Matter because it seems to be, and I say this sincerely,

00:05:22.380 triggering, and I don't desire to trigger people for the sake of triggering, no matter what my haters

00:05:28.140 might think. And I understand the logic. I do. If one group is disproportionately hurting or treated

00:05:34.120 unfairly, you saying that all hurt matters or all lives matter, they would say, people who argue

00:05:41.480 against saying all lives matter, would say that it's a way of saying that we shouldn't focus on those

00:05:49.040 who are being disproportionately affected by injustice. Now, of course, the question is,

00:05:54.380 which we're not really allowed to ask and we're not really allowed to debate, is who doesn't actually

00:06:00.580 believe that Black Lives Matter as much as other lives? And can we empirically see that Black Americans'

00:06:06.740 value is diminished, but other kinds of Americans' value is not? Of course, we talked about that again on

00:06:14.820 Wednesday and a little bit a few weeks ago in the episode titled Does the Truth Matter? So we won't

00:06:19.600 get into that debate today. So that said, I understand why if you have a particular perspective,

00:06:25.160 you don't like the phrase all lives matter. But I also understand, at least for the majority of people

00:06:30.700 who use it, that the sentiment is simply to say that all lives matter equally, including Black lives.

00:06:36.960 Either way, either way, no matter where you stand on that phrase or no matter what,

00:06:41.380 where you stand on this debate, should someone be fired for saying that all lives matter equally?

00:06:47.680 Reagan Escude, I think that's how you pronounce her last name, is a young woman who was fired from

00:06:52.780 her job after the social media censorship mob came for her, saying basically that, hey, how the world

00:07:00.160 handled and is handling the George Floyd tragedy isn't going to bring peace, but Jesus will. That's

00:07:06.540 a summary of what she said. She was fired for that. A Hispanic man was fired from his job for making

00:07:12.920 what is allegedly the white power symbol, which it's really not. It's the three fingers up in the

00:07:19.120 circle with your pointer finger and your thumb that people have all of a sudden decided, because I guess

00:07:26.100 a few people maybe did this at one point. It's a white power symbol, but most people just know it as

00:07:31.900 okay. But apparently when anyone does this, it's secretly a dog whistle of white supremacy. Well,

00:07:38.040 this Hispanic man wasn't even making that sign. He was cracking his knuckles and someone saw him do

00:07:43.720 that and found out where he worked, called his employer. This is just a middle class, working

00:07:49.460 class Hispanic man. And he got fired from his job. There's no evidence whatsoever that this person is

00:07:55.720 a white supremacist. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that he's not. Well, he was canceled,

00:08:00.880 his life ruined, and who knows what's happened to him and his family since then for literally

00:08:05.300 cracking his knuckles in a way that offended someone. Churches of all stripes, this is part

00:08:11.700 of the craziness that's happening. People have just lost, lost their minds and their ability to

00:08:17.120 actually engage in any kind of substantive way. Churches of all stripes are pushing ridiculous

00:08:23.120 resources like white fragility by Robin DiAngelo. Robin DiAngelo is a radical fraud. I don't know how

00:08:29.300 else to say that who is making literally millions of dollars off a conversation that is supposed to

00:08:34.900 be centered on black people. Now, I will respect a little bit if she takes all the money that she

00:08:41.400 is earning from the thousands of dollars that she earns every time that she goes to speak to a group

00:08:46.220 about racism or all of the proceeds from her book, which I'm sure is making her millions of dollars

00:08:51.360 because it's been on best-selling lists for several months now. I would respect a little bit if she

00:08:58.920 gave that money to the communities that she is saying are so disproportionately and consistently

00:09:05.120 affected by racism and white supremacy. I have not seen her do that. I have a feeling that she is

00:09:10.960 cashing those checks and that she is pretty proud of herself for all of the money that she is making

00:09:16.480 off of anti-black racism. I've read parts of the book and reviews of the book from all across the

00:09:23.820 aisle, all across the aisle and all different ethnicities reviewing this book. It's a book

00:09:28.340 that uses self-flagellation as a means of self-congratulations. And I know that that sounds

00:09:34.220 paradoxical, but that's exactly what it is. It argues that all white people are racist from birth,

00:09:39.660 no matter what, and that pretty much everything we do and think and say is racist without even

00:09:46.120 knowing it. And that the only way to work against our inherent endemic racism that we are just born

00:09:51.740 with and that we have from the moment that we enter the earth, that we come on the earth stage

00:09:59.400 is to work against it, to realize and to take responsibility of our inevitable racism and

00:10:07.560 constantly defer to the directives of people of color, no matter what they are. And even that,

00:10:13.740 she says, is not necessarily going to make you not racist. It will just help you fight the racism

00:10:19.880 that is always going to be inside of you and is always going to therefore affect all systems.

00:10:24.820 Jonathan Church wrote a good short critique in Arc Digital titled, Dear White People,

00:10:29.320 Please do not read Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility. He says this,

00:10:33.300 The theory is designed as a Kafka trap whereby any denial is interpreted as evidence of guilt. If you object

00:10:40.420 to any insinuation that you are racist because you are white or that you have something or that what

00:10:48.220 you have said has racist connotations, you are failing to come to terms with your racism and

00:10:53.300 exhibiting white fragility. A Kafka trap, like he said, is a rhetorical trick that says if you defend

00:10:59.220 yourself, you're guilty. So it's kind of like the Salem witch trial, same thing happened there. So you're

00:11:04.680 put into this terrible position by this book and by all of these proponents of this book,

00:11:10.760 you're put in this terrible position of not being able to even say that you're not racist or that

00:11:15.780 something that you said wasn't intentional racism or didn't have any kind of racist motivation behind

00:11:22.220 it, even if you know that it didn't. And even if you know that you're not racist, because if you say

00:11:26.520 that you're not a racist, apparently, according to Robin DiAngelo and all of the people who ascribe to

00:11:31.940 this philosophy, it's just evidence that you are. That is what this book is. It is also an example of

00:11:38.880 what Votie Bauckham calls ethnic Gnosticism, that you have this special knowledge because of your

00:11:44.280 ethnicity and that you get to tell other people what racism is, but they're not able to defend

00:11:49.340 themselves. They're not able to say, no, I'm not racist because only people of certain perspectives

00:11:54.880 can say what racism is. There is no objective definition of it and there is no ability to defend

00:12:01.140 yourself. Again, because if you defend yourself, well, then it just means that you're a racist.

00:12:06.640 So this Kafka trap, which says that if you defend yourself, then that just means that you're fragile,

00:12:12.660 that just fragility is the new, is one of the new terms. I would say the right does this too. Both

00:12:19.600 sides like have these terms and words that become popular and they constantly use them, but that's

00:12:24.840 especially true on the left. And I'm actually going to show you proof of that in, in just a second.

00:12:29.180 But fragility is one of them. Anyone who disagrees with this narrative that all white people are

00:12:35.720 irrevocably and inherently racist, no matter what they've ever said or not said, no matter what

00:12:40.760 they've ever done or not done. People who push back against that they're accused of being fragile

00:12:44.900 or people who are conservative or accused of being fragile. Anyone who goes against the leftist

00:12:50.800 narrative is accused of being fragile. That is, that's the new term du jour. I've heard several

00:12:57.360 progressives on my page on, and on social media say that they're racist, that we all are, that all

00:13:03.660 white people are white supremacists, and we just have to recognize that and take responsibility.

00:13:08.240 It's hilarious to me that the people who are saying they're racist are apparently considered

00:13:13.760 less, less racist than the people who are saying that we're not racist. It doesn't make any sense.

00:13:19.360 This review by Jonathan Church goes on to say,

00:13:22.020 A third problem with the theory of white fragility is that it relies on the vague idea of whiteness as

00:13:28.160 an all-encompassing, all-powerful ideological thread running its way through every part of the social

00:13:35.340 fabric. Every instance of racial disparity is interpreted as evidence of whiteness in action,

00:13:41.160 i.e. as evidence of racism. As Ibram X. Kendi says,

00:13:45.740 when I see racial disparities, I see racism. Ibram X. Kendi is the author of another book

00:13:51.600 that is being promoted by a lot of churches called How to Be Anti-Racist. The problem with

00:13:57.540 this statement just alone and part of the argument of white fragility, when I see racial disparities,

00:14:03.360 I see racism, is that it's just not objectively or provably true, and at least not necessarily.

00:14:11.220 And that is exactly what the entire idea of systemic racism is built on. The fact that

00:14:15.700 disparities exist, and therefore, the reason for them must be discrimination. But that is a logical

00:14:22.800 fallacy. It's a fallacy that doesn't actually try to look at why disparities exist. It assumes that

00:14:29.180 racism is the sole or the primary cause of all disparities. When the assumption behind disparities

00:14:35.540 and crime rates or incarceration rates or unfatherlessness rates or graduation rates

00:14:40.180 is always racism, that's a problem because we fail to be able to talk about and offer real solutions

00:14:47.180 to real problems. If you read, once again, I think I have probably encouraged you guys to read this on

00:14:53.200 every episode for the past two weeks, but it really is just so enlightening. If you read Discrimination

00:14:58.040 and Disparities, that's what this entire book is about by Thomas Sowell, you'll read the proof behind

00:15:03.260 the fact that disparities can, but they do not always unconditionally equal discrimination. To assume

00:15:09.840 that racism is always and unconditionally the cause of disparities is a fallacy. It's a myth. Indian

00:15:15.880 Americans and East Asian Americans, as we've talked about, have higher graduation rates, higher test scores,

00:15:21.360 higher median incomes, and lower fatherlessness rates than white Americans. That's a racial disparity.

00:15:27.440 Is that also racism? Are Indian Americans and East Asian Americans oppressing white people? I think that we would

00:15:34.420 all say no. And yet there are racial disparities that show that Indian Americans and East Asian Americans are

00:15:41.220 doing better than white people. And so if racism is the cause for all disparities, then what's the cause of that

00:15:47.400 disparity? Is it also racism? I don't think so. Both the NBA and the NFL are majority black organizations. That is a

00:15:54.900 racial disparity. Is that racism? And let's apply that logic of disparities always equal injustice or

00:16:02.300 discrimination to other things. If you look at the gender breakdown of certain jobs in America, according

00:16:07.080 to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, 87% of those who make up the nursing profession are women.

00:16:13.880 That's a huge gender disparity. Is that sexism? 94% of all pest control workers, exterminators are men.

00:16:20.920 That is a big gender disparity. Is that sexism? In all maintenance and construction jobs,

00:16:28.320 there are very few women, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and childcare, cosmetology, housekeeping,

00:16:34.560 there are very few men. Is that disparity because of discrimination? Is the patriarchy oppressing

00:16:39.860 women so that they don't think that they can become a carpenter, for example? There are lots of

00:16:46.180 reasons. People of all types that have disparate outcomes or there's a reason why people of all

00:16:53.120 types have disparate outcomes in their lives. And discrimination may and is, it may be and is

00:17:00.280 sometimes one of the factors in these disparities. But to say that it is the only and unconditional and

00:17:08.700 always the factor that is driving these disparities, like I said, is a fallacy. It is just not

00:17:16.080 factual. But many of the conversations that we're having today are simply not factual at all. And if

00:17:21.820 you try to bring up facts or statistics or logic or even just another side of the argument, then you

00:17:28.780 are accused of being racist. If you question this very nebulous and almost undefined idea often of

00:17:35.440 systemic racism and this vague term of white supremacy or this unreachable idea of anti-racism,

00:17:41.080 if you just ask, hang on, what do you mean by that? Can we please define our terms? Where does

00:17:46.200 this come from? What are you basing this on? What's the end of all of this stuff? Then you are assumed

00:17:51.380 to be insufficiently compassionate, insufficiently understanding. You're not a true ally. If you

00:17:57.020 question anything, you'll notice that a lot of the people that are very angry, if you bring up

00:18:01.880 another perspective when it comes to these social justice issues, they are very quick to make a lot of

00:18:09.180 assumptions. They say you're rich, you're privileged, you just don't know, you're uneducated, do better.

00:18:16.480 Like all of these cliches, I don't know if they realize just how uniform they sound. They're all

00:18:21.880 repeating the same things. And they stack emotional argument off emotional argument to try to make you

00:18:28.780 feel bad about yourself. But they're not actually coming back, typically, not always, coming back with

00:18:34.760 any kind of factual counter points, because that's not their goal. The goal isn't factual analysis.

00:18:42.800 The goal isn't logic, because that is emotionally unsatisfying. And that is not where their argument

00:18:49.480 lies. The argument is really that pushing back against a narrative, pushing back or questioning

00:18:57.500 the nebulous idea of systemic racism, for example, that that is rude, that that is mean. And if that

00:19:06.460 is your argument, and if that is your only argument, then facts don't really matter. There's no reason to

00:19:11.320 have any kind of fact-based dialogue if your only problem with someone's argument is that it's mean

00:19:18.740 and that you don't like it. You're told that you're not a true ally if you question anything,

00:19:23.060 despite the fact that there are many Black people across the aisle who push back on Black Lives Matter,

00:19:29.560 on the idea of systemic racism, the movement of so-called anti-racism, the social justice

00:19:34.580 bullying that is involved in these conversations, the virtue signaling that has no real impact,

00:19:40.660 cancel culture, white guilt. John McWhorter, Glenn Lowry, Coleman Hughes, for example, are not

00:19:46.480 Republicans. Marcellus Wiley, not a Republican. Terry Crews, not a Republican. Jason Whitlock,

00:19:51.980 he's considered more conservative. But these are not guys who are out there. They're not stumping

00:19:58.520 for Trump every day. A lot of people accuse Black people who disagree with the liberal narrative of

00:20:04.880 just being, you know, they call them all kinds of terrible names and basically accuse them of not

00:20:10.300 thinking for themselves. And they accuse them of, you know, trying to align themselves with Trump or

00:20:16.620 whatever. Well, that just cannot be said of a lot of the Black Americans that are pushing back against

00:20:22.000 these narratives. These are all Black men that I just listed who have pushed back against the

00:20:26.600 identity and language and evasive phraseology in Marxist movements who are not considered necessarily

00:20:32.540 Republicans. And they're not even alone in that. Of course, you have more conservative Black voices.

00:20:37.160 You've got Thomas Sowell. You've got Jason Reilly, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Larry Elder,

00:20:41.980 Alan West, Carol Swain, Daryl Harrison, Virgil Walker. Those two I've had on my show, Votie Bauckham.

00:20:48.400 And they're not alone. The funny thing is, if you repost something that one of these people wrote or said,

00:20:54.260 white liberals will still call you a racist and claim that you are only reposting Black people who

00:20:59.280 affirm your views. So what do you think it is when a white liberal only reposts Black people who

00:21:06.400 affirm their views? So why is the former tokenism, but the latter isn't? The latter is just empowering

00:21:13.240 and elevating Black voices. In fact, many, not all, not all, but many that I've encountered and seen

00:21:19.700 white liberals do not care whether it is a Black person talking about the subject. They're willing to

00:21:25.100 promote Robin DiAngelo, for example, and pay her thousands of dollars to talk about racism. They

00:21:29.940 would listen to Robin DiAngelo talk about what it's like to be Black in America before they would

00:21:35.180 listen to Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder or Votie Bauckham talk about what it's like being Black in

00:21:40.560 America. As Thomas Sowell says, the reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these

00:21:46.320 issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them

00:21:51.900 emotionally unsatisfied. Someone like Robin DiAngelo or other white liberals offer an emotionally

00:21:57.760 satisfying Marxist argument. People like Thomas Sowell or Votie Bauckham or Larry Elder or Alan West or

00:22:05.500 Jason Reilly, their analysis of these issues are going to leave someone who thinks in strictly

00:22:11.220 emotional terms emotionally unsatisfied. Emotions aren't bad, by the way. We should have passion. We should

00:22:17.640 have compassion. We should have sympathy. And all of these things are very important. But our emotions

00:22:23.520 always have to be verified by and subject to facts. If our emotions that are not based on facts are the

00:22:30.080 basis of policy and are the basis of cultural movements, then we are going to lead the country

00:22:34.840 in a very bad place. And of course, I do believe that is what's happening. The way to be able to healthily

00:22:41.680 balance all of this is to be able to talk about personal experiences, but distinguish personal

00:22:49.480 experiences from objective definitions and systemic reality, to be able to define words using finite and

00:22:56.840 clear definitions, to be able to detach ourselves, all of us, from narrative and to look at the facts,

00:23:03.340 look at the data, look at the real problems, the real cycles that are happening in particular

00:23:07.620 communities, and have a discussion and debate around those things. This is not, this conversation

00:23:14.200 is not, A, to diminish real racism. It is, in fact, an argument for talking about racism where it exists

00:23:20.960 to define racism. But in order to do that, we have to be able to believe in objectivity and to have

00:23:28.220 finite definitions of words. And we cannot do that if the definition, we can't have these conversations

00:23:33.660 and talk about what real racism looks like, if the definition of racism is simply anything and anyone

00:23:39.100 that someone doesn't like. And this conversation that we're happening is also not to be diminished

00:23:44.900 people's real experiences or emotions surrounding racism. If you have experienced bad treatment because

00:23:50.540 of your skin, you're going to be upset about that. And of course, that's normal. And we can talk about

00:23:55.000 those things. But we have to be able to subject our emotions and our experiences to objective truth if we

00:24:01.840 are going to be talking about policy solutions and solutions that affect a wide array of people.

00:24:09.200 But discussion and debate, which are necessary for talking about real problems and solutions,

00:24:13.980 cannot happen if you are saying that everyone who is disagreeing with you is threatening you,

00:24:19.540 or that words are violence, or you are canceling people for having different ideas, or liking tweets

00:24:24.960 that you don't like, or following people that you don't like, canceling people for their social

00:24:31.240 media behavior that is not abusive. And I do want to make a distinction here. I do believe that people

00:24:36.380 should be held accountable for the things they say. We know that God is going to hold us accountable

00:24:42.120 for the things we say. Jesus says that we're going to be held accountable for every single word that we

00:24:47.440 speak. And so before cancel culture, before all of this craziness, before social media, people were still

00:24:53.560 held accountable for the things that they said in the political arena, in the professional arena,

00:24:58.600 in the private arena. Of course, there is accountability for the things that we say. And

00:25:03.640 we do own and take responsibility for the things that we say. I'm not talking about holding people

00:25:08.480 accountable who say abusive or terrible things. I am talking about canceling people for expressing

00:25:14.200 legitimate political opinions, not being abusive, but simply saying, hey, I've got a question about

00:25:20.560 the ideology of Black Lives Matter. Hey, I'm not a Marxist. Hey, are the problems that they're pointing

00:25:25.820 out real problems? Are the solutions that they're pointing out real solutions? Like those are

00:25:30.580 legitimate questions that if we really cared about caring about Black lives, like if we really cared

00:25:37.280 about vulnerable communities, we would not only allow people to ask those questions, but we would be

00:25:42.400 answering those questions. We would be digging deeper and we would be having respectful dialogue

00:25:49.500 about these things. If you learn about our founding, I think when we think back to the beginnings of

00:25:56.740 America, we think everyone was united in their love for liberty and that the disagreements that they had

00:26:03.060 were very minute. They were very insignificant. But America and our founding is based on compromises

00:26:09.700 between people who very viciously disagreed with one another, who had very disparate visions of what the

00:26:16.760 country was going to look like. And thankfully, because they did have the shared foundational

00:26:21.340 principles of liberty and self-governance, they were able to come to compromises. But this country

00:26:27.080 is built on disagreement. The difference between then and now is not that we have more disagreements

00:26:31.880 than we had then. It is that A, we have more fundamental disagreements than we had then. Like we're

00:26:37.100 questioning very basic things like what is truth? What is good and bad? What is science? Like is a

00:26:44.480 woman a woman and is a man a man? Is an unborn child really a life? All of these questions that

00:26:49.460 have been answered for millennia, all of a sudden they're up in the air and we don't know about them.

00:26:53.320 So we have very basic and fundamental disagreements. That's one reason why we are so far apart. And the

00:26:58.540 other reason is because of this, because we are unable to have debates and discussions with someone on

00:27:03.580 the other side without being told that we're a terrible person simply for raising questions and

00:27:08.920 disagreeing and offering a different perspective. A communications manager at Boeing, this is another

00:27:15.160 example of cancel culture, just resigned because of an article he wrote 30 years ago, 30 years ago,

00:27:22.980 arguing that women shouldn't serve in combat. Someone found it, called him a sexist. He apologized and said

00:27:29.360 he was so embarrassed and he resigned. That is, by the way, as an aside, a totally defensible

00:27:37.260 position. Women shouldn't be on the ground in combat. We don't have the same makeup as men. We

00:27:45.420 can't carry as much weight and simultaneously run as quickly. We have lower muscle tone. We have lower

00:27:50.440 bone density, lower anaerobic and aerobic capacity, not to mention we simply think differently than men do

00:27:56.700 in most cases. The military is not a social experiment. It's about lethality. Like you're just

00:28:02.080 not egalitarian on the battlefield. You're just not. And while women may be very useful in a lot of

00:28:08.620 roles, on the grounds, combat just isn't one of them. So this is a very defensible position. But

00:28:14.680 there was no conversation about this. He never said in his apology, hey, new data has come out and

00:28:20.120 actually women should be in combat. I was wrong. There was nothing like that. There was no conversation

00:28:25.300 about whether or not what he was saying is true. Like there was no debate about that. It was just that,

00:28:30.280 okay, what I said then, even though it might be factual, doesn't fit into the popular social

00:28:34.820 narrative of today. And so I'm embarrassed. And everyone just said, oh yeah, okay, it doesn't fit

00:28:39.340 into what we think about egalitarianism between the genders today. So yes, you should resign. That's

00:28:47.020 ridiculous. Like we didn't even have a conversation about whether or not what he's saying is actually

00:28:51.820 factual. So people have lost their ever loving minds. And there is this unfortunately destructive

00:28:58.380 instinct that is a lethal mixture of total depravity and Marxism that drives people to ruin the lives

00:29:06.000 of those that they find threatening just because they express ideas that they don't like. Another

00:29:11.420 example of this is J.K. Rowling, a lady of the left. She has been under fire for a while for saying the

00:29:17.720 very scandalous and problematic reality that women are women and men are men. And that saying that

00:29:24.520 some men can be women by way of declaration actually erases women, which is just, of course,

00:29:30.480 logically true. Now, this is someone who believes in the validity of transgenderism. So she believes

00:29:37.160 that someone can transition and that they can identify as a transgender woman or a transgender man.

00:29:43.640 She simply doesn't believe in collapsing those categories of transgender woman and biological woman

00:29:48.880 because then you are forcing biological women to compete against and to share private and vulnerable

00:29:54.640 spaces with biological men who, no matter what you think, are always going to be biologically different

00:30:00.560 and biologically stronger than biological women. So that is part of, that's part of the issue here,

00:30:07.280 not to just, not even to mention the total illogic and the anti-science philosophy that's behind the idea

00:30:15.800 that you can just become a woman by saying that you're a woman. It's ironic because that objectifies

00:30:21.980 and diminishes what womanhood is. And so many feminists are simply willing to go along with it.

00:30:29.000 I encourage you, if you haven't already, to listen to Monday's episode that I did with Abigail Schreier.

00:30:33.600 She dives more deeply into this in her book, and that's what we discussed. Well, J.K. Rowling,

00:30:38.960 of course, is being canceled for all of this. She has a lot of people coming after her and sending her

00:30:44.560 very nasty messages and mail simply for saying a biological reality. And I disagree with her still

00:30:53.460 on her idea of transgenderism and who can say that they're what and all of that. I mean, like I said,

00:31:00.520 she is ideologically on the left, but at least she is pushing for a biological reality. Like,

00:31:07.000 at least she's, quote, red-pilled in that way. There's another young woman, Megan Murphy,

00:31:11.180 who has written about this a lot. And because she talked about it on Twitter,

00:31:14.420 she got kicked off Twitter and she hasn't allowed to come back on. Another example of this

00:31:19.800 crazy world that we can't actually have debate about very normal things and good things to

00:31:26.180 debate about. Like, there's a lot to debate. There's a lot to question. But because someone

00:31:30.100 has declared that it's mean, we can't even talk about whether or not these things are true.

00:31:34.420 There was this letter called Harper's Letter that a bunch of people who are on the left,

00:31:42.700 like Noam Chomsky and J.K. Rowling and other people who are on the left, they did this open

00:31:50.440 letter together calling for the preservation of free speech and open dialogue and debate. And I really

00:31:57.200 appreciate that. Unfortunately, the first half of the letter is spent trying to win over their

00:32:04.300 comrades on the left who are against free speech by talking about how the right are the people who

00:32:10.440 are the demagogues. They're the people who are canceling people. They're the censorious ones.

00:32:14.600 Well, that's not true. I'm not saying there's no one on the right who wants to censor certain ideas,

00:32:19.700 but that is not a tenet of conservatism, at least not in the past several decades. It's just not true.

00:32:25.520 And so they try very hard to castigate the right for something that in general the right is not

00:32:30.420 guilty for in order to try to gain some kind of credibility with the people on the left that

00:32:34.660 they're really appealing to, to be able to say, look, I'm one of you. And in so doing,

00:32:40.280 they really pleased no one because the people, their comrades on the left who are against free

00:32:44.480 speech were not at all persuaded by this. And the people on the right don't like to be called

00:32:49.440 mindless demagogues who are censoring people when we're not. Like, we're the people who are accused

00:32:54.300 of being obsessed with debates because we want to have dialogue about important issues, but they

00:32:59.960 had to put that in there to pander to their previous base or what would be their base. But

00:33:05.720 they do make good points that the right has been literally saying for years. This is part of it. And

00:33:12.260 this is the part that I agree with. This stifling atmosphere of talking about stifling free speech

00:33:17.920 and canceling people simply for saying that a woman is a woman or something like that, or hey,

00:33:22.780 capitalism has slashed global poverty in half in the past 20 years. This stifling atmosphere will

00:33:29.940 ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive

00:33:35.180 government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less

00:33:41.720 capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument and

00:33:48.400 persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and

00:33:54.680 freedom, which cannot exist without each other, which is absolutely true. I saw another tweet and I don't

00:34:01.600 have it. So I can't give credit and I'll have to paraphrase it. But I saw it floating around on Instagram

00:34:08.200 that even if you live in a society where the government is not restricting free speech,

00:34:13.360 which you could argue in places like California and New York, they are by trying to fine you for

00:34:17.480 misgendering someone. So there are cases where the government is trying to compel speech or limit

00:34:24.700 your speech absolutely. But even if you live in a society that the government is not doing that and

00:34:30.020 you have First Amendment rights, if you live in a society that is repressive in the private realm,

00:34:35.720 that tries to censor you and to deplatform you and cancel you and even ruin your life because of

00:34:43.660 things that you say, then you do not live in a society that upholds free speech. You don't live

00:34:51.340 in a free society at all. If people are able to exert their social power to ruin your life because you

00:34:58.160 said something that you don't like. And if we don't have that ability to speak freely and to have these

00:35:03.680 dialogues and to say these unpopular things, well, then we're not going to be able to progress at all.

00:35:09.260 We're not going to be able to have any kind of functioning society at all. And I think it's

00:35:15.720 important to note because the pushback is always, well, you shouldn't be able to say things that

00:35:20.260 are hateful. That is what the First Amendment is for. That is what free speech is for. Like the principle

00:35:24.640 of free speech isn't to protect popular speech because no one wants to censor that. Free speech,

00:35:30.080 the protection of the First Amendment, which should have private implications as well, at least

00:35:34.460 in our own minds and how we can conduct ourselves and interact with one another. I mean, that is that's

00:35:41.800 the great thing about America. It has been a great thing about America. And there have been different

00:35:46.340 sides throughout American history who have tried to censor people right now. It is decidedly the left

00:35:51.000 that's doing that. But the way that America has advanced in the way of civil rights, in the way of

00:35:58.820 equality and liberty and justice for all is through free speech, is through allowing people with

00:36:04.440 dissenting opinions to be able to speak up. I mean, that is how, for example, the end of Jim Crow

00:36:12.580 happened. That is how desegregation happened. That is how all civil rights movements have happened.

00:36:18.640 People speaking up and being willing to say the unpopular thing. Not always in every situation,

00:36:23.660 the thing that the right agrees with or the thing that the left agrees with. But the person in the

00:36:29.920 minority who is willing to say the unpopular thing has always moved the needle. And if we don't have

00:36:35.620 that, if we don't have that, then we have tyranny. And that is kind of the society that we're living

00:36:40.120 under right now. We are technically free, but we're living under tyranny of the mob where people

00:36:44.920 aren't willing or just aren't able out of fear to say the unpopular, unorthodox thing that goes

00:36:51.500 against, for example, the ideology of Black Lives Matter, because they're afraid of losing their

00:36:55.800 jobs and they have to fight for their families. That is exactly what the far left wants. That is

00:37:01.800 the nature of leftism. That is the nature of communism and socialism. Like I've said before,

00:37:06.620 you're not going to find a communist or socialist society where there's freedom of religion and

00:37:11.420 freedom of speech. You're just not because it has to concentrate power. There can't be any dissent.

00:37:16.640 There can't be any source from which you find your values or you find your principles except for the

00:37:24.420 state. And so they have to silence all dissent. And they have to do so and will do so, by the way,

00:37:29.700 through violence. And if they can't do so through violence, because still in the United States,

00:37:34.380 for the most part, it's illegal to do that, they'll find other means and they will try to ruin

00:37:38.240 your life. And they simply believe it is all under the guise of compassion and love, intolerance and

00:37:48.140 inclusion that they are trying to silence ideas that they don't like because to them, facts and opposing

00:37:52.820 ideas are very offensive. Of course, in the midst of all of this, when we say, okay, we're not going to,

00:38:00.240 for example, talk about the biological, the physiological, the psychological implications

00:38:05.620 of pushing hormone treatment on young girls and boys. We're not going to talk about the effects

00:38:11.540 of Marxism. We're not going to talk about what systemic racism is. We're just going to accept

00:38:15.580 all of these things and move forward without any kind of critical thinking because we're scared of

00:38:20.940 dialogue and debate. What is at stake is objectivity itself. There is a very interesting tweet by someone

00:38:28.600 who describes herself as an educator named Brittany Marshall, and this was going around. And she says,

00:38:34.280 in reply to a conversation that included Nicole Hannah-Jones, who is the lead essayist in the

00:38:41.000 widely debunked 1619 project, she says, nope, the idea of two plus two equaling four is cultural.

00:38:47.020 And because of Western imperialism and colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing.

00:38:54.120 What? What? Let's read this again. The idea of two plus two equaling four is cultural.

00:39:00.180 And because of Western imperialism and colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing. And this

00:39:08.000 is an educator. What is that Orwell quote from 1984 that in the end, the party will insist that two plus

00:39:14.820 two equals five because it is the inevitable outcome of their philosophy, which seeks by way of thought

00:39:22.760 police and accusations of wrong think and new speak to not just limit our language, but limit consciousness,

00:39:30.700 limits any knowledge of objective reality. That is what we are seeing in real time. And it's absolutely

00:39:38.900 true that this is the outcome of the philosophy that says that facts are mean, that facts shouldn't be

00:39:44.840 discussed, that we shouldn't have logical conversations, that objective reality is somehow a system

00:39:52.180 of oppression and bringing up statistics is somehow bigoted. That is this is the end that two plus

00:39:59.420 two might not equal four and that all truth is object or is subjective. There was a very interesting

00:40:07.400 piece by Rod Dreher. I'm not totally sure how to pronounce his last name, but he is great. He wrote an

00:40:14.500 interesting book called The Benedict Option. It's a very interesting writer. And he wrote something in the

00:40:18.940 American conservative called the Kampf of the woke. Kampf, obviously, is German for struggle.

00:40:26.180 He talks about the micro bubble of the media, and it's how it's created this echo chamber that is

00:40:31.960 really pushing the ball down the field for leftism. Just this small minority of journalists in Washington

00:40:39.460 and New York who have no understanding of what life is like outside of their little bubble. He calls it

00:40:46.260 pack journalism. They're short on time, these journalists. They've got to get things out there

00:40:50.720 that will get clicks. So they just kind of imitate one another. They kind of echo one another. They

00:40:55.440 regurgitate or rewrite each other's thoughts. One person says it, and then it becomes a thing. And

00:41:00.700 then you've got every headline in NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, all writing about different

00:41:06.640 variations of the same argument. For example, taking down Mount Rushmore. That was not a thing a few years

00:41:12.660 ago. And then it became a thing that's true about so many leftist ideas. You say it, and then the

00:41:17.680 Overton window keeps moving over. Zach Goldberg had a tweet thread last year where he went to LexisNexis,

00:41:26.560 which is an online database that tells you how many times a phrase was used in a news article over time.

00:41:34.340 All the woke phrases that we know today, white privilege, diversity and inclusion, whiteness,

00:41:39.600 critical race theory, unconscious bias, systemic racism, diversity training, discrimination,

00:41:44.620 social justice, marginalized, people of color, racism, white supremacy, intersectionality started

00:41:50.040 to be used, started to be used at or after 2010. That's only 10 years ago, guys. These words and ideas

00:41:57.520 were not part of the public consciousness or dialogue 10 years ago. Ask yourself, are we really

00:42:03.280 better off right now than we were 10 years ago? Are we really more united right now than we were 10 years

00:42:08.640 ago? Some of them even later than 2010. They were almost completely unused. Before that, all of the

00:42:15.680 ideas that we're talking about that, again, are very nebulous and not really grounded in any kind of

00:42:20.000 objective definition. It's just whatever the powers that be want them to be able to use them as tools

00:42:25.140 to bludgeon you if you disagree with them. All of these ideas are very new. They're very novel.

00:42:31.400 And we are being told that if you don't buy into what these gender studies professors came up with

00:42:37.660 yesterday, then you're the bigot. Then you're the radical. And I always like to remind people that

00:42:42.260 you're not the radical for believing in biological sex. You're not the radical for believing in free

00:42:47.360 speech. You're not the radical for being anti-Marxist and for being pro-capitalist. You're not the radical

00:42:52.360 for believing in God and believing that as the creator of the heavens and the earth, that he has the

00:42:56.660 moral authority to tell us what is and what isn't, what's true and what's false and what's good and

00:43:01.040 what's bad. These are things that people who are a lot smarter than us believe for thousands and

00:43:05.940 thousands of years. And just yesterday, five minutes ago, the multicultural studies PhD, Robin

00:43:13.660 D'Angelo, says that, oh no, these things aren't true anymore. And all of a sudden, the mob has just

00:43:19.260 sicked themselves and anyone who disagrees with them and tells us that we are the bigots of the

00:43:23.720 radicals. They are the radicals. And just because they say that they are the ones on the right side

00:43:30.200 of history does not make that true. As we read that Booker T. Washington quote in the last episode,

00:43:36.580 someone saying that something is true doesn't make it true. Someone saying that something is right

00:43:41.480 doesn't make it right, no matter how many times you say it, no matter how hard you try to convince

00:43:46.080 someone. And we just have to remember to be grounded in that reality that we are not the radicals for

00:43:50.800 believing the things that people accepted for thousands of years before two seconds ago.

00:43:55.960 And again, what we're seeing is that while Obama was president, how many times, I mean,

00:44:01.520 have we talked about this? Have we walked through the studies that show that the left moved farther to

00:44:06.660 the left while Obama was president during those eight years? And they had the previous 25 years

00:44:11.080 on things like welfare, on immigration, on race, that Pew Research study from October 2017

00:44:17.240 that we analyzed that. It says in 1994, 39 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans believed

00:44:25.960 that, quote, discrimination is the main reason black people cannot get ahead. 39 percent of Democrats,

00:44:31.660 26 percent of Republicans. By 2010, it had reached a new low. 28 percent of Democrats and 9 percent of

00:44:38.960 Republicans believed that. By 2017, after eight years of Obama in office, 64 percent of Democrats

00:44:47.420 believed that discrimination is the main reason that black people can't get ahead. That percentage

00:44:51.860 jumped by 36 percent among Democrats while Obama was president. All-time low in 2010. We're measuring

00:45:00.000 1994 to 2017. All-time low in 2010 among Democrats. All-time high by far in 2017.

00:45:08.200 Now, we should ask ourselves, did America really get more racist while Obama was president? Did America

00:45:14.660 get more racist during a time that a black president was elected by a landslide twice? Did discrimination

00:45:20.760 really become worse during those eight years or more than that since 1994? Like, have we become more

00:45:28.540 racist since 1994? Is there evidence of that? And yet, the perspective on racism and discrimination has

00:45:35.840 changed drastically and changed the most drastically while Obama was president. And it is because, partly,

00:45:43.160 part of it is just shifting cultures, but it's partly because Obama pushed racial

00:45:47.740 identitarianism his entire time that he was in office, using every instance that involved people of different

00:45:53.280 races to drive the narrative that racism is worse than it's ever been. And the radical leftism that has been

00:46:00.520 pushed on college campuses for decades has begun to trickle into the political and cultural arenas. And now we are

00:46:06.480 starting to see the fullness of its manifestation in places like CHAZ, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. We are seeing in

00:46:15.380 real time, really, the manifestation of this ideology, not just in places like CHAZ, but everywhere. The breakdown and the

00:46:24.860 pushback of the very idea of objectivity and truth, the silencing of people who have counterpoints that

00:46:31.320 are based in fact, or even just counterpoints that are based in feelings or opinion, you are not allowed

00:46:36.340 to say. If your ideology depends on tyrannical censorship and the ruining of people's lives if they challenge it,

00:46:44.260 then you might need to question the strength of your ideology. Now, here's the question. The question is,

00:46:51.980 what do we do about all of this? What do we do about feeling like we are being, like, unpopular views

00:46:59.780 are being marginalized more than ever, like they are being pushed down and canceled simply because they

00:47:05.320 are unpopular? Is there anything that we can do? Like, can we do something in our HR departments? Can we do

00:47:14.420 something in our private and public life? Is there any way that we can push back on this kind of stuff?

00:47:19.780 There was a really good tweet thread by a woman who is in STEM who talked about her company wanting

00:47:25.080 to put out a statement about anti-racism and social justice and how she very effectively

00:47:30.100 changed the statement, helped change the statement from something that was filled with all of this kind

00:47:35.480 of nonsense, these words that just started being used in the past five years to mean something to a

00:47:42.600 statement that actually had grounding in reality. And the way she did that was she got involved in the

00:47:47.560 writing of the statement and she picked apart the first draft of the statement by asking questions.

00:47:52.980 That's something that we need to do. We need to demand or ask very persistently and kindly for people to

00:48:00.300 define their terms when we're talking about racism, for people to offer examples, for people to be very

00:48:06.300 clear and to be very specific in what we mean. For example, pastors who are talking about racism,

00:48:12.440 which I think, you know, is fine. We know that no one can love God and hate their brother, so hating

00:48:17.260 someone for any reason is wrong. So if the pastor wants to talk specifically about someone hating

00:48:22.300 someone because of the color of their skin, okay, I think that they need to be very specific in that.

00:48:27.860 We've got a lot of pastors, a lot of influencers who are just saying words because they've heard other

00:48:33.120 people say them, but they can't actually give specific examples of what that looks like. If a pastor

00:48:38.160 thinks that his congregation is racist, then he needs to point out to them specifically what that

00:48:43.360 means and specifically what they need to repent of. But these very nebulous conversations that just

00:48:48.460 this bubble and this echo chamber of a regurgitation of either facts that are missing a lot of context

00:48:57.460 and are missing the counterpoints or these just social justice narratives that don't actually have

00:49:05.340 any definable reality. They're not helpful. They're just not helping anyone. They're not moving us

00:49:10.800 towards progress, but they are moving us towards more censorship. But here's where I think that there

00:49:18.120 is where there is hope. One, like I said, asking questions, poking holes in things, asking specifically

00:49:25.260 what people mean by things, asking specifically, can you tell me, you know, what I said that was racist

00:49:31.920 and or what someone did that is racist or what is racist and being able to offer counterpoints to

00:49:38.800 that or just to have a conversation about that. So asking questions, not being afraid to ask questions,

00:49:44.620 make making people define their terms and also just being willing to say the unpopular thing.

00:49:50.540 And I understand for common folks that you're scared of losing your job and that's totally understandable.

00:49:55.680 But that is why that's why we need politicians to be speaking out like that is why we need all these

00:50:03.540 Republican senators and congressmen who have not said anything about the toppling of, for example,

00:50:09.100 the statues of founders and Frederick Douglass and union soldiers who aren't saying anything about

00:50:14.700 the cultural revolution that is clearly happening, the rioting and the mobs and the looting and the

00:50:21.680 increased violence that we're seeing because of calls to abolish the police who are not speaking

00:50:26.640 out against this Marxist revolution because they're scared of the mob themselves. Shame on them. Like you

00:50:32.700 are elected officials. You are representatives of the people in your district, in your area that you

00:50:39.720 represent. And it is your job to say the things that they're too scared of saying because they're scared

00:50:45.000 of losing their jobs and having their lives ruined. Like it is up to the politicians and the pastors and the

00:50:50.320 people of influence, not just conservative commentators like me, to say what's true and what's not and to push

00:50:55.720 back against dark ideas by offering the right ideas or offering different ideas. When people in power do that,

00:51:03.880 when people in power are willing to represent and talk about criticisms against the mainstream, against the

00:51:11.300 Marxist ideologies that we are seeing run rampant right now, it gives common folk cover. They feel like, okay, this is

00:51:18.040 more mainstream. Politicians are talking about this. Commentators are talking about this. Pastors are

00:51:22.880 talking about this. There are a lot of people with influence who are representing my views. And the more

00:51:28.220 these things are talked about, the harder it is for an employer to say, wow, you're radical and extreme.

00:51:32.600 You've got a really out there idea because there are so many people talking about it. So to those of you

00:51:37.200 who are scared, you don't understand the effect that your words, even though you might feel like you

00:51:45.200 don't have a lot of influence, have on the conversation and on the culture of free speech

00:51:51.280 in general. There is a really interesting study by the scientists at Rensselaer, I don't know how to

00:51:59.460 pronounce that, Rensselaer Polytechnic. They're members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research

00:52:05.000 Center. They used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a

00:52:11.920 minority belief becomes the majority opinion. Physical Review E in an article titled, oh, it's in

00:52:18.940 Physical Review E in an article titled, Social Consensus Through the Influence of Committed Minorities.

00:52:24.340 And this is what they found. In general, people do not like to have an unpopular opinion. They're

00:52:28.980 always seeking to try to locally, they're trying to seek to locally come to consensus. We set up

00:52:35.340 this dynamic in each of our models that SCNARC, Research Associate and Corresponding Paper,

00:52:42.300 author Samit Srinivasan. To accomplish this, each of the individuals and the models talked to each

00:52:48.940 other about their opinion. If the listener held the same opinions as the speaker, it reinforced the

00:52:53.740 listener's belief. If the opinion was different, the listener considered it and moved on to talk

00:52:58.660 about another person. If that person also held this new belief, the listener then adopted that

00:53:03.740 belief. As agents of change start to convince more and more people, the situation begins to change.

00:53:09.440 People begin to question their own views at first, and they completely adopt the new view

00:53:14.000 to spread it even further. If the true believers just influenced their neighbors, that wouldn't change

00:53:18.860 anything within the larger system as we saw with percentages less than 10. But if the percentage

00:53:24.600 of a country or society believes something, just 10%, is just 10%, then things can change.

00:53:32.700 If you're willing to talk about it, if you're willing to have conversations, and I understand

00:53:36.740 that it's difficult because we're up against a lot. You've got the left that is controlling

00:53:41.540 the entire entertainment industry, most of the news media, all pretty much of main social

00:53:48.860 media sites. You have them controlling academia. You have them controlling public schools. And so

00:53:54.800 people are just indoctrinated with this anti-American Marxist nonsense constantly. And it is very hard

00:54:00.960 to feel like you have a voice, but you don't know which flap of the butterfly wing is going to make

00:54:05.500 a difference. You just don't. If only 10%, there's a lot more than 10% of people who are against Marxist

00:54:12.120 ideology, who are against this nebulous social justice nonsense, who are against cancel culture,

00:54:17.320 and who are for free speech. There's a lot more than 10% of us. There's half the country at least

00:54:22.680 who believe these things or who believe at least a portion of these things. If we all said something

00:54:28.240 and we all just stopped giving in to the cancellation culture, like if companies just

00:54:32.140 stopped saying, you know, I'm not going to fire, I'm not going to fire my employee because you saw him

00:54:36.400 crack his knuckles and you thought that maybe he was a white supremacist, even though he's Hispanic.

00:54:41.460 If corporations just stopped making statements and apologizing for things that they're not sorry for,

00:54:46.000 and people stopped resigning for things that they said 10, 20 years ago that were perfectly

00:54:52.340 legitimate arguments. Like if people would stop saying that they're racist when they know that

00:54:58.040 they're not racist. If they would stop apologizing again for things that are not apology worthy.

00:55:04.020 I'm not against people apologizing for things that they should actually apologize for. But if we just

00:55:10.220 stopped capitulating to the ever-changing demands of the mob and we focused on loving God as Christians

00:55:17.160 and loving other people, doing our best to cultivate the world around us and to allow people to be free,

00:55:22.520 even those that we disagree with, allow people to express their opinions, even those that we disagree

00:55:27.100 with without coming for them, then we would be a lot better off if we would just treat other people

00:55:32.740 how we want to be treated. I know that's a novel, uh, a novel idea. Then we would be a lot better off,

00:55:39.400 even if we don't ever agree. But as we are right now, I'm just going to be honest. Like I don't see a

00:55:44.880 way forward. I don't see a way forward for a unified country. If we are unable to say, you know what,

00:55:51.660 here are our foundational commonalities. Like we might disagree on policy. We might disagree on social

00:55:59.040 issues, but at least we believe that all men are created equal and should be treated equally under

00:56:04.840 the eyes of the law. We all believe in liberty and justice for all. We all love our country and we all

00:56:09.520 want it to be better. Instead, we have people like, uh, Joe Biden, who is saying that when he becomes

00:56:17.780 president, that he's not just going to try to improve the country, but quote, he is going to

00:56:24.160 transform the country. And he's already talked about getting rid of school choice, trying to get

00:56:29.380 rid of charter schools. The, he is going to try to limit free speech, limit freedom of religion,

00:56:35.680 everything that you hold dear and that you see as good in your life, especially as a conservative

00:56:41.260 Christian, the administration of Joe Biden is going to try to get rid of because he's just going to be a

00:56:46.360 lame duck president that the far left ideologues, uh, try to use to push their, uh, far left views.

00:56:54.440 And we have Ilhan Omar as another example saying she's the Congresswoman from Minnesota. She said

00:57:03.180 that we need to, in order to move forward, dismantle the U S economy and political systems,

00:57:07.940 which are tools of oppression. Now, Ilhan Omar is an immigrant from Somalia who came here as a refugee

00:57:15.460 and America gave her family refuge. And she was able to not just build a life with her family here

00:57:23.280 where she has become very successful, but she has also become a Congresswoman with one of the

00:57:29.660 leading voices on the democratic side of Congress. And she believes that America is inherently oppressive

00:57:36.600 and unfair. I mean, I don't know a better example of America giving liberty and justice for all

00:57:42.780 than Ilhan Omar. Not only is she a refugee, but she also hates America. Like she talks,

00:57:50.380 she wants to dismantle America. And yet we have placed her in a position of power and given her

00:57:55.020 every opportunity in the world. I mean, she's a really good example that America really does allow

00:58:01.440 not just, um, freedom and equality of opportunity, but also that we don't even punish you for hating

00:58:08.920 the country. And people want to talk about this country being fascist and limiting people. I mean,

00:58:13.340 that's just insane. There are, there's example after example of people defeating all odds and making

00:58:20.060 it in America that disprove this narrative that America is irrevocably and systemically and endemically

00:58:26.540 this oppressive place that only allows certain people to get ahead. Again, white people aren't the

00:58:31.680 most successful group in the country. So you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.

00:58:35.460 But again, we're not allowed to have that conversation. We're not allowed to have that

00:58:38.540 debate and dialogue because you're just silenced for it. But again, my encouragement to you is to

00:58:44.260 speak up when and how you can, even if it's just poking holes and asking questions and making people

00:58:49.140 define the things, um, that they believe, because you only need 10%. You only need 10% of society that is

00:58:56.360 willing to speak up and say something before things actually change, saying no to cancel culture,

00:59:01.940 refusing to play by their rules, refusing to virtue signal, refusing to repeat their mantras,

00:59:07.780 refusing to just buy into things without thinking about them. You have to know who's driving the

00:59:12.820 bandwagon before you hop on it, refuse to hopping on, uh, refuse to hop on the bandwagon

00:59:18.160 and critically think and ask questions and engage in, uh, the debates that even people don't want to

00:59:25.700 have. Okay. That is all for today. We will be back here on Monday.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - July 10, 2020

Ep 273 ｜ Winning the Culture War

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript