Revealing The Origins Of The Current Madness Of Crowds | Douglas Murray | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Revealing The Origins Of The Current Madness Of Crowds | Douglas Murray | POLITICS | Rubin Report


– When the economics goes bad, we become vulnerable to bad ideas. (upbeat music) – Hey, I’m your friendly neighborhood, Dave Rubin with a quick reminder
to subscribe to our channel and click the bell to get
notified of our videos. And joining me today is an international best-selling author and journalist. Though his greatest claim to fame is now being a three-time
returning Rubin Report guest. Douglas Murray, welcome
back to The Rubin Report. – Very good to be with you again, Dave. Who else has managed three times? – Who else has been three times? I believe Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson. Gad Sad. – Oh, this is the A team. – Yeah, this is the A team. Maybe Sam Harris snuck
in there, I’m not sure. Anyway, it is good to
have you on my friend. I wish we were doing this in person, but you are across the pond. How is life across the pond these days? – Well it’s all right. We have our own forms of
madness going on here, as you do in America. But broadly speaking,
we’re still standing, despite all of the
politicians best efforts. – All right now, I wanna
get into this book, because I’ve read about half of it so far. And as you know, I just
wrote my first book, and I was reading this going, man, I wish I was a better author, because you, my friend
have a way with words. So I’ve got the book right here. And I always notice that on cable news, when people are gonna read something, they put on glasses. I don’t wear glasses. These are prop glasses, but
I thought I’d put them on so that I look a little
smarter as I read this, ’cause on the inside flap,
you have something here that I thought just summed
up almost every reason that I do this show and
talk about these issues and love what you do. It says, we’re living
through a postmodern era in which the grand narratives of religion and political ideology have collapsed. In their place have
emerged a crusading desire to write perceived wrongs, and
a weaponization of identity, both accelerated by the new
forms of social and news media. Narrow sets of interests
now dominate the agenda as society becomes more and more tribal and as Murray shows, the
casualties are mounting. Now, I’m gonna slowly take off my glasses. How was that? That was pretty good, right? – Unbelievable. – I’m like Anderson Cooper. That little synopsis right there, I think, is exactly what’s
on everyone’s mind these days that a small few have somehow taken over all of the narratives. So I guess my first question would be when do you think this all started? – I think it’s a phenomenon
of the last decade. I think that it starts in earnest after the financial crash of 2008. When we look back at history, causes of revolutions and so on, we know that when the economics goes bad, other things happen. And I think that we pretend at the moment as if the crash sort of didn’t happen, or didn’t have an effect in our culture, and of course, it did. Of course something like that’s going to. And I say, in the introduction
to “The Madness of Crowds” it’s not a surprise that young people who can’t accumulate
capital in their lives don’t have any particular
love of capitalism. And it’s not surprising that a generation that finds it incredibly hard
to get on the property ladder, for instance, is going to be susceptible to ideologies that claim
to be able to solve every inequity on Earth. So my view is that when
the economics goes bad, we become vulnerable to bad ideas, and the ones I write about
in “The Madness of Crowds,” I think these ideas have been just stating since at least the 1980s. These things that we now know as identity politics intersectionality, possibly the ugliest word in the language. And these have been hanging
around since about the 80s but they only come flooding
in in the last decade. And then in the last five years, as you can prove, I lay
out some of it in the book, in the last five years,
that’s when all this stuff actually became weaponized. And when it started to be
used as a real battering ram. – Alright, so first off, thank you for actually
saying the title of the book. That was very unprofessional of me. It is called ‘The Madness of Crowds.” You are correct right there. So that’s an interesting
theory that you’ve laid out that basically, these ideas,
these sort of bad ideas and totalitarian ideas that
they’ve been sitting there, but it takes something else, in this case, an economic crash, to bring them up to the fold. So you think if the crash had not happen, you think that basically,
would have been a buffer to just kind of keep these ideas under our normal layer of discourse? – Well, I think so. It’s been on my mind for many years, as I’ve noticed this sort of intrusion into the public space of these ideas and of these weaponized
identity groupings, of people being used against each other. Gay people seeming to
be used for something to hit straight people. People of different races
being used against each other, and women being used against men, this sort of this horrible thing we’ve been through in
recent years, so many times. And yeah, when I started looking into the intellectual
origins of some of this, I sort of assumed that
there were serious texts, and that these ideas came
from a serious place. And I was sort of stunned when
I started looking into it, that really, it’s a lot of assertions that are being made in these texts. There’s a famous foundational
text of intersectionality called unpacking the knapsack. Unpacking the invisible knapsack. And I sort of thought this
by Professor Wellesley, I sort of thought, well, this must be some kind of serious attempt at something. I might be wrong, but no, it’s not. It’s a few pages of assertion. And that started to make
me particularly interested. So I thought, well, how
did a few assertions by one Wellesley academic become sort of one of the bases for something that is now
being tried out everywhere. And the real shock to me as
I was researching this book was, this isn’t just, it broke out from the sort of liberal arts colleges. Like Wellesley, and a few
sort of places like Berkeley, and Judith Buckler,
and this sort of stuff. it broke out from there. But we now see it being flooding through, among other things, the corporate world, and that was a huge. I mean, I’m just amazed at the extent to which is gone through that now. And you know this. But the only people who don’t think that this stuff is coming towards them are people who are basically self employed and don’t have much connection with other people in
an office or anything. But everybody else knows that through human resources departments, commitments to diversity,
all this sort of thing, this is all coming for them. And I’m just amazed, as
I say that set of ideas which is will come on to
it are provably wrong. Are provably not gonna
work and contradictory, self contradictory. It’s just amazing to me that this should have flooded through
governments, corporations, as if it’s something that
might work when it can’t. – When you were doing
the research for the book and you found some of these documents, which as you’re talking about, the genesis of intersectionality, it’s a couple pages basically. In a weird way, would you
have preferred to have found a solid foundation to argue against? Something that even if you disagreed with all of the outcomes,
that you would have been able to fight in sort of like an even way, as opposed to fighting something that because it’s not foundational, you’re just kind of
fighting all over the place? – Right, that’s what I assumed. I thought this is gonna require some serious delving and so on. And just say, I was amazed that this, that what’s more, I mean
the academia bit in a way is the most sort of tedious
part of it for obvious reasons. Because once it breaks
into the pop culture world, for instance then it becomes we’re talking about mass entertainment, and indeed, I think mass derangement when some of these ideas go
into the pop cultural world. But these claims made,
the foundational claims are among other things, written in the type of academic jargon that is so bad, that it’s clear that it is prose-intended
only to do one of two things. The first is to hide their
meaning, because there isn’t one. And the second one is to write this badly, because the author knows that what they’re saying isn’t true and they’re trying to cover over the fact. But I mean, I give examples, and I did the audio book for this book. And, I mean, just reading
some of them out aloud. I mean I kept corpsing in the sound booth, because, I mean, they
are such as ridiculously, badly written texts. And as I say, I mean, I give examples, but this is a real, this is
fraudulence on a massive scale. – Okay, well, here’s what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna dive into it. One of the beauties of the book actually is the way you lay it
out is such simplicity. And in fact, you really only
have four chapters here, which then you have some interludes for, but it’s really four main ideas, but I’m going to put my fake glasses on for just one more moment here because I wanna read the two quotes at the beginning of the book. Because I feel you’ve you
started us off beautifully here. There’s a quote, “The special
mark of the modern world “is not that it is skeptical, “but that it is dogmatic
without knowing it.” That’s GK Chesterton. And then this next one. “Oh my gosh, look at her butt. “Oh my gosh, look at her butt. “Oh my gosh, look at her
butt, look at her butt, “look at it, look at it, look
at it, look at her butt.” By Nicki Minaj.
– N. Minaj. – N. Minaj. Douglas, why those two quotes? (laughing) Now I’m putting the
glasses away my friend. – Yeah, that’s the epigraph page. I sort of thought it signaled
what I was planning to do, what I hope I have done in the book, which is in part to just
show people what’s going on. I go in the chat room, women, I go into the issue of Miss Minaj. But yeah– – Let’s hold that for a second. – The GK Chesterton quote, it seems to me incredibly opposite to the point I’m trying to make. That we have an extraordinary
set of dogmas in our time, we’re as dogmatic as any age. But it requires I think,
somebody to step back and say, “What are the dogmas?” And I just decided that it
was worth putting them down the four that I see most closely. Gay, which is the first chapter, women, the second, the third is race, and the fourth is trans. And we basically, if I could sum up what I’m trying to do
with it in a nutshell, it’s that I think we are pretending to know about things we don’t know about. And we’re pretending not to know about things we all knew till yesterday. And these two things simultaneously, are one of the reasons why our societies are dementing ourselves. We pretend to be exceptionally sure about things like trans, for instance, when we really don’t know
very much at all about it. And I lay out, I lay out the most plausible,
decent, reasonable case for saying what in this
claim these rights claims is legitimate, and
something you think about. And what is it that’s just dementing? So that’s an example of something we pretend to be really sure about and we just don’t know
almost anything about. And then there are things that we really do know a lot about, or used to know a lot
about till yesterday, like relations between the sexes, which we pretend are like
total mysteries to us. – So okay. So I love that that, as
I said, four chapters and it’s just so simple. It’s gay, women. What and trans?
– Race. – Race and trans, thank you. Okay, so let’s just start gay. That’s the title. That’s it. No cheeky titles, no, nothing. Just gay, three letters. So I think most people watching this want gay people to live
equally under the law. And that is the way it is in pretty much every Western society. But what you talk about here is that’s not really what the gay movement is sort of about anymore, correct? – Yeah, I mean, I think
that in each of these cases, there’s an argument that
what we’re going through is a kind of over correction in some way. I would say just that
there’s always been a problem in every rights movement of knowing when you’ve got to equal and
when some people have overshot. So my view is that a lot of people don’t like equal actually. They want to go to better. This is really painful stuff. But the extent to which being gay can be presented as if
it’s actually a bit better than being straight. Being Black is not just about being equal, it’s a bit better than being White. And I get into that in the race chapter. And the example with women
is what Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF did. That women, she says the
financial crash at Lehman Brothers might not have happened if
it had been Lehman Sisters, as if women are absolutely equal to men, and also a bit better. Now, I think this is a very
dangerous overcorrection in the right swing. And with gay, it’s got a lot
of unpleasant connotations, which I go into in the book, which I think was there
and I trace where they were from the beginning of
the gay rights movement. And I particularly I go into one thing, which I don’t think anyone’s
written about before, which is what I describe as the divide between gay and queer. And I say that gay is just people who are attracted to
members of their own sex, like both you and I happen to be we’re somewhat overrepresented
in this conversation. (laughing) – It’s very hetero
normative, our conversation. – You see, being gay is not
very interesting beyond that. But there’s a divide that was always there within the gay rights movement, which was between people who are gay, and people who are queer. And queer as I describe
it is people who think that being attracted to
remember their own sex is merely the first stage
for a bigger campaign, such as for instance,
bringing down the society or queerying the society or
bringing down capitalism. And I’m amazed that this hasn’t been sort of focused on
before because actually, a lot of the pain that has come from parts of the gay rights
movement over the years has been precisely the
people who didn’t do gay. They were doing queer. They were using gay is
merely the first thing to do a bigger political project and that’s common in
each of these chapters. In each of them, there is a group trying to do something like that. – So then what do we call the gays who are not trying to
destroy Western civilization and the patriarchy, the gays like us? We’re just gay, that’s it? That’s so boring. Did you come up with a better word? Come on. – No, I’m sticking with gay on this one. But it’s a very important
thing to identify. It was always there. It was there Stonewall long words, it was there before
indeed that and it’s been and in recent years, there’s
something very interesting that’s happened with the remaining bit of the gay rights sort of groups, which is that they have become vulnerable to what I described as the
St.Georgeian retirement syndrome. The St. George after slaying the dragon and getting the acclaim
of slaying the dragon staggers around the land looking for ever more dragons
to slay and can’t find them. Will find smaller and smaller beasts and eventually, may be found
swinging his sword at thin air. With remainders of for
instance, the gay press, this is what they’re doing. They wish they’d been at Stonewall. They wish they’d been
fighting back in the day. Some of them did, but they get addicted to the barricade manner. And that’s why we have
these very strange thing and I really I go
straight for them on this. Why it turned out the
gay press that remains is basically a sort of weird, social justice warrior campaigning thing, so much so that just this past week, when my book came out,
the main gay magazines in America and Britain attacked me for misgendering Sam Smith, the pop singer who came
out as a non-binary. And I said, what my view
is, which is I don’t think there’s any such thing as non-binary. I think it’s to say, I think
it’s just absolutely impossible to determine what the difference is between saying you’re non-binary and just shouting, look at me and I think that’s what he did. And I said so I said
I’m not doing they/them, I’m not doing all this crap. And both sides of the Atlantic, the legacy gay press said
right wing maniac Murray, (laughing) outrageously misgenders
Sam Smith on radio show, all making sure they didn’t
mention that I myself am gay. – And and the best part–
– It was– – Well, the best part of the whole thing, forget that they don’t mention you’re gay ’cause they wanna take away your gay card. But unless this happened more than once, I saw the video clip of the
radio show that you were doing and the woman you were arguing against or having the conversation with. She kept saying that you have
to use his proper pronouns. So in her own sentence,
she was misgendering him. – Yes, she accused me of bullying him for not using his his correct pronouns because of course I’m in a great position to bully a multimillion pound
earning pop star, anyhow. – You were bullying
him, not bullying they. – That’s right. This woke stuff is harder than it looks. (laughing) Yeah. But as I say, this is an example of it. The basically the legacy gay
press doesn’t have much to do other than attack gays who it thinks things are letting the side
down by not being woke enough or social justice warrior enough. I just have boundless
contempt for these people. – There’s a couple
other interesting things that have happened through
an American lens on this. Did you happen to see that right now, Pete Buttigieg, who is openly gay is starting to feel the wrath of exactly what you’re talking about. Because I’ve seen now the queer
magazines or whatever it is, say he’s just a hetero normative man who doesn’t identify with being queer. He happens to be married to a man, he has sex with a man, I assume, but that’s not good enough, even for him who’s
basically a progressive. They still want him to
live under the boot. – That’s right. Well there’s, I give an
example in each chapter of where we see the
nakedly political nature of these movements now. The example, another
example before this week, one that I give in the
book is Peter Thiel. Silicon Valley, tech
entrepreneur billionaire, who is denounced by
advocate magazine states, legacy gay magazine, is
denounced by Advocate after he comes out for Trump in 2016. And Advocate says, “Peter
Teal may sleep with men “but in no way is he gay.” (laughing) So, like, we’ve all been doing
it wrong all these years. Turns out, there’s something
else you might have been doing. Anyhow, but this happens on each of these. When Kanye West comes out for Trump, he’s denounced in the Atlantic
as no longer being Black and Jemaine Greer, when she
doesn’t do the trans one in the right order is denounced
is no longer a feminist and if gay men aren’t gay, and Jemaine Greer isn’t a feminist, and Kanye West isn’t Black,
then what are we really talking about where these characteristics? And I think what we’re talking about is a naked political
push used disgracefully, using identity issues
and people’s identity as a way to carry out and
batter a political project. – Do you think that when
it comes to sexuality, there’s a particularly
perverse version of this, which is last time I had you in studio, the last thing that I
asked you about was that, because you’re gay, does it make you more sensitive perhaps, to
some of these movements? Do gay people, do we kind of see things a little bit earlier
because we are the other, that sort of thing? And you basically said, yes, your skin might be a little bit thinner when it comes to all of these issues because as an other, you
identify with the other. So in a weird way, the
social justice movement can really use gays and minorities in a really effective way because it makes it all about them. So it’s so twisted. – Yeah, there’s certainly
some of that going on. But I must say, there are several groups, you could sort of identify pushing some of these identity issues. And I think there are these people who genuinely are just
using this as politics that it’s really identifiable now. I think there are though. I mean, we should credit it. There are a lot of young
people in their teens and 20s, who have actually absorbed this worldview, who do actually believe that we live in a uniquely dangerous time as opposed to being the
most fortunate people in history ever anywhere. And who actually have imbibed these ideas that we live in this,
on the verge of fascism, sort of state and who’ve
had very little context with history and all sorts of things. And I really one of the one
of the aims of this book is it is written for those people and I really hope they read it to try to get them out of that and just suggest a more reasonable view of the situation we’re in. Because my experience in recent years, I think I say this in the introduction, is that on all of these
issues of LGBT issues, race issues and women’s issues. Basically, my experience
with the years has been, it’s been like watching a train, finally pulling in to
its desired destination, only at the very moment of
pulling into the station to suddenly get a head of steam and go shooting off down the tracks, and off the tracks and
scattering people in that wake. And it’s almost like
the moment of victory, a load of people decided
that victory wasn’t enough. – We see that all over the place. I mean, I think Sweden is
probably the best example of that, where they’ve had this great
egalitarian and society where men and women
are so obviously equal, and yet the social justice warriors are now trying to re engineer society so that there’ll be as
many women engineers, but we know that women just
aren’t as interested in that. That’s not sexist, it just is. – Right, right. I mean, this stuff is dementing because we’re trying to
run a set of programs that cannot be run simultaneously and are not going to work. We can both wax eloquent about
the number of contradictions, for instance, in these movements that’s going on at the moment. And I mean, the most striking one to me is what I described as the
hardware, software issue, where do it take us there?
– I was about to get to it. Take us there. (laughing) – The hardware, software issue, I think owe this to some
insight from conversations with our mutual friend, Eric Weinstein. But the way I see it is
that every rights movement in the late 20th century discovered that the best way
to get sympathy for your case was to say that you had a hardware issue. So gay, argues against a lifestyle choice by saying no, born this way. Move from lifestyle choice to Lady Gaga. And you see, I actually say I mean, I’m definitely talked
out of the Church of Gay for saying this, but I actually say, and I wrote this before, the
most recent study emerged in Science Magazine. It was the largest study
of gay men and women to have come out so far. I actually see what
that study did conclude, which is that it’s almost certainly got a significant hardware component, but there’s also a nurture rearing issue. There are lots of things
that are slightly buck the settled place that we fought all these a lot of gay
rights campaigns got to. But it was understandable to do hardware rather than software, because it counted the
sort of religious bigotry among others that did lifestyle choice. But the problem about this
is the other movements learned from that. The trans movement in
particular learned from that and in recent years, in super fast time, has been trying to say, absolutely nothing to do with software. This is a hardware issue. Trans people are born trans. And as I say, we actually
don’t know very much about it. But here’s the dementing
thing, if I may make a point, which is that we are
pretending at the moment in our societies that gay is
hardware, trans is hardware, but being a woman is software. Now that is dementing. – Right, so you can
somehow pick your gender, which we know is a physical reality, but you can’t pick your sexuality,
which science has proven, there’s at least a
conversation to have there. – Right. So chromosomes are have no significance but how you feel is the
most important thing. We’re trying to make hardware software and software hardware. And as I say, there’s no wonder
this sort of casualty list of feminists has kept growing because there’s a very
noble roll call of them in a chapter in the book. It’s no wonder that a group of feminists kept coming across this trip wire because it’s incredibly
insulting for a lot of women to be told as Judith Buckler and others had started off the sort
of theoretical stuff, and others have picked
it up and weaponized it. That being a woman is a
matter of performativity. As I say, you can’t run these
two programs simultaneously. But we’ve been trying and I think, that’s one of the absolute
bases for our dementing manner. – So I want to do a little
more on trans at the end, but we’ll go in order of
the chapters that you did. But can you just explain, I thought it was really interesting that you separated the
gay and trans chapters, because it is LGBT, and
I always tell people, that me as the G in this
case, I have no more insight into what a trans person’s life is like than a straight male
would or lesbian would or anything else. These are very different things, but we’ve lumped these letters together. But why did you intentionally separate it for the purposes of the book? – Well, I think they are separate things. And I say at one point in the gay chapter. The G’s don’t have very much
in common at all with the L’s and may never meet particularly. There’s certainly no spaces. G’s and L’s don’t really
have much in common. The G’s and the L’s are
very suspicious of the B’s. And the G’s and the L’s and the B’s don’t have anything really
in common with the T’s. And they’re all stuck in this
the Dave Chappelle, rather, just a week before my book came out did this rather large
audience on his Netflix show. So they’re in the same car, but they’re very different destinations. And the thing with the T
one that is so interesting, which as I say, I really
been delving into this and speaking to a lot of
people and interviewing people and really trying to work out as I say, what’s actually going on here. And one of the things I think
that’s most striking about it, and why finish on trans is that it’s obvious why
trans runs against women. I mean, so I should take, by the way, I should say, the
fascinating thing about this is, of course, the intersection lists, and social justice warriors all pretend that these are like
interlocking oppressions. And that if you undo one,
you will undo the others. Or that you’ll create
this sort of harmony, because women’s issues and gay issues and racial issues are all the same thing. Now, the point I’m trying to make here is that they are exactly wrong, because each of these issues actually runs against the other. So as I say, it’s obvious
why T runs against women, because among other things, it does things that makes claims about what women are that are highly insulting
to a lot of women. Not all but an awful lot. And then you have the run
against gay that trans presents. And I think this is an
absolutely fascinating corner that hasn’t been gone into enough, which is that as we know now from studies, young people diagnosed with
so-called gender dysphoria that what studies we have
show that around 80 to 85% of the kids diagnosed with that are going to grow out of it and are likely to become
gay men, or gay women. And we all know this
from our own experience. And I think that there has been a totally submerged
conversation in recent years, which has only happened in private. And one of the by the way, one of the nicest things about
this book starting to be read is the number of people who say to me, “Douglas, this is the conversation “my wife and I have over dinner, “and we say we cannot talk about this “outside of this house and so on.” So I say myself appointed
role is to say aloud all the things that
everyone else whispers. But I know that this conversation has been going on among
gay people in particular, which is, am I totally sure
that my sort of tomboy friend wouldn’t have been diagnosed
as actually gender dysphoric? Am I sure that my male friend who was a kind of camp teenager, if it had been now have been told, actually, you’re not gonna grow up to be a happy, healthy gay man. You’re gonna grow up to be a woman. And we’ve decided you’re actually a woman. And that hits of the absolute
root of a lot of gay men, and a lot of gay women. And we’ve just passed it over as if it’s all part of the
same happy rainbow coalition. It isn’t. It totally destroys the
other bits of the coalition. – So alright, so let’s let’s just continue
with the trans part then, since we’re in the thick of it right now. Do you think there’s
also something bizarre about the amount of energy
that the topic trans has? Where so gay rights, you
can very easily start. You can go from Stonewall, you can look over the
course of a few decades, where there were some wins, then it happened in America,
at least through states rights, and then eventually the Supreme Court, and a cultural awareness and all that. And then it was almost as if the second gay marriage happened. Everyone was kind of like this, and then trans, which wasn’t
really being talked about, and you can argue, maybe
we should have paid more attention to it
culturally, or whatever, but that it suddenly
became like the it thing and the second it became the it thing, you couldn’t take any
counter argument whatsoever. – Yeah. Time Magazine puts it
on the cover in 2015, “Trans, The Next Rights Battle.” See, again, there are people
for whom life is given meaning by having an endless
set of rights battles. And once you’ve done gay,
you gotta do that trans, and once you don’t trans, you
gotta get on to non binary, or whatever you’ve made
up today and so on. And I think that people
should be intensely suspicious about people who try to
get meaning in their lives from this St. Georgian retirement issue. And yeah, I lay out why
I think trans happened, where it did and when it
did, but here’s the thing, why trans I think is so interesting and why finish on it,
is because in some ways, it’s the one that’s betrayed
itself most in recent years. It’s shown something
clearest in recent years. I think Eric on your show
once made this point as well, that you can learn an awful
lot by seeing the steps in which rights movements take and the order they take them in. The Gay Rights Movement didn’t
start with gay marriage, and gay adoption, and gay parenting and surrogates and so on. It started with basic
rights, quite understandably, and it makes all the
way along to this bit. Now, that’s because the incremental steps are gonna be necessary
to build a coalition. So one of the things that’s become clear with trans in recent years is that they skipped all of the
sensible intermediary steps. And what I mean by that is, for instance, they skipped to the intersex one. People born with unclear genitalia, this is a really like, awkward subject. It’s not very common, but it’s definitely more
common than people think. And the people who have intersex condition are basically, I mean, basically, you could get all the sympathy
in the world for them, because it’s like people with disability. It’s like, why would
you be mean to somebody with this actual hardware thing? They didn’t choose it. And so I think that a
sensible piece would have been to start the trans thing
by starting with that. That’s an undeniable hardware issue. So why didn’t it? Why did it jump over into
sex, among other things? And why did it get to this place where immediately started
saying the big-bearded man with a penis is a woman if he says he is? Because and this is absolutely crucial, because this is not about
building a coalition. It is about using an identity group as a battering ram to do something else. And this is really key. – So alright, so let’s talk
about that something else for a second. So just in the last couple of days, you may have seen this at the LGBTQ Forum that the Democratic
presidential candidates did here in the States. They asked Joe Biden about prisons and Biden said it should
be up to the prisoner to decide what gender they
are, not up to the prison. Now, of course, this is insane. I mean, this is a truly insane thought, the idea that a man could just walk in, be brought to the prison and say, no, no. I wanna go to the women’s prison. I identify as a woman. Everyone knows this is bananas. It’s a little interesting
to me that Biden, who I don’t think buys this stuff, just keeps waiting into it because he thinks that his
path to victory or something. What do you think he or the democrats really think they’re trying
to accomplish with that when you do something that’s so obviously, something like that? Men can just pick to go
to the women’s prison. It’s so obviously counter to
any sort of sane thinking. It doesn’t seem like on its face, that it’s gonna help you in. – Well, no, but it stops
you being beaten up that day by the small, but very
vocal group of people who decide every 24 hours,
what we’re meant to think now. I mean that one amazed me in some ways and was totally predictable. I mean, we had this rile in the UK. And people said, when some people said, hang on, is this a good idea? Like instance, what about rapists? They say, “Oh, my God,
that’s just like transphobic, “unbelievably unlikely thing.” We had a case, I mentioned it in the book only a couple of years
ago where a male prisoner identifying as a woman, raped women in a women’s prison in Britain. So it’s like, we didn’t make this up, because we wanted to be
specially transphobic that way. It’s a real risk, and it happened and there are real female victims of it. Like, what do you make of that? Why do you weigh that up against as I say, what we’re meant to say today? And just quickly, I think the
fascinating thing about this is this requires a
reasonable adult to say, “Look, I’m not making
anyone, like some kind of, “I’m not trying to whip
up a mob against trans. “I’m not trying to make
trans people kill themselves “or other people kill them. “I’m saying I don’t think
it’s wise to, for instance, “allow a male to self identify.” But the reason we’re stuck in this is because we have prevented ourselves from having a conversation. What I lay out in the
trans chapter of this book is so far as I know,
the most careful attempt to delineate what is reasonable and what is totally unreasonable
in the trans debate, because we’ve got to be
able to think about this and speak about it. And the fact that Biden and
others get stuck in this mess, is because we have forbidden ourselves from talking about this or
thinking about this issue among many others. – So are you amazed,
despite writing this book, how quickly you can get the
so-called feminists of one group to betray their beliefs in
the name of some other group? So a couple times,
you’ve sort of referenced the confusion now amongst feminists because now you’re gonna
have feminists arguing that men should be allowed
in women’s prisons. You’re gonna have feminists
arguing that biological men should be allowed to
out-race and wrestle women, which we see this
happening now all the time. So they’re portraying the very cause, which they self-proclaimed
to be their cause. And they do it like that. – Yeah, because a little bit of bullying goes a very long way. And we live in a society
where a small number of people can bully the most powerful
people in the world. And it’s an amazing thing to watch this, and I blame people for being
bullied on these things. There is a particular problem, which is that on all of these issues, there is a problem for people
who work in the sort of world where they have a hierarchy
above them that is vulnerable. And most hierarchies at the moment in business, in government and elsewhere are very vulnerable, actually. And we live in this very strange position where a relatively small number of us are actually able to tell the truth. As we see it, we may be wrong. We may try stuff out and
be proved to be wrong, but a relatively small number of us actually are in a position, it seems. And it’s only because
we don’t have to answer. We have no one above us. There’s no one. If I misspeak on one of
these issues or something, I can’t be fired by anyone. I just look like an idiot
if I get it wrong and so, but that’s fine. But most people aren’t in that position. And the extent to which as I say, bad ideas have been
pumped through the system, the record speed is because too few people actually have said, hang on
a minute, hang on a minute. I’m not going with it. I’m not going with the
big-bearded man with a penis going into the women’s prison. – Are you afraid that if we
don’t get more of those voices, brave or just stupid, who whatever it is, the few people that will
talk about these things. If we don’t get more of these voices, and more and more people sort
of bow to this loud minority, that ultimately, what will happen is that when this thing
gets to the breaking point, that good people are suddenly
going to become homophobic. Good people will suddenly be transphobic. Good people will be
misogynists and racist. It would be the most twisted, awful thing. But given the choice between
not being able to say what they know, is biologically true, or suddenly being kind of bigoted against the people that are
forcing it down their throats, that decent people are
going to break that way. – Well, I think this is
happening on each of the issues. I say some of this in the gay chapter, because I suppose I can
because it’s the one card I’ve gotten this if you
wanna play that stupid game that they wanna make us play. But I mean I say there are
days sometimes I read the press where I wonder how a
heterosexual feels reading it. I give a couple of days
in the New York Times, just to give an example
where the business pages are all about being gay. The culture pages and
there’s a version of this I do in the chapter on tech,
which is very deranging, which is the same thing that
tech companies are doing, sped up the same thing The
Times and others are doing, which is basically using gay, forcing gay down straight
people’s throats to say, suck it up, love it, take it, you bigot. I just I loathe this tone and it’s just there all the time. People using gays to punish bigots, particularly in America
it’s assumed by the press and the Google companies and others that this has to do with, this is basically you’re
punishing Trump supporters. You’re making everything more
gay to punish the bigots. We have it in Britain
with a sort of presumption that after the Brexit vote was sort of the public need to have stuff, they need to be exposed
as the bigots they are. So when you search for gay
couples on Google Images, you get gay couples. But if you search for straight couples, you get force-fed gay couples. I mean, try it out anyone watching, you’ll see exactly what I mean. Why does this happen? It’s because they’re
saying, basically screw you for being so bigoted as to
look up straight couples. Now, you get this in a really
ugly way with the race one and the race chapter in this
book, it’s so difficult. This is such a perilous terrain. But let me just quickly dive into a bit. – [Dave] Yeah, please. – See, I think that this
weaponization of people’s races at the moment is just the
most terrifying one of all. I grew up in London in the 1980s. And London was already pretty diverse, very diverse actually. And I had people of every skin color at my primary school and so on. I never thought about it at all. I never thought it was
interesting or important. It just wasn’t a thing. Now, that isn’t to say that
there wasn’t racism in the past, there certainly was. But my experience is
basically that we were, we were sort of in a colorblind place or at least getting to a colorblind place. And then this extraordinary thing happens. Again, the bad ideas start
and the American campuses and then seep outwards. But you get things like
there’s Queer Studies, Black Studies, and so on. These things are basically
things to celebrate people who might have been passed over and to sort of it’s a sense by doing so. It’s a sort of correct
people being overlooked as they have been in the past, if they’re from some of
these minority groups, particularly racial minorities. Now, I think that there’s an
insidious thing that happens with the creation of so
called Whiteness Studies. Whiteness Studies is the
first study of these studies that aims to problematize a group. That is that Black Studies celebrates Black writers and others, Queer Studies celebrates so-called
queer writers and others, but Whiteness Studies is an attempt to problematize whiteness. And what you get if you try
to problematize whiteness is that you have to
problematize White people. Now I think and I demonstrate this with in reference to the pop
culture world and others. I think this has meant,
that at the point at which we should have sought
to become colorblind, suddenly, everything has
become race obsessed, color obsessed. And I think we can already
see in the last few years, we can see one of the results of that, which is that I think that and I mean, I’m just putting it out there and I put it in the
race chapter at the end. I think that one of the
things that’s come from this, and this is a really awkward discussion. But I’ve wondered in the last few years, why did IQ start to crop
up in the discussion? Subterranean at first and
then sort of creeping out. You know this, as I know this. We’ve got pretty good feelers identical, so I think I think I can save both of us for the sort of where the debate is at. And I just noticed that
audience members, for instance, at events I was doing, and
then some in the pub afterwards of side lock and asked about IQ. IQ isn’t my thing. I’m not an IQ specialist. But I started to become
aware of what was happening and what I think is happening is because cause some White
people or a lot of White people have been given this
whiteness is a problem thing. And they hear these terms
like gammon being used, and they hear, they hear
basically, the rights movement, the racial issue moving past equal and going for a bit to better
like gay and like other. They see that happening and
some White people I think, are reaching around for
a tool to hit back with. And some people have chosen
to use IQ to bash back. And this, we see here the root
of a really ugly, ugly thing. – And isn’t the most crazy part of that, and you lay this out in the book actually, that when decent people like
Sam Harris, for example, try to wade into this discussion as he did with Charles Murray of the Bell Curve, the way that he then gets attacked as if he’s a race realist or
something thing like that. But even the very minor touch of just trying to talk about something that’s gonna get you pillared too. – Sure, sure. But I mean, this is
the most dangerous one. And for America in particular. One of the extraordinary
things in recent years has been the way in which everyone talks about the globalized world and globalization, all that. But actually, one of the
consequences of this, this sort of not that noted is
that we all become vulnerable to the worst bits of each other’s culture. And the American racial problem is pretty unique to America, actually. I mean, this isn’t to say we haven’t had our own racial problems in the UK, and we haven’t had our
own racism in the UK. But the way in which the
American racial issue has sort of spread globally, and the ideas of it are spread globally, I give the example in the
race chapter in my book of the way in which some of this has sort of come to Britain
and Europe in recent years. Specific issues of the
American experience. And as I say, one of them, one of them, that’s just
very, very worrying to us, it should be worrying is the
way in which color blindness has been passed over as an aspiration and has actually been
turned into a problem. And I cite some of the
academics who started that off who’ve actually said, color
blindness is a problem. And you get to this place. You get to this place,
that Robin D’Angelo, professor of Whiteness Studies
in America got to recently, But she was actually
saying in a public talk that it’s a problem, when
people look at people for their personality, for
their character, basically, and pass over or try to
ignore the color of their skin and just go, “Wow, it
took you half a century “to totally erase the
legacy of Martin Luther King “and run straight against it.” – So when you hear these people speak, and when you’re doing
research for a book like this, what is it that they want want at the end? After they’ve posited all their theories, and let’s pretend they’re all right, and we shouldn’t look at the individual and we shouldn’t judge people
based on their thoughts, but we shouldn’t judge them based, it’s the complete reverse of what they’re supposed to be doing. What is it that they want at the end? What should happen to the
five-year-old White child who has done nothing wrong? Who get is not guilty
for his parents’ sins, or his grandparents’ sins and maybe maybe all his
ancestors had no sins related to anything racial
or anything like that? I mean, what is it that they
actually want, do you think? You think they even think
about it in that lens, or it’s just about the
immediate conquest of the day? – I’m very sort of loathe
generated tribute motive, but I think that the political push is very, very strong at this point. I think that this is the thing. Each of these groups, being
used as a battering ram, as I diagnose it, a battering
ram to bring something down. What is something? The something is what
we always hear about. The White, patriarchal,
cis, heteronormative, capitalist, et cetera, et cetera. Now, some people doing this, are doing this and I
expose them in the book, for completely, basically Marxist reasons. And I go into the Marxist
substructure in some of this, because you just can’t ignore it. It spelt out by some of the scholars and writers that I cite. They spell it out the
working class let us down. They didn’t provide the revolution, we need to go to interest
groups, identity groups to try to produce the
revolution this time. That is undoubtedly happening. It’s been one of the things
that’s been happening for the last 10 years in particular. And that’s why we get
this fundamental hitting at the root of the society to present the societies
like ours as uniquely racist, compared to what compared to where? As particularly transphobic
compared to where? And so on, and so on. And that you see, I think that
this has to be understood. That the ambition of the
attempt has to be understood in order for it to be undone. Because, one, we haven’t touched on yet, but it is absolutely
central to all of this. Is this whole discussion of privilege. I think the privilege game
and I lay this out in the book is an unwinnable game. It cannot be done. The whole implicit bias stuff which again, it’s in company after company. And you would have thought that, if you’re gonna roll something out as being the ideal for
every society on Earth, you’d have have stress
tested it a bit first. Not at all. Now, again, how do you
play this privilege game? How do you win it, actually? Is it the case that you can find out exactly where you are in this hierarchy and Work out where somebody is? And of course not. I show in the book. You can’t do this. It’s a dementing game. And it’s not just, you can’t play, you can’t win it. So why are we being
invited to spend our lives looking at the world
through this horrible, zero some reductive lens? Why are we being invited to do it? I think we are being invited
to do it by people who know it cannot be won. Not only those people,
some people actually think as I say younger people who
are being wooed into this actually think that there
is value and worth in this. But a lot of people
inviting us to do this, because they know it cannot be won and it will among other things,
demoralize us, and it will. It is a highly demoralizing game. – Well, and it’s also so
bizarrely disconnected from personal reality. So Chelsea Handler, the
comedian, for example, her new Netflix special
is all her apologizing for her White privilege. But if she really wanted to apologize for her White privilege, she
might I’ve given that slot to a Black woman, say, Monique,
or some other Black comic, but she doesn’t really mean it. You don’t really mean
to get out of the way. She means it like I’m gonna get mine and I’m gonna make myself feel bad for it so that you think I’m really really great. – Exactly and I know, one of the things that really has to be called out in this is the problem is some very
smart people, as she clearly is have worked out how to behave in this era. A lot of other people,
including some smart people who just haven’t had the same
opportunities among others are gonna keep crashing
and burning against this. So I give the example. We should spend some
time on the heterosexuals because they’re no minority. – They’re still out there, God bless them. – And they need our support, Dave. – Yes. – There’s an example I give the book of how a certain type of male works out how to behave
in the post Me Too world. And the example I give is the
example of the cuttlefish, which you may be familiar with. The cuttlefish has an ability
to the male cuttlefish, because of the ratio of men to women is not in the male’s favor. The male cuttlefish can find a way to make itself more
and make itself smaller to approximate the look of the slightly smaller female cuttlefish to sneak in under the
male consort cuttlefish so it doesn’t look like
it’s so threatening. Get under the female cuttlefish and then have its wicked
cuttlefish way with her. Now, when I was told this first, I just said, “Oh my God, “I mean, I have seen this. “I know this. “I know this male heterosexual
cuttlefish behavior.” Now, as I say, this is like
the Chelsea Handler thing. The clever ones work out
maneuvers in this area. And I know a little I’ve observed a lot of clever, smart, often
well-to-do heterosexual males in this era, learning
that this is the thing and behaving in this particular way. I give an example in the book. The moment I heard this I said oh my gosh. A colleague of mine at
the spectator in London, was at the Women’s March protests after the Trump inauguration and described to me being at a party. Sort of I can’t quite
do the American accent, but the British accent
would have been like, loaded guys, sort of jocks and like standing around with the
girls, and will be on the march so like, yo, yo, yo, yo, so totally on the side, yo,
yo, yo, like fuck Trump. They would do all this stuff. – Not bad Murray, not bad. – They were doing this and all the time, and then the last girl
in this particular group leaves the circle and one of the guys go, elbow nudges his mates, “Oh my god, man, “I can’t believe I much
pussy there is in this room.” Okay, they had made
themselves like diminutive, feminized men, in order actually to sneak in and get the women. This was pure cuttlefish. – Total cuttlefish. – Now, the point is that some people like the Chelsea Handler case, know that the safest way through
this era in for their bit is to play the privilege game, to play the whiteness problematzing
game and to do all that. I’m not interested in
Chelsea Handler’s psychosis. I’m not interested in how… What I am interested in, and
really, really worried about is how young men and women are going to get through this era if they are all made to play this game because they can’t play this game. And they need to be
helped out from this game, they need to be assisted out of it, because this has to stop. We cannot have this era go on where people’s skin color
and sexuality and gender is constantly made into
this horrible zero sum game, where women are used against men, men against women, different
race, we can’t have it. And as I say, the people who play the game like Chelsea Handler at the top have an unbelievable advantage. They are playing the game. They’ve worked the game
out, they’ve mixed the game, it’s in their favor for the time being, but millions of other lives
are going to be wrecked in trying to understand it. – So which way then do you think we should play the rules on this? Because I think this is
now suddenly the debate. We’ve seen Justin Trudeau caught
in Brown face or Black face or whatever you want to call it. This is the same guy who would gladly call any of his political opponents racist or sexist, or homophobes. And we, of course we know if
it was the conservative leader that had been caught like this, Trudeau would have said
he has to step down and the rest of it. Do you think then that the
clear-thinking people out there who don’t want to play by
these rules in the first place, have to apply their rules to them or are you supposed to let it slide and be better knowing that
they would use a trick on you to take you out for the very same thing? What do you think
tactically is the best way? Well, I think tactically, actually, it’s important to use
moments like the Trudeau one, to make a very important point. You see, I have a chapter, one of the interlude chapters in this book is about forgiveness. I can’t get people to focus on this issue, but we have to focus on it. One of the problems I cite
a really remarkable essay by Hannah Ari from the 50s on this. She writes in the 50,
the great problem of us in the world as human beings was always the problem
of action in the world, because we could never undo
an action once it happened and we had no way of seeing what the consequences of an action will be just like we can’t actually tell the consequence of all our words. How did we get around this great horror? Only by one mechanism, which was to have a
mechanism of forgiveness, because everything else in
the world cannot be undone. Everything cannot be undone, everything. And this makes us terrified,
unless we have a mechanism and the mechanism is forgiveness. Now, here’s the thing. In the modern age, and this is why I don’t like all this talk of
young people being snowflakes, and so on, so forth. No. I think it’s a completely reasonable, completely reasonable reaction to a world in which action has
never been more perilous because in the social media
world, everything else, anything at any point
can destroy you utterly. It’s not surprising that people
become incredibly fragile about action in the world. But at the same time
that action in the world has never been more dangerous. We spend no time in our societies thinking about the only mechanism that ever got us out, forgiveness. So we can try it on Justin
Trudeau and it’s worth doing. The point with Trudeau should not be to play the game back. Ha ha. We know how you’d have behaved if it turned out the Stephen Harper did Black face all the time
or if Donald Trump turned out like Justin Trudeau who couldn’t remember how many times he’d been
caught on camera doing it and wasn’t sure. I mean, it turns out maybe
there were a lot of times he just blacked up for himself. (mumbles)
(laughing) I mean, it seemed to be his thing, But the thing is not to
do that and say ha ha, we’ll play it back to you, but to say, okay, let’s stop the game for a moment. Let’s just stop this game for a moment. We don’t think that you are
a big old racist, Justin, because you had this sort
of fancy dress fetish thing for some time and it is embarrassing. We all make embarrassing
mistakes in our lives. Prime ministers and plebeians alike. We’re all gonna make mistakes. So let’s use that this as
some kind of learning moment and let’s specifically
say, we will treat you with the kind of benefit of the doubt that we would like to see you try to do to other people in future. So we’re not gonna pretend
you’re a big horrible racist. But don’t use that doing
that in the future again. Why don’t we use this as such a moment? Because I think we’ve
talked about this before. To a great extent, everything
in the public sphere in the last decade has reduced to how can I expose my opponent as a big old, homophobic,
transphobic, racist, anti female? And this has to stop, because we’re stopping
ourselves from thinking. We’re stopping ourselves from thinking. I mean, I give the example
in the women chapter here. What could we have been thinking about? How about motherhood? How about motherhood? Whilst we were playing
these were playing games about which Hollywood actress
was paid less millions than she could have been, whilst we were boring ourselves with that, why did we as Camille Paglia said, why did we bypass motherhood
as a serious discussion? Because I think we all know, the extent to which women in our society are unhappy with the
fact that that question remains pretty badly
addressed by feminism. Why an increasing number of girls were basically lied to
by the society said, you can have a baby at
any stage basically, and didn’t didn’t explain the
different biological clocks of men and women. Or said so fine, you can
just freeze your eggs. That’ll do it, and then end
up at a particular point in their 30s, where they raise hell, hell, this actually, I was told
something that wasn’t true. Why don’t we address questions like that, instead of being poured onto
these dementing wastes of time? So one of the things I really want to do is to say to people, not
just let’s understand what we’re being invited to and say no, but identify what we
should be doing instead. Because we should be
doing absolutely anything instead of this. – All right, well that is a
beautiful closing statement. I will ask you one more question
to add on to that, though, which is the same question that I asked you last
time you were in studio. And you’ve sort of
referenced this already. But it seems to me that
there is a bravery deficit all across the world right now, which is why there’s such
a small amount of people willing to talk about these things. When I asked you last time,
what makes you, Douglas Murray, what makes you willing to do this? And you said something to the effect of that you might find out if
you stick your toe in the pool that the water is not that cold. You did that in a better
British accent than I? Can you just expand on that a little bit, ’cause I do think we’re
getting to a breaking point with the average person. The person that’s watching this or listening to this right now, they’re ready to break
in the right direction, all of the things that you’ve
laid out here for an hour, they’re on board, but still
at the most personal level, they’re still afraid. What could you give them? – I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I say in the introduction of this book, when I was researching this book, I talked to a friend in the British Army and he introduced me to a
metaphor that was on my mind, what would become on my mind. There’s a system that the British and American military have, it’s called the Great Viper in Britain. And it’s an anti landmine device. You put it on the backward
track, you fire this big missile, and it has a long cord
that unravels behind it and the cord is filled with explosives, and it goes all the way
across the minefield. And once it’s across the
minefield, it detonates. Now I realize this is what I
wanted to do with this book. This is my Great Viper. The aim of it, the
point is it cannot clear the entire minefield, but it can make it safer
for people to cross. My aim of with thinking out loud, on all of the hardest issues of our time, and the ugliest and the most perilous and the most dangerous issues of our time, is firstly, that it’s
absolutely fascinating. It’s just fascinating. I mean, the stuff I
talk about in this book, I think nobody has talked about before about why for instance, there is some always going to be some residual
issues about homosexuality and race, and being a woman and more. The reason I do this is
because it’s fascinating, but also I want other people. I want people not to be destroyed for trying to think about things that actually are things we
should be thinking about. And in recent years, like you, I’ve been so moved by the
fact that I thought… The thing used to say was like, well, young people aren’t interested. Young people aren’t into it. I just have found in recent years, I’m sure it’s the same with you. I think we’ve talked
about this in private. Young people, people
in their teens and 20s are turning out things,
and they are just great. They are just great. They are so sharp, and I find
them everywhere in the world. I travel all the time. And just a few weeks
ago, I was in Reykjavik. And somebody on the street
comes over and says, “Hey, you’re Douglas Murray. “I know you from from YouTube.” And this guy in Reykjavik was exactly at the point in the conversation
that you’re at in LA, and I’m at in London, and
loads of other people around. This has got the ability to actually get us forward on issues. And what has struck me and just really moves me
is that in recent years, I’ve been asking people in audiences of events I’ve been
speaking at and at events I’ve been in the audience
of why they’re turning out. Because the audience is I experience I’m sure this is I
noticed this case with you and events you do and the
ones that Jordan has done, some of the events I’ve done with Jordan and with Sam and others. We don’t all agree on stuff. And there are other people
I could add to this, who we agree with even
less but the point is, I started to say to
people a little while ago, why are you here? And you basically get two answers. The first is I’m fed
up of sitting on my own watching YouTube videos, great as that is. I’m not dissing it. But they say basically, I
wanna meet other people, not who agree with me,
not who agree with me, but who are thinking about the same thing. And so there’s a turnout
of audience for some of us, that’s basically rooted in that. But here’s the other thing. The second thing they say, and I just it’s incredibly moving, is that they say always a version of this, which is I want to be near people or in the same room as people
who are telling the truth. And I want to be near them,
to see them to witness it, to be in the same room,
because I would like to tell the truth in my own life. I would like to be able
to be a truthful person. And so much in our culture,
just tells them lie. Engage yourself in little lies. And that’s why I mind
about the little lies. I don’t think the little
lies are just little lies. I don’t think the, why can’t you pretend there’s such a thing as gender queer and non binary? And do they then, I don’t
think it is just a little lie. I think we’re being primed
for bigger lies down the road. All of history suggests that
if you demoralize people with little lies, you can make them have to agree to huge lies. And you see here’s the thing, as I say, is it’s a terrible thing for our culture that we should end up in this position where people starting off in their lives need to be near anyone who
seems to be telling the truth as they see it. And I’m not being self
aggrandizement on that. God knows I don’t have all the answers any more than anybody else does. And I mean, just, there’s a
heck of a lot we’ve got to do, and an awful lot of thinking
that needs to be done. But I find this such a moving thing, that young people in their teens and 20s, they want to tell the
truth to their colleagues, their friends, their contemporaries, to their boyfriends, or girlfriends. They want to live in truth. They want to be exploring
truth, and they can just, that’s one of the great things that I just think we can do in our time. People like us, and
just millions of people who many of whom don’t have a voice yet, but who will have one,
who will have a voice and who I think just we
have such an opportunity now to get off the lies, and to get on to what we should actually
be doing with our lives. – Douglas, you are one of the clearest, cleanest, most brutally
honest thinkers that I know, and I’m proud to call you a friend. And what I’m gonna do is
put my fake glasses on one more time, even though I don’t need
to read the title of book. “The Madness of Crowds.” The link is right down below
if you’re watching on YouTube, and I thank you my friend. And I hope that next time we
will do this in a room together and then we’ll break some bread after. Sound good?
– It sounds great. As long as we can raise the glass as well. – Well, at least one but knowing us. – Not just the bread. – And you guys can
follow Douglas on Twitter at Douglas K. Murray. Thanks, Douglas.
– It’s been a great pleasure. – If you’re looking for more honest and thoughtful
conversations about politics instead of non-stop yelling,
check out our politics playlist and if you want to watch full interviews on a variety of topics, watch
our full episode playlist all right over here. And to get notified of all future videos, be sure to subscribe and
click the notification bell.

100 thoughts on “Revealing The Origins Of The Current Madness Of Crowds | Douglas Murray | POLITICS | Rubin Report

  1. No, it started in 1920 or so… 2008 is just when people became widely aware of it through the internet. We spoke up and "they" doubled down.

  2. Well damn. I tried it. I looked up "Straight couples" and found mostly gay couple images. I'm in America.

    I am a supporter of human happiness, regardless of gender or whatever, but I'm pretty pissed Google is putting their thumb on the scale with what was obviously not a search for Gay information.

  3. The reason trans has gotten so huge is that it is a minority oppressed group white people can join. Think about. SJW movements are largely made up of pper and middle class white people. The problem is that most of them have to be allies, they cant be one of the chose people. Trans allows people to become a minority at little to no cost. You can just say you're NB, do nothing more than have a funky hair cut, and now you're one of the chosen people. That's why it has gained so much force behind it. It allows white SJWs to "join" an oppressed group.

  4. I spent much of my youth being told I was less than a man and now I am told that I am less than a man who feels that he is a woman. I cry.

    n.b. A few years after birth control was legalized, abortion was rolled out because sex without consequences wasn't good enough?

  5. The gay stuff. Same with me. Just some average dude who happens to be attracted to men. Not secret in any aspect of my life but you also might not know when I'm walking down the street or in light conversation. I have had my gay card taken away. I have been labeled internally homophobic. I'm the guy who could live next door to you and you'd have no idea other than being with my partner. No rainbow flags flying, no LGBT paraphernalia, no purple hair… just some guy. That is why I've never been attacked for my sexuality, even in the most conservative areas of the country

  6. I'm old enough to remember conservative people who questioned the destruction of traditions, by claiming it was a slippery slope. They worried "What is next? Will they start to tell us how to raise our children?" Oh how they mocked and ridiculed the idea. Human nature never changes. These values are not arbitrary. All culture naturally degrades. From the Israelites to Athens and Rome, when the ruling class rejects the middle class common people family values, and forces their decadent boundry breaking chaos on everyone, the foundation crumbles and the end comes soon after. Only after complete collapse can regular people rebuild on their own, from the same ideas of Prudence, Charity, Faith, Forgiveness, hard work, personal responsibility.

  7. @44:40 IQ may not be your thing and you may not be a specialist, but IQ is absolutely the single most important measure when it comes to outcome differences among different ethnicities. It just is. It's not some kind of cudgel being picked-up by the evil racists, it's a legitimate point to be made and it is not "dangerous" and "worrying," as you've said.

  8. I agree with what you both say about the identity politicians using "others". Go into any Facebook group having to do with Autism and you will see how these vile Marxists are preying upon the Autistic. That's why they rail against ABA, because it's about teaching personal responsibility and life-skills, which goes against the Intersectional Feminist dogma that is behind victim culture.

  9. I'm definitely in the "I can't and won't play this game" camp. Just ordered Douglas's book in Kindle version. Can't wait to find some time to read it.

  10. The "IQ topic" is raised as a defense, not an attack. 70% of the US population is being blamed for the poor performance of the 13%, after trillions have been redistributed to them to no lasting effect.

  11. You're so right Dave. My daughter is white (and so am I btw). I am really cautious of this white guilt being put on her. I have taught her to be kind and respectful to EVERYONE. I basically teach the golden rule…treat other people the way you would want to be treated. She is nice to everyone…gays, lesbians, blacks, hispanics, transgender, etc. You know why? because she doesn't see differences! wow, what a concept right? why would putting her in a school with affinity groups and social justice education be good for any child? AND this is important and for parents: don't let your kids be mean or disrespectful. PUNISH them for god's sake. Get off your phones and get your kids off theirs and live in reality. so i'll get off my soapbox now. thanks to everyone who reads this.

  12. Cuttlefish, good one! My female friend calls them "sneaky dicks" (translations from other language), and she said, she laugh, when she heard one Canadian professor call them "sneaky fuckers"! My fun note is, that she is also psychologist as Dr Saad. It must be the observation…

  13. My son, who is straight, raised in the 80's, was an open minded, accepting chap until all of these movements- gay, race, sex, etc- started shoving it down his throat. Now, I'm sad to say, he has become a anti gay, racist, sexist, etc.. It is true that going beyond wanting acceptance and equal rights (which is good) to thinking you're better than other groups (especially white males) gets a negative reaction.

  14. 46:05 The word you're looking for is 'pilloried', not 'pillared'. A pillory is a device first used in medieval times to publicly shame criminals. Also known as the 'stocks' or a 'whipping post'.

  15. Since your return in September, I have not enjoyed the new format for uploading videos. The channel seems slammed with multiple short clips rather than the full episodes. I understand this gets the channel more clicks, etc. but it is not near as user friendly as it once was.

  16. Awesome to see that great minds that use logic or feelings! Douglas Murray, Ben Carson, Jordan Peterson, Roger Scuton and Thomas Sowell are among the few great minds of our time.

  17. I think this all started the moment the "web" became at age, resulting in mainstream media couldn't keep up the pace. Additional, the internet revealed that mainstream media (in general) were ALMIGHTY sources to get your info, revealing mainly that we were lied up on, feeding us half truths.

  18. I don't think anyone Douglas is trying to reason with actually read books. You can't write things over 140 characters, didn't you know that?

  19. Clear back in the 1990s we were starting to be warned in academia not to say “Merry Christmas,” or Indian or Oriental. Political correctness already was starting.

  20. I actually don't know anyone who is trans, however the handful of men I see wandering around my town dressed in women's clothing all seem to have issues.

    One is said to have been very close to his sister and when she died he had a mental breakdown and started wearing her clothes, another I've talked to only very briefly and you can tell there's something else there going on mentally, like he often has his thumbnail between his teeth.

    These people are not "fine" as they're believed to be, they seem to have deep issues and the cross-dressing is just one outward manifestation of that, I'm prepared to go with the science that there is such a thing as gender disphoria but I'm very suspicious of the way it's being used as a reason to not help people who may actually need help.

  21. If you ask me, I am sure all this craziness what is going on is psychological warfare — to weaken humans morally, spiritually, intellectually and physically.  The easiest targets are children and the youth for the most part, because they are the most vulnerable.  Once you control the minds of the youth, you can control most anything in society because the younger generations are the future.

  22. Went on google images and typed in "straight couples"

    First 20 results:

    1.) Straight couple.
    2.) I think gay teenagers.
    3.) Straight couple.
    4.) Picture of wedding cake decorations – one is two women the other is two men.
    5.) Lesbian couple and child.
    6.) Lesbian couple.
    7.) Straight couple.
    8.) Gay couple.
    9.) Gay couple.
    10.) Straight couple.
    11.) Straight couple.
    12.) Straight couple.
    13.) Straight couple.
    14.) Straight couple.
    15.) Straight couple.
    16.) Straight couple.
    17.) Straight couple.
    18.) Gay couple.
    19.) Lesbian couple.
    20.) Lesbian couple and child.

    In 20 images nearly half are same-sex couples.

  23. The Frankfurter School with Herbert Marcuse · Theodor Adorno
    · Max Horkheimer · Walter Benjamin · Erich Fromm · Friedrich Pollock · Leo Löwenthal · Jürgen Habermas · Alfred Schmidt · Axel Honneth · Siegfried Kracauer · Otto Kirchheimer

  24. I think the idea of colour blindness is interpreted in two different ways, I've seen people desperately trying to pretend that colour differences don't exist, like I'm not allowed to use the term "black" around certain people (all of them white btw) because it's deemed racist, this is different from what I typically understand by the term which is that I can see the physical differences between different races but I don' place any stock in that as a means to assess a person.

    There needs to be more explanation of this divergence.

  25. Forgiveness cannot occur without justice for if one forgives without justice, the ability to reconcile is rendered null and the abuse will continue and the victims will seek vengeance, because the crime committed against the victim did damage. Trudeau must be held to account for what he has done, and only then can he be forgiven. Your suggestion turns forgiveness into a passive bow to an abuser and a further damage to the abuser's victims by helping the abuser pay no consequence for what he/she has done.

  26. Douglas Murray is an epitome of a British gentleman. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. Real eye and brain candy.

  27. The Alphabet People have ruined modern Western Civilization. Need to break their strangulation of general public discourse and free up some air.

  28. "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
    G.K. Chesterton

  29. Clear thinking people such as myself are convinced that American'ts are in the midst of undergoing a much-deserved societal collapse. This collapse has come about because basically American'ts are an evil, immoral people hell-bent on overtly & covertly exporting their collective mental illness worldwide. A pox on your collapsing nation of murderers, war criminals and degenerates.

  30. Something mentioned about the 41 minute mark; I had someone yell at me circa 2004 at a university thing about since I didn't read gay literature, I wasn't well read. It was the only thing that determined if you were well read is if you read books on a topic that you (or I in this case) had no interest in.

  31. Do we still believe that West won a cold war? Am I the only one seeing KGB fingerprints all over this madness? Why western societies become so self destructive? Douglas is my favourite guest of Ruben Report.

  32. The fall of Rome ! Started with no sexual boundaries. Vomitoriums, milk baths , orgies…. Meanwhile the enemies were circling …..

  33. IQ comes up with race because you cannot hide it, we have a century of research on the subject and the data is stronger than ANY OTHER FIELD social sciences area. You do not need to be a professor to read his research, anyone willing to look can see what is true and what isn't. We know for a fact that genetics is the majority component in IQ, it isn't All there is but it's the biggest by far. We also know that several categories of societal problems arise from this dividing line. And everyone who dares say it out ooud is threatened by society with joblessness, vilification and in some cases outright violence.

  34. Long ago, Malcolm X warned African-Americans against the White Liberal, stating that he will use the black man to club the White Conservative, but in no way is he friend of the Black Man (This may well apply to identity pawns as well). "The white conservatives aren't friends of the N.gro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the N.gro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the N.gro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the N.gro, and as the N.gro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox. One is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat you."

  35. This is brilliant. Thank you to Dave and Douglas. Thank you.I am so glad my daughters passed through early life, school and puberty before any of this nonsense had evolved. We all had a lucky escape. Ironically enough, my youngest is doing third year psychology and nailing it. Loves it. She got into it because of a real urge to study the criminal mind. Sometimes I get the feeling that her greatest desire would be to interview Hannibal Lecture …

    But I think her greatest work load in the years to come will be sorting out the damage that these concepts have done to an entire generation, unasked for….

  36. The glasses work. Don't know why, they just do. Great talk, I only disagreed with the IQ thing. I don't think the truth is "ugly" as Douglas states, it can be freeing. Frankly, it's the truth, and it must be addressed. As well as the IQocracy we have in the world, especially in the silicone valley, as we head towards a technocracy.

  37. SLIMEBAG-LEFTY agenda. If you don't subscribe to it, "you are not gay enough"
    Or not feminist enough. Or not tranz enough.
    Roll them all up, and torch them!

  38. WE MUST STOP REWARDING Lefty behavior. Chelsea Handler should be made an example of. Burned at the stake, or something like that – in a psychological equivalent. Shunned for life and ridiculed, or something

  39. Peter ButtyJudge a progressive? WTF, hes a corporate cucklord. Nancy Pelosie paraded him around to collect cuck money from millionaires and billionaires for his failed campaign. Progressives are not identity politics regressives, at least in my book. Progressivism is about class politics. Identity politics is ancient bigot bullshit from prehistory ages. How can that be "progressive"?

  40. they teased James Damore for not being well spoken (he is tho, just not enthusiastic and witty). If you did that to one of them they blame you for ablism. Its insane

  41. So refreshing to see two articulate intelligent men, who happen to be gay, speaking in such a rational coherent way about this mind numbing SJW funk, in which we are currently suffering!

  42. I agree with his assessment of the problem but not with what he believes to be the cause. The most radical of these people seem to be quite financially well off. It seems that GOOD economic conditions is what allows the freedom to start making up things. An example of "good times creating weak mean , weak men creating bad times, bad times creating strong men and strong men creating good times". The times are just too good and the people are Godless.

  43. There would have been no alt right without the attacks, constant and increasingly racist, on white men from all centers of societal power.

  44. The book is a FANTASTIC and much needed dose of COMMON SENSE!!!
    Thank you for this effort- may it spread like wildfire and make a dent in the madness. Truth is very attractive, so this book should really do well!

  45. Thank you Dave Rubin for what you do! Douglas Murray is a blessing to humanity on the order of JBP! His sensible , articulate clarity is sorely needed at this time.

  46. Douglas Murray just dropped the mother of all truth-bombs, the meta-truthbomb reigniting thinking and discourse, and I believe a critical start to us mapping our way out of the Marxist maze eating away at our life energy.

  47. "We are pretending to know about things we don't know about. And we are pretending not to know about things we all knew till yesterday." -Douglas Murray

    A perfect quote to summarize the Western world today and people in general. This makes me think of another great quote:

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana

  48. I know you speak freely and I'm a huge fan but Katie Hopkins paid a huge price just because someone was "offended". Sad but true, as they say.

  49. feminists addressing 'motherhood' would only be addressing one side of the matter – but that's nothing new, under the gynocentric status quo. 1:00:00

  50. This stuff became weaponized after the last election in a large part as a result of machinations of the entrenched democratic establishment in conjunction with the bereaved Clinton campaign and the press all pushing an hysterical agenda, slicing and dicing the electorate into ever finer subdivisions of victimhood. It’s absolute insanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *