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.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Thank goodness we have voices of sanity, like yours, in this suddenly, delusional , illogical world we find ourselves in! The gender thing is utterly demented, you watch in amazement, as people state these idiotic, illogical arguments utterly believing what they are saying, and you wonder if they have been subjected to some kind of contagious, mental aberration. Thank you for saying out loud, what others have to whisper!

  2. I just googled "straight couples" to see if Douglas was joking or not. I got 10 images out of which 6 present same-sex couples, 4 present straight couples.

  3. I have social anxiety, and his analogy with the minefield at the end is exactly how I feel about speaking to people these days.

  4. Thank you so much for this meaningful conversation. I always feel refreshed when my own, non PC convictions and thoughts are echoed by two great minds.

  5. On the origins of intersectionality blather: "…They are such ridiculously, badly written texts…" Shades of Dan Akroyd's Leonard Pinth-Garnell politely musing on "impeccably" and "truly deliciously BAD theatre". The premise for a silly comedic skit from the 70s is now our modern reality but with the terrifying teeth of academic legitimacy and legal authority.

  6. Watch the opening of a concert by Black Tiger Sex Machine. They welcome the concert-goers to their "church." Watch the concert. The content plays strongly on feelings of being dehumanized and anonymous. It's a weird scene.

  7. 57:00 To Murray who posits importance of "forgiveness": Judeo-Christianity was not that stupid. Your repentance (truly regretting your action) is a necessary prerequisite for my forgiveness.

  8. Wrong . I am sorry but all this is Marxism just used in different forms . 100 years ago it was the worker v the owner . Now it's men v women , straight v gay .

  9. When the corrupt politicians can keep you poor, you become fearful and dependent on the government, corrupt politicians know this that’s why they want to feed you free stuff, Because free stuff becomes heroin and you want more and more and more, when they stop the flow of free stuff, you will ultimately be dependent and politicians that stole your money, your pride, your sanity. It’s a dangerous game that corrupt politicians love to play, they the corrupt politicians become powerful and wealthy, Powerful because they get free stuff, and wealthy because no one else has any wealth besides them! Socialism is a game, never works by vulnerable people fall for the dangerous game they play! Once they have everyone in a soup line it’s game over and that is ultimately where you land up, free healthcare, free housing,Free education!

  10. Thank you Douglas, I'm so sick of having lbgt shoved down my throat. I don't give a rats ass about what people do with each other (except pedophiles). None of my business. Same as it's no one's business what I do.

  11. Been waiting for someone to occupy the void left by Christopher Hitchens. Although Hitch was irreplaceable, Douglas Murray will do nicely. He's the intellectual hero we need right now.

  12. I actually tried it out, google image search for "gay couples" and "straight couples". This is crazy. It's pretty hard to believe that's not deliberate.

  13. When one googles "straight couple" and gets some gay couples in the results, isn't that just because the words "straight couple" are in the subtitle or smth. of that image on the website that displays that image?

  14. The strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand.

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  15. It all started with Barack Obama election and the rise of social media. Google, Facebook, Twitter, CNN, MSNBC, Hollywood. Soros type money flooding in …executives run the agenda ……
    ……….. Stop making excuse for the Radical Left ———— They are enemies of America ………………. Especially the Democrat Politicians in Washington …and Liberal Media ……

  16. I would love to know a real reference from what Murray says that Marxist authors spell out "The working classes let us down and didn't provide the revolution, we need to go to interest groups, to identity groups, to try to produce the revolution this time." I would help me so much in many arguments.

  17. 6:30 Yep. The corporate work is completely fucked now. HR is all run by extreme SJW's. It's terrifying and makes the workplace miserable. No fun, no joking, just keep your head down.

  18. Gay, women, race and transgender. Four subjects I spend no time contemplating on a daily basis. Which is the way it should be.

  19. Dave I've been calling this concept the Victim Value Index (VVI) since Obama's first term. Glad you guys are finally coming around. BTW vote Democrat or You're Racist.

  20. interviewer: "What should the civil rights movement be for now?"
    Thomas Sowell: "Dissolution. They've won. Declare victory, go home, and start putting your efforts into something else."

  21. As always, Dave takes the lead in bringing to light one of the most important conversations to start having with this interview. I hope Dave has other people in to further this discussion much like he did with the intellectual dark web folks. I'm looking forward to reading this book.

  22. It has been only a few decades when elites developed, without data, a surgical method that garnered a Nobel Prize in Medicine. It was 1949 when Egas Muniz was given the most prestigious honor in Medicine for developing a procedure he promised would solve mental illness. It was called Prefrontal Lobotomy and thousands of patients were forced to have this wonderful treatment. But wonderful it was not, because it left them damaged for life. The rush to surgically alter kids forever could receive a Nobel any day now because so many Doctors are running lemming like to praise it.

  23. Who can be a cattle fish? No one. Only with forgiveness can we live together. Do unto others as you want them to do with you. Jesus leads the way.

  24. It's so pathetic that there are males who would do this "cuddlefish" thing. I don't know if they ever reach their objective that way, but even if they do, what good is it? It must make you feel like a total loser if you behave like this, no matter what you get out of it.

  25. Young people today look at nice homes and cars owned by people 20-40 years older and they want those things NOW and assume the older generations didn’t do any honest hard work to get those things. Democrats play on these grievances and then turn this “gimme free stuff now” anger against Capitalism, then give false promises of “Socialism will save you from hard work.” And the millennials want to hear this so they rail against “the system.”

  26. i dunno why you two ''Gs" can even claim that. the word used to mean Happy – i've got elderly relatives who are still alive who grew up in a time where Gay meant ''happy'', lol.
    at some point, gay turned into meaning ''men playing with each others dicks'' or something..
    hear me out, I have a serious point – why is Gay = homosexual men? and not ALSO the L, lesbian, who are homosexual women.. so basically Gay women?
    so the L are also the G but the G are not the L.
    IMO the stupid acronym could be this simple ''homosexual/transexual'; HT – cos there's not really anything in between – there's those of you doing homosexual stuff. and there's the lot of you who feel some oddity about your own gender. and none of you are truly gay, that's just something that meant to use merry or happy which turned into an insult because homosexual men are stereotypically less masculine and therefore more ''la-di-da'' aka gay. you're homosexual, i never call anyone gay, i think about my poor nan etc having to watch a world break down from ''gayness'' and happiness and farms and horses to public implication about buttsex and urbanization and v8s ;p
    so it could be simple the HT community. and you could have the b if you really need another letter in an acronym, to mean those that are homosexual and heterosexual. HBT. haha. maybe HBTA if you really need another letter but no plus 😐

  27. After the crash of 2008, the Left saw there MOMENT. And bringing in Obama was their coup d’gras!

    DO THE MARXISTS WIN IN THE END?

  28. WHEN Americans did begin not seeing the colors and races of people, that’s EXACTLY when the Left had to make RACISM make a come-back. As fake as it is, they need it. Color-blindness is now racist. The western world’s left has NOT utterly lost its collective mind. The upper echelon Marxists know what they’re doing and all this is BS. But, their USEFUL IDIOTS; the general population HAVE LOT THEIR MINDS. They believe these fabricated dogmas.

  29. It's all "thought terminating" bullshit to push a Marxist agenda that will destroy the country!! Brought to us by Foreign and Domestic actors.

  30. It's o.k. to want acceptance no matter how odd you are. But to want your oddity deemed more normal that everyone else's oddities is a horse of a different color. Fascinating interview….I'll be getting the book.

  31. I worked in a gay nightclub owned by my brother for 20 years in the 80's -90's which packed in 400 people every weekend night, and in all those years I only knew of 1 trans and it was a straight man (woman).

  32. I think it began September 11th at about noon 2001. All the sudden we started over-correcting on protecting minorities instead of worrying about majorities.

  33. When we lose the basic sense of self-identity we start to form ourselves on from our first perceptions after self awareness dawns, that's when we are most susceptible to bad ideas. I know who I am. But I see so many now in the West who have no idea what that means. When the "English" team in International matches has people with the names and genetic features of being African, Indian, Arabian, what does it mean to be "English". If the history of the Tudors, and the Civil war meaning nothing to children of immigrants who march to a different tune, and you are taught it is wrong to think of yourself as different, even though clearly you and they do differ – what does it mean to be English. And if you have no History, no ancient music and myth, no forbears to model on, no culture beyond being dead drunk in the gutter on Saturday nights – who are you, and what identity do you have? And when you are lost like this, people can tell you anything; that you have the body and genes of a male, but can be considered female; that you are racist; that you are a nothing just waiting to die; that your beliefs are just illusions – anything. The trouble with a wide open mind is that anything can be dropped in it.

  34. Intersectionality is a load of horse sh__! According to the term, I am super privileged. I have had to work for everything I have. Nobody handed me anything because I am white, female and educated.

  35. Interesting – because the way Murray explains how these crazy ideas were generated and spread is EXACTLY how the naming of the Northern Continental Land Mass was renamed "Eurasia". It's a word first coined in the 1880's British India to lable a person of mixed race parentage – Indian and English predominantly. It is used for a mixed Chow-German breed of dog. Then you find the Humanities Departments of various American Universities – especially Harvard – using it to name the Land Mass as though it were an unarguable fact, when there is not one iota of objective evidence or Historical use, to base it on. It too began in the 1980's. It is now being used to label Russia – which kind of gives the game away here.

  36. Im disappointed Douglas has started pronouncing the word trans like (hands) and not TRAAARNZ (palms) like he used to like a few weeks ago.

  37. OMG, it is simply media sewing trouble for COIN. They use what ever group is the dumbest and most greedy. Seems they have found a perpetual group of "useful idiots" and are making bank on promoting division. Diversity is our paycheck! Wrecking your life is just a bonus.

  38. We’re deliberately being divided, Balkanized, most people are too blind to see it. Balkanization leads to one thing – violence.

    Who wins? Government; Politicians.

  39. One question i always have regardless how what i hear or watch on these topics is this, especially add the focus on WHAT you are intensifies. That question is simply this, WHO are you? How does any of this define Who you are? What does being straight, gay, white, black, transgender, non binary, male, or female have to do with WHO you are? These backgrounds can define experiences that help define that, but i feel most people need to sit down, put all that aside and simply try to answer, Who am I, and what thoughts about myself are brought up with just my name. I never see or hear this asked.

  40. "Diversity is our strength" Um…not so much. I read a left-leaning management theory text a couple years ago in which they dedicated several chapters to diversity. Hidden in the small print, however, were the results of a huge university study that showed that among all work teams assigned a series of complex tasks, less diversity led to higher efficiencies and better results.

    In fact, the combination that exceeded all others in efficiency and results was…horror of horrors!!!….the all white male team.

  41. Well considering that a large number of transwomen believe "being a woman" means being a Stepford wife, it shouldn't be surprising why we women roll our eyes at them.

    So apparently I'm not the only person who sees the modern transmovement as extremely homophobic…I'm glad Murray brings the argument up.

  42. When wonder, imagination, questioning and thinking are not allowed to be part of the conversation, we are truly damned.

    Thank you Mr.Rubin and Mr.Murray. 🇺🇸

  43. 11:15 "We are pretending to know about things we don't know about, and we are pretending not to know about thingS we ALL knew until yesterday."

    A statement that both explains the insanity of culture and politics as well as Ghostbusters (2016).

  44. If being allowed to have honest discussions is so important, why are we not to talk about race and IQ? Is it because it's okay for white people to be made to feel bad, but it's not okay for non-white people to feel bad, no matter what the facts are and no matter the cost to society? As of now, a shipload of grievances is loaded onto the shoulders of white people for taking advantage of others, but what if white people simply created a society that works for them, and then nonwhite people wanted a part in that society, but some can't achieve what is required to succeed in that society, so instead of facing that reality and finding practical solutions, the whites must be made to feel bad and lower their societal standards to the degree that the successful society is no longer allowed to exist for anyone at all? That's a serious question which we do a disservice to everyone by refusing to discuss. If we are to face social realities and change things for a better future for everyone, the issue of race and IQ needs to be seriously studied and dealt with respectfully. Just as a person is born intersex or gay, a person is born with a certain IQ ability. It's no fault of their own, nor does it diminish their worth and dignity as a person. But we need to stop falsely calling everyone else oppressors when lower IQ people can't achieve in the society we've made. A useful, happy path needs to be developed so such people, of any skin color, may have a dignified life in our modern, highly complex society. If we can't discuss or study the issue, these people keep falling through the cracks into misery and government dependence and poverty and crime. As a start, it seems to me it would be better to IQ and aptitude test all children in school and then direct their education from an early age toward something they can be proudly successful in, rather than telling a 75 IQ person they can be a doctor or an engineer and giving them free college, only to frustrate them into failure and then blame it on oppression.

  45. we are on the verge of a fascist state… well a fascist world… those morons are just looking the other way while its happening… cause if they would get educated on islam… maybe they would see what they are accepting with open arm in mass in their countries!! The invasion is successful so far and continue… go figure!! peoples memories have really gone to s*** this last century.

  46. Thank you both! Insightful, intelligent and well articulated talk. An intellectual oasis in the anti-enlightenment desert we find ourselves in

  47. If you do not recognize that this has been going on since the 1850 and that we are under assault by the Rothschild-Zionist movement you will have told us NOTHING ov]f value and shown us no way out. The Islamists and the Zionists are out to destroy Western civilization at all costs. If we do not stop them cold to the point of genocide we are doomed. If we recognize the existential threat and KILL it with the BLEACH of bullets, we are done! PERIOD!

  48. Interesting. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The trans movement which has hitched itself to gays and lesbians may ultimately delegitimize the whole LGBT movement in its entirety simply by overshooting its foundational claims about its legitimacy in the first place.

  49. This man is 100% correct. These movements aren't looking for "equal rights" but "better rights". They all want to be seen as better than others. There are a ton of assertions being made and it's getting very tiring. A few people spread these then the masses harbor these assertions and boom! You have what we have today😔

  50. I'm gay. So what? Yes, I lived through those times in the 60's as a terrified boy when it was a daily struggle to be true to oneself – and later to be treated as a criminal lest one was able to hide stealthily in dark corners of one's town simply to meet with similar people. It was a very tough time. Straight people were spared from it, let's not forget. And it shaped my entire psyche, even to this day. Thanks to the efforts of the earlier gay equality campaigners starting some five decades ago (many of whom were influential straight men and women) we can now get on with our lives largely unmolested. Gay people, at least in the Western World, are ever thankful to them.

    But I agree with Douglas Murray on this point: gays who identify as "queer" tend to live their lives singularly consumed by their sexual orientation, their "queerness" – a loaded moniker. "Queers" (some not even gay – I've seen that too) now use their orientation as a victimhood platform in pursuance of political objectives entirely unconnected with "gay liberation". And of course, like others in the "intersectionalist" movement, it is a platform which affords them power in spite of the fact that gay equality has largely been achieved (with the exception of US Immigration laws). The vulgar excesses evidenced by "queers" at many gay pride events today expose their selfish conceit, their singular obsession, their seemingly masochistic one-dimensional character. It is depressing to witness this ugly corruption – this cynical hijacking – of what began as a movement for humanitarian equality.

  51. This was REALLY good. Extraordinary.
    I've been a fan of Douglas for years and he always thoroughly impresses me. I could go on about why I admire him and his work so much, but I'll leave a simple message of thanks … and I hope even more of us out there can consider Douglas's takes on our problems and heed his possible solutions for moving forward.

  52. Social Justice has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do Socialism. Anything which is anti-white, anti-male, anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-freedom, must be pushed at all cost, but only in what used to be the called "Christian West". In Short the destruction of People and cultures which built the Modern world, with its wealth and freedoms is the goal.

  53. Any political or cultural system which is a biological failure, is in fact total failure. Like it or not The Rights of Those Have Children, or seek to have children, actually are more important than the Rights of those who Choose not to.

  54. Murray is a brilliant truth teller unafraid to speak the leftist dogmas out loud exposing the dishonest propaganda narratives and hidden agendas of the intersectional woke lunatics. Looking forward to reading his new book.
    Douglas alludes to what many people miss when they say that "woke" political agendas cannot be turned back to a less insane radical result. When the left bullies it's opposition into silence and makes civil discourse on the direction of society impossible they also make violent civil war more likely.

  55. Almost all on point, except the commentary on IQ averages across ethnic groups. It is an issue, not only within multicultural societies, but across societies around the whole globe. We need to bring it to light and address it, before it becomes a tool for sinister ends. We need to preempt whatever evil it could be used towards by reaffirming the individual character above the group dynamic, while still addressing the issues of integration and success within Western societies, which attract ethnicities from around the globe.

    Google it, download it, read it: “Charles Murray – The Bell Curve pdf”

  56. The cause was not the crash … just the opposite. The cause was lowering interest rates and holding them low, which caused real-estate prices to go through the roof. While those who borrowed and purchased a home thought they were getting rich, what was really happening was the impoverishment of EVERYONE … except the already rich. The reason for the impoverishment should be obvious … homes became so expensive that just about all income was consumed just to rent or pay mortgage payments. While those who got into the scam early may have a now-expensive piece of real-estate … they need a place to live and thus can't really benefit in practice. But they can pay a lot in property taxes now. And those who did not get into the scam early now can't afford to live because rent is so expensive. The people have been raped by the central banksters, who created a scam that created boatloads of money, then sent that money almost exclusively into the pockets of the already rich … and raised prices for basic goods for everyone else. That a lot of people feel like life is unjust and near impossible should not be a surprise. Such a feeling naturally leads people to go nuts. Literally. And so they have.

  57. I'm a straight centrist. But found this video had great chemistry and delivered like ALL Rubin Report videos. I have been watching this channel for a bit now, and glad I found Douglas Murray. I will look for him on YouTube etc. This is what I want to see. Gays speaking as centrists or right leaning. We have enough on the left. I just think they need to be able to come out of the closet politically too. Not happy with the outer fringes of the right that don't want gays. But that part is dying off. People are waking up on all sides of every spectrum. Look at the comments on Yahoo!News videos. Almost all negative. People aren't buying what they are selling. It's insane they continue to publish!

  58. Just thought I'd say that I googled the book "The Current Madness Of Crowds". Top anwer from Google was a review by the Guardian. I thought to myself before reading the review "If the Guardian doesn't like it then I'm buying it". Guess what, I'm buying it.

  59. Douglas Murray at the 25:30 mark – "Here’s the dementing thing, if I may make a point. 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." – – Thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU!!! I've been saying, and will continue to say when did the rights of someone pretending to be a female become more important than those of an actual female? The word “demented” does not go far enough. What trans people have done is unabashed open discrimination against females. Enjoyed the entire 1 hour and ten minutes with you gentlemen. It was excellent. Thanks.

  60. Just came across this. I am becoming a real Dave Rubin fan. First, this is one of the best Douglas Murray interviews/lectures I have seen. On the down side, I think one has to consider that there will be a great backlash if the advocates of the pathologies you are exposing are not reigned in. This is left unspoken in the interview. This is the worst case scenario. The other thing that is important is that we are spending so much time talking about the humanities, social sciences and the like, when, for the most part, they are an irrelevance to the economy. It is really the STEM fields that drive our economy. Technology, and all that entails in manufacturing and information, are the main things we consume and derive our material culture from, and that influence the lives of most people. This the future and many people in our educational institutions are involved in these areas. In fact, many educational institutions are abolishing the school of liberal arts and sciences and creating schools of science and health. This is, I think, for the traditional sciences to get away from the craziness of the humanities, which are shrinking rapidly. This is one of the only upside of the increase of the rising cost of education. I have rambled enough, but I think yoou get my drift.

  61. Rubin really needs to get his act together before his guests show up. You can't have a guy like Douglas Murray on, and not even have completed his book, and snap your fingers when you can't remember the name of FOUR CHAPTERS. Embarrassing.

Leave a Reply

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