Welcome to The Idea Revolution | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

Welcome to The Idea Revolution | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

As of this recording, almost a million of
you watched my chat with Jordan Petersen and Ben Shapiro last week on YouTube, and a few
hundred thousand more of you have listened to the audio podcast. While mainstream media continues to spoon
feed the masses soundbite clickbait, we’re doing some real proof of concept work right
here to prove that you are a lot smarter than they think. While mainstream focuses on Trump’s diet coke
habit we’re here talking about the marxist roots of postmodernism and the secular and
religious arguments over where rights come from. I received a slew of emails from you guys
about Jordan often saying things that go over your head, but then you pause the video and
do some research yourself. I’ll be totally honest with you, sometimes
he says things which fly by me as well, and while I usually try to pause him to clarify,
obviously I can’t always do that in the midst of the conversation. While you’re learning through these conversations,
know that I’m learning right next to you. After the Peterson / Shapiro livestream, Jordan
got in a well deserved nap and then spoke to a sold out crowd of 2000 people at the
Orpheum theater here in LA. Jordan was nice enough to let me introduce him as a surprise
to the audience and I gotta tell you it was truly the best reception I’ve ever received. I did a couple minutes of stand up, cracking
jokes about lobsters and the importance of cleaning your room, but there was something
beyond just the laughs that I could feel on stage. The room felt lit with intellect and curiosity
— 2000 strangers coming together to hear a middle aged psychology professor talk about
how fixing yourself is the only way to fix the world. This simply wouldn’t have happened even two
years ago because so many of you who dare think differently were silenced by false cries
of racism and bigotry. People like Jordan and Ben are using their
intellect to say what they believe and that in turn is showing millions of people out
there that they can do the very same thing. Whether you like or hate Trump, this idea
revolution is directly because of his election. Everything is up in the air right now from
our political institutions, from the to our educational institutions to our media institutions. As Eric Weinstein and I discussed a few months
back, perhaps some of us would’ve preferred less upheaval to get us to address the problems
with these institutions, but perhaps that more selective, tactful upheaval never happens. As I said to Eric, he wanted a panther in
a china shop, but all that was available was the bull. As the Rolling Stones taught us, You can’t
always get what you want, but you get what you need. As most of you probably have seen already
we followed up our chat with Peterson and Shapiro with the Brothers Weinstein, Eric
and Bret. It was their first public appearance together
ever and I have to say my brain is still in recovery mode from taking in so many high
level, important ideas. If the dial of ideas was turned on low for
the last few years it is quickly moving into the hot position. The dial is moving because the conversations
we’re having here are finally starting to leak out into the rest of the world. That’s why thousands of you are showing up
at Jordan Petersen events and at live Sam Harris podcasts. And by the way, Sam and Jordan disagree on
pretty much everything, especially the most fundamental existential questions that exist. Yet we’re all on the same side because the
only real enemy is the authoritarians who want controls so they can have us silenced. Once you realized that, you suddenly will
find yourself with many more allies and many less enemies. So it probably goes without saying that I’m
feeling incredibly positive about the direction things are heading and I hope you are too. This month, we’re going to continue having
real conversation with people who are really affecting the world with their thoughts and
their actions. We’ve got a 5 time bank robber who became
a Georgetown Law professor, a former head of FEMA, and a nuclear power expert running
for governor of California. Also I’m thrilled to share with you that we’re
also doing 5 shows in 5 days with 5 experts on 5 different presidents of the United States
to celebrate Presidents week. From some founders like Jefferson, Adam and
Madison to JFK and to Lincoln, the stories of our past are as relevant as ever as we
fight for the liberty of today. Oh, and yes, we’ll be doing plenty more of
the 3 person sit downs as well. Who do you want sitting across from each other
let us know in the comments right down below. After all, there’s a Idea Revolution happening
right now and it may not be televised but it’s definitely going to be streamed…

100 thoughts on “Welcome to The Idea Revolution | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

  1. Hey Dave, not sure if anyone else has been experiencing this, but for the past few days since the stream with JP and BS, my feed on YouTube has been filled with videos criticizing you (which are mostly slander), and not been recommending your new videos. Again, don’t know if anyone else is experiencing anything similar, but I thought I’d put this out there.

  2. Thomas Sowell, saw that you were going to maybe have him on with the Benjamin Owen clip. dude is a straight up intellectual icon and makes complex concepts so easy to understand.

  3. Ye being funded by the Koch brothers to push autistic libertarian neoliberal ideas is such a revolution- like wow how has no one had the idea of hosting people to debate things online before? Honestly amazing. Without you how else would we know that feminism is dumb, or about the 'cultural marxist' conspiracy', or that capitalism is perfect in every way?

  4. Rubin, I just found you. I have been very disconnected from social media platforms. Congratulations on your progress here! You keep pointing out to the notion that something is happening, or reasoning why things are (cross pollinating)….I am happy tell you why and I will share what may happen next. Although, who cares about my feelings; bc as far as I can tell, individual feelings don’t matter anymore.

  5. Try to get an interview with Andres Duany. Never heard of him? Here's your homework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upZSbksrJXE

  6. Charlie Kirk and David Pakman
    Potholer54 and Steven Crowder
    …and to complete my wishlist – get Sam Seder on the show.

  7. Jocko Willinck, Mark Divine, Thomas E. Woods Jr., Roger Scruton, Rodney Stark, Matt Ridley, Tim Ball, Indur Goklany…

  8. Get an anarcho-capitalist to explain how a stateless society might work, like Tom Woods, Hans Hermann Hoppe, or David Friedman.

  9. What the Weinstein brothers and Peterson have been saying reflects more of an "idea evolution" to me than a revolution — an incorporation and harmonization of many ideas, even seemingly contradictory ones (Weinsteins mentioned looking at conservatism, progressivism and libertarianism seriously as all having some valid points to consider — fears of repression of valuable tradition, oppression of weaker groups, and centralization of state power in a minority). Lichtenberg: "He could refract an idea which everyone thought simple into a hundred others, as  the prism does with sunlight, each finer than the other, then gather together a host of others to recreate the white  light of the sun, where others merely saw disorder and confusion." Alex Kierkegaard: "Which is why I say that true genius ultimately lies, not in proving anyone wrong, but in proving everyone right." You need EVERYTHING for a genius — all the required ingredients — not just one or two, which is why he's called a "genius", "he whose soul is more expansive and struck by the feelings of all others; interested by all that is in nature never to receive an idea unless it evokes a feeling; by everything excited and on which nothing is lost." (Encyclopédie). Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains.
       For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
       So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth  (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
       All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.

  10. Quote: Perhaps the most pervasive and insidious error in a democracy, after the myth of equality, is the demand that citizens educate themselves on the issues of the day and form responsible opinions on them, in order to be good voters. This is such an astonishingly stupid demand that it defies belief. Take the 2008 global financial crisis, for example. We are talking about such a complicated matter that the greatest authorities on it — people who have devoted their entire lives to economics and hold half a dozen advanced degrees each and all the university chairs and institutional presidencies in the world between them — can't agree on what went wrong or what should be done about it, and you're asking taxi drivers and ballerinas and brain surgeons to drop everything they are doing in their lives and start reading up on economics in order to make up their own minds on it. But if they did that — for thankfully they don't, no one does, not even those who make a living out of pretending to: the pseudo-intellectuals — who would drive our taxis or dance in our ballets or operate on our brains? And do you really want the person who cuts your skull open to stick sharp knives into your brain to have spent the previous night sleeplessly poring over economics textbooks? Not even smart people, like the brain surgeon, who at least possess the capacity to understand the issues, should concern themselves in the least with them, let alone the mass of average and sub-average Joes who are stuggling on a daily basis to merely survive. In the last resort even I, the most intelligent lifeform in the known universe, haven't much of an opinion on what went wrong in 2008, never mind on what would be the most effective way to fix it. From what little I have heard — and I could be very wrong about all this, which I have no qualms admitting, which is why I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject or demand that my poorly informed opinion should count for anything — it seems that some big institutional lenders made some bad bets and became insolvent, but letting them fail would have hurt the economy — and thus the general public — far more, in the short and medium term, than the public's paying for the financiers' mistakes out of its own pocket, so this is what was done, and under the circumstances it seems to me a wise move. Of course the rules should be changed afterwards, to prevent or at any rate minimize the chances of a repeat of the incident, and that too apparently has been done or is being done, but I'll be fucked if I am going to pore over the relevant legislation to make sure, and not only because, having had no formal economics education, I'd understand fuck-all about it. The subject is about as boring as a subject can get to me, and thus I would be guaranteed to not make much progress in it, regardless of the amount of time I spent trying to. And wouldn't it be a waste to occupy a brain as powerful as mine on such a pointless exercise? Why not just let the people who love this stuff so much they have devoted their lives to it study it and come to some conclusion between them? That's what I or any reasonably intelligent ruler would do if were in charge and forced with this kind of issue: we'd stick the top ten or twenty authorities on it in a room and let them devise a solution, and that's how we'd settle every complex, specialized issue — always, of course, with interdisciplinary committees overseeing everything and making their own recommendations, and all the major proposals being examined at the highest level, first by my cabinet of exceptional personalities and geniuses, and then personally be me, to ensure that they'd all blend harmoniously together without compromising my government's long-term strategic vision. In contrast, we now have the absurd demand that grocery store baggers and burger flippers who failed to finish high school spend their every waking hour studying economics, medicine, information technology, space science and climate physics in order to — as the pseudo-intellectuals put it — become "good voters" — i.e. completely useless retards who neglect their own jobs in order to try to cram the entirety of human knowledge inside their brains in their "free time" — which of course would no longer be free, which would mean that all these "good voters" would become physically sick and mentally psychotic social pariahs who hate themselves and everyone around them, on top of not really knowing anything about anything or being useful on anything at all — which, come to think of it, pretty much perfectly describes a pseudo-intellectual! This, then, is what the pseuds are trying to accomplish with their absurd advice: turn everyone into themselves, but thankfully for us they are failing, and the percentage of pseudo-intellectuals in the general population remains small and steady, while normal people continue becoming taxi drivers and ballerinas and brain surgeons without caring about economics at all, or about pretty much any other subject that's being discussed in the news, to the greater benefit of our civilization, which needs dedicated, passionate specialists far more than airhead know-it-alls who skim everything without really understanding anything. If everyone tried to become a "good voter", the way pseudo-intellectuals imagine him, spending half the day reading the newspapers and the other half arguing about them, the certain and obvious result would be complete collapse of civilization, which can only survive and thrive on the efforts of those who don't read newspapers and mind their own business. The proof is in the pudding: ask anyone you want if they'd prefer their brain surgeon to keep up with developments in the field of brain surgery or to have a well-informed opinion on the third-world immigration issue and you'll see that, all the inane bleating and brainwashing of the pseudo-intellectuals aside, everyone agrees with me — and if the brain surgeon should ignore the news, you can BET YOUR ASS that everyone else, who's much less qualified to understand it, should too — especially in an absurd voting system in which the opinions of brain surgeons count for exactly the same as those of teenagers or grandmothers or mental health patients.
       I hope that I have managed to convey how enormously beneficial to our culture the voters' much-maligned "apathy" to the issues of the day is. That's how the politicians occasionally manage to make a good decision — as in the 2008 crisis —: by taking advantage of the voters' lack of interest with issues that don't concern them, and leaving them up to the experts (the much-maligned "technocrats", which is yet another malicious term for something good and useful — for expertise itself, in fact — invented, of course, and perpetuated by pseudo-intellectuals).
       So is the democratic method completely useless for the administration of an advanced society? Not exactly. A committee of experts should be allowed to reach a decision by vote if there doesn't seem to be some clear-cut authority among them, or if, after extensive deliberations, they've failed to achieve consensus. As long as voting is employed in a restricted fashion, within a small circle of equals, or at least near-equals, in the oligarchic manner, it can be helpful under the right circumstances; but allowing hundreds of millions of nobodies to vote on macroeconomic policy or any other of the myriad extremely complicated and closely interrelated matters that advanced societies are facing today is pure folly that could only be seriously advocated by a pseudo-intellectual. It was pure folly, as all the ancients are telling us, even in ancient Greece, where nobody worked and they all sat around all day and had plenty of time for study and discussion, since they all owned slaves, and it's even crazier now when everyone works — when the concept "free man" has become extinct, since even billionaires work like slaves (more than them, in fact) — while the issues our societies are facing are immeasurably more complex than what the Greeks were up against.
       In short, don't listen to the pseudo-intellectuals, listen to the experts instead, and what the experts are saying to you — what they have been saying to you since the very invention of expertise — is to "shut the fuck up and mind your own business". – Alex Kierkegaard

  11. I just found someone who should be heard. She's a former social justice advocate and is a very articulate and smart woman. She's a Brit, but don't hold that against her… https://youtu.be/ZLr4w_WGTJ0

  12. I would like to see Robert Smigel, since he is also a comedian and since he did this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j556MWGVVqI

  13. Why not have someone like Slavoj Zizek on the show? All the talk about marxists and the dangerous postmodernists, why not invite one in? I cant think of many others from the left like the flamboyant Zizek to crunch down on the political dabate from the "other side".

  14. Ahh Rubin you are drunk on possibility not reality. A tiny minority isn't a revolution. The majority of people simply don't want to engage in these conversations nor watch these types of videos. A million views is a GLOBAL statistic it isn't a national or regional statistic. Old media isn't dying it simply provides what the regional and national masses want. This doesn't mean there isn't a market for the long form thoughtful content but it is only possible because you draw from a non regional customer pool. Yes a few thousand people can fill a hall in major cities with multiple millions of people and we know that this audience is also global as you yourself have heard of people coming from other countries to attend (granted a few handful).

    The idea that thoughtful people being able to sell out a lecture hall isn't revolutionary this has a stable of western society since the Victorian era. It isn't new and it isn't revolutionary the difference now is only that the people doing this are now part of the new media set vs academia set or old media set. Yes this is a validation that new media has thoughtful and important content but it isn't new nor is it as large as you might wish.

    Ideas have always found away to flourish even with the gatekeepers of the old media where against the ideas, there is a reason why authoritarians of the right and left of the last century where able to propagate, it isn't new. The tradition of the salon is 250+ years old and that is what new media is tapping onto, small groups exchanging ideas aka the tail that wagged the dog. It is exactly how we find ourselves being attacked by the authoritarian elements on the left currently. Small groups discussing ideas and influencing others thought. Old media didn't create or propagate identity politics. New media is tapping into an old tradition that isn't part of the old media gatekeepers and I am rather surprised you think this is new and revolutionary. It is old and traditional which isn't to say bad simply the salon, public hall lectures, long form conversations are not new, not popular and not revolutionary.

    By all means tap into this tradition and steer people on to this by don't blind yourself to the numbers maybe 1 in 100 people are interested in this but don't be overly spiteful that old media decides they would rather tap into the 1/10 people interested in a short form "sound" bite new cast vs people willing to do a long form approach to a topic. Media is a business and don't blame the media for following what customers want, you have found a niche market that I wish was an indication of something greater happening but I just don't see it. I have been aware of these forms of lectures and discussions for decades personally and read about them in spanning centuries. They can change policy but they wound transform the populace into intellectual thinkers vs emotional thinkers that just isn't going to happen.

    TL;DR; Rubin is hyping a very old form of information dissemination and claiming its new. Doesn't Rubin get on old medias' back for hype and disinformation? Rubin you need to get out of the echo chamber and bounce these weekly addresses' topics off someone outside your studio group because they strike me more as propaganda than thoughtful.

  15. I mostly agree, but opposing authoritarians will NOT leave you with more allies and fewer enemies. I believe you paint too rosy a picture.

  16. Dr David Starkey would be a most knowledgeable and lively guest, who is frequently silenced by mobs of SJW’s whenever he is on MSM. I think he could add a lot to these discussions.

  17. Thomas Horton antiwar radio would be great…Why did the left abandon their antiwar campaign as soon as Barak Obama took office. Same wars, more wars, war everywhere same agenda…crickets from the media? Who's really calling the shots?

  18. Please get Peter Singer on the Rubin Report! He's one of the world’s leading moral philosophers and he has spoken on Capitalism in a way that aligns with your views (unless i'm mistaken). He approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. Would be so interesting!

  19. Dave;  May I submit you have Paul Elam{of a voice for men} sit down with Christina Hoff Sommers{and you} for a dialogue, and/or Camille Paglia and Warren Farrel, or Karen Straughan{girlwriteswhat} sit down with Sommers or Paglia{and you} or any combo of these people, or perhaps even set up a public debate between all of the above together{and you as mod}?
    I personally really would like to see Sommers and Elam in a sit down dialogue; but any of these combos is good, to try and build bridges between dissident feminists and MRA's{and Mgtows}. I am a MRA and MGTOW{more MRA, slightly MGTOW} and ex-feminist but I still have much respect for the dissident feminists like Sommers and Paglia{as intellectuals, freethinkers, contrarians, and individuals of high integrity} and think that bridges need to be built between them and us{for strategic purposes, and because we have more in common than we don't}.
    Anyways, thanks for the consideration.

  20. It is indeed encouraging that people from across the political spectrum are starting to collaborate in defense of intellectual freedom and critical inquiry. But I must make objection to Rubin's reference to the "Marxist roots of postmodernism." That phrase has about as much validity as "the republican roots of the Napoleonic empire." Postmodernism is in fact a complete rejection of Marxism along with the Enlightenment tradition on which it's based. Here's one good critique: https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46328. And here's another: https://fightback.org.nz/2008/08/25/a-marxist-critique-of-postmodernism/ According to the second article, Fredric Jameson wrote a whole book on how postmodernism is a tool of capitalism, not anticapitalism.

  21. People having a boner only because they hear about marxism and post-modernism for the first time?. And according to Lazy-Rubin they should feel more intelligent than the rest for that? That's intellectual mediocrity.

  22. Why are you so reluctant to criticize trump? Do you honestly think the only thing people don't like about him is that he drinks diet coke? At this point your clearly just pandering to reality-denying trump voters who think credible journalism and fact checking are "fake news." Stop acting like Trump represents some sort of rebirth or new way of thinking, the man is a nutjob and clearly has no idea what the hell he is doing.

  23. Rubin, you are the best talkshow host I've seen, you listen to your guests. I learn valuable things of your show everytime. I wish more would see it, I'm Norwegian and here people mostly watch statefinanced channels and talkshows, witch is embarrassingly biased… Your show is such a fresh gust! Thank you.

  24. wtf, you think the media is spoon feeding people information ?? lol seems like you get your news from fox news.

    there are plenty of intellectual conversation and debates on CNN and ABC, such as meet the press show, stop pretending your different or unique. Your comparing apples and oranges, your show which is 20 minutes vs 10 minute hourly news updates.

    Trump's coke habit is interesting as so its newsworthy but its never the headline news, like your suggesting. Trump basically implemeting the agenda of the koch brothers and mercers, worked with the mafia in the construction industry and evaded taxes and screwed over contractors in Antlantic City. Why would anyone support a racist women abuser like him >?

  25. Your channel couldn't be more relevant currently. Things are getting out of control fast. The agenda is to kill free speech and they are winning.

  26. Penn Law professor Amy Wax, if you haven't already. She like Eric W and Peterson was condemned by her professor peers for having the "wrong" ideas.

  27. So much bullshit. Rubin is creating the idea of an idea revolution and an "idea revolution" sounds like what the communists wants..

  28. You asked who we'd like to see. Please consider Sir Roger Scruton. It would be heaven on Earth if you could get Roger Scruton and Jordan Peterson together to compare notes. Thank you so very much for spreading actual information in a time of near total propaganda.

  29. I certainly wouldn't say Sam and Jordan disagree on everything, along with free speech and the dangers of the left, they have a lot of psychology and evolutionary knowledge in common, they mostly just differ on religion and Jordan's a bit further right.

  30. This is how he advertises what’s going on right now? An idea revolution against the evil Democrats who r gonna take away your freedoms and rule over u like dictators? Give me a fucking break.

  31. I remember when Rubin was a Bernie Sanders supporter before the last election. Saying everything Bernie says makes perfect sense and that's the guy he wants to win.
    Then he magically stopped supporting him, said he was bad, and started supporting republicans. Like overnight. We then find out he doesn't really need his patreon account money because he has greater wealth coming in from another source. So interview Charles and David Koch, the guys who pay you to be a right winger.
    In a way I can't blame you. Its easy money because republicans are the easiest people in the world to scam. I mean, these are the same people who go to faith healing shows thinking their cancer goes away when some guy smacks them on the head.
    But I would feel guilty. I guess you don't. We obviously have different moral standards.

  32. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "My brain is still in recovery-mode from taking in so many high-level important ideas." Rubin is such a dogbrained moron that he gets concussions from basic conversations

  33. "if the dial of ideas was turned to low for the last few years, it's quickly moving to the hot position"

    Wow amazing use of words.

  34. Dave I love that you’re taking suggestions! I think it would be really interesting to see you across from Sam Seder or David Pakman. Just like Harris and Peterson you guys disagree on a lot but there could be a ton of interesting high level ideas exchanged!

  35. 2:47 “I have to say that my brains still in recovery mode from taking in so many high level and important ideas”

    Dave Rubin is a parody of himself.

  36. Has Rave Dubin ever put a computer in recovery mode? Does he know what recovery mode is and what it's for? I don't think he understands what he's saying.

  37. Dave appreciates “ideas” the way Spinal Tap appreciated their amps: “this one goes to eleven.”

  38. Turn that dial into the hot position, because these ideas are high level and important folks! The most important thing is to resist the VERY LOW LEVEL IDEA that we should reduce or dare to end our consumption of fossil fuels. Other ideas are fairly important and pretty high up there, but let me say (if I’m allowed to say anything on my show… edit out if not) the most important and the highest idea is that if you want shellfish to exist in twenty five years you are actually an eternally confused low level idiot and may you die of a decade long tropical drought or the war caused by its mass migration and deprivation.

    -the guy from the video (Rubin) probably

  39. 'My brains still in recovery mode from taking in so many high level and important ideas"

    Dave Rubin, a grown man, actually said that. A grown man unironically said that. A grown man thought about that statement, and instead of realizing just how incredibly stupid it sounded, said that statement. A grown man said that statement and was being entirely serious

  40. Hold on: If right wingers are so fond of 'high level ideas' then how come they're all so afraid to debate Kyle Kulinski

Leave a Reply

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