Podcasts about Grievance studies affair

Helen Pluckrose has been a formidable voice in the cultural and intellectual debates surrounding critical social justice, liberalism, and free speech. I've admired her work for some time, particularly her rigorous analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of these movements. In this episode, I had the pleasure of speaking with Helen about her new book, "The Counterweight Handbook," which offers practical strategies for those navigating the challenges posed by critical social justice ideologies in the workplace and beyond.As with all Origins Podcasts, we spent some time learning about Helen's own origins, which are just as compelling as her work. From her early years, where she balanced a career in care with a passion for English literature, to her later involvement in the Grievance Studies Affair, which exposed the weaknesses in certain academic fields, Helen has consistently demonstrated a concern for the wellbeing of others and a commitment to liberal values and intellectual honesty.In our discussion, we covered the origins and evolution of critical social justice, the impact of postmodern thought on modern social theories, and the ongoing challenges of promoting free speech in an increasingly polarized world. Helen shared insights from her work with Counterweight, an organization she founded to support individuals facing ideological pressure in their professional lives. We worked through her new book, which provides remarkably useful guides for dealing with challenges that misplaced critical social justice pressures might impose upon you in the workplace and elsewhere. This conversation was both enlightening and engaging. It offers valuable perspectives for anyone interested in the intersection of culture, politics, and philosophy. Helen is a wonderfully clear thinker, a sympathetic presence and a powerful advocate for the principles of liberalism, and it was a pleasure to spend time discussing her work and writing. I hope you find this episode as insightful and useful as I did.As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

The stated goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are often reasonable, if not noble—to create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all. Yet, as more and more people are discovering, DEI as commonly practiced isn't a natural extension of past civil rights movements or an ethical framework for opposing discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, etc. Rather, it is inextricably connected with an illiberal and authoritarian ideology—Critical Social Justice—that demands adherence to its tenets and punishes any dissent from its dogma. Even the mildest questions about Critical Social Justice claims—that all white people are racists, that all underrepresented minorities are oppressed, that sex and gender differences have no biological basis, that censorship is a necessary good—are regularly met by DEI trainers and HR officers with pat commands: “Educate yourself,” “Do the work,” “Listen and learn.” At work, raises, promotions, and future employment often depend on our nodding approval of such claims. At school, grades, nominations, and awards are often contingent upon our active agreement with these beliefs. In our daily lives, Critical Social Justice ideology poses a genuine threat not only to our fundamental rights but also to the future of our democratic systems, but if we suggest this, we risk being canceled or shunned by community members. When facing a choice between silent submission and risky if ethical opposition, what is a person to do? While a growing number of groups concerned about the nature of Critical Social Justice have begun to attack it from the top down through legal, financial, and political means, The Counterweight Handbook takes a decidedly different and novel approach. It works from the bottom up and is written to empower individuals who wish to combat Critical Social Justice in their personal and professional lives. Based on the author's years of experience studying, exposing, and fighting Critical Social Justice ideology and advising individuals and organizations struggling with it, The Counterweight Handbook is designed to help people address Critical Social Justice problems in the most ethical and effective way possible. It not only offers principled responses to the main claims of Critical Social Justice but also teaches individuals what to do when they are asked to affirm beliefs they do not hold, undergo training in an ideology they cannot support, or submit to antiscientific testing and retraining of their “unconscious” minds. In short, it is for all of us who believe in freedom of speech and conscience, who wish to push back against the hostile work and educational environments Critical Social Justice has created, and who want to stand up for our individual liberties and universal rights. Helen Pluckrose is a liberal political and cultural writer and was one of the founders of Counterweight. A participant in the Grievance Studies Affair probe that highlighted problems in Critical Social Justice scholarship, she is the coauthor of Cynical Theories and Social (In)justice. She lives in England and can be found on X @HPluckrose Shermer and Pluckrose discuss: origin of the problem • DEI and CRT • what it means to “Educate yourself,” “Do the work,” “Listen and learn.” • top-down vs. bottom-up counter measures • race reckoning • antiracism • gender ideology • decolonizing and dismantling • fragility • intersectionality • normativity • positionality • privilege • wokeness.

Longtime friends Peter Boghossian and Michael Shermer sit down to talk about ideological capture in American institutions, skepticism, the Grievance Studies Affair, the Fermi Paradox, and more!Dr. Michael Shermer is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, the host of The Michael Shermer Show, and a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University where he teaches Skepticism 101. Michael wrote a monthly column for Scientific American for 18 years. He is the author of several books, including his most recent, "Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational" His next book is set to be published in Fall 2025. Watch this episode on YouTube. 

Island dweller Helen Pluckrose and continent inhabiter Peter Boghossian sit down to discuss the downfall of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Helen explains DEI's underpinnings, specifically postmodern thought and critical theory, and the blind pursuit of "equity" that drives this ideology. The two also address the need for institutions to transparently admit their mistakes and the crisis of legitimacy. Other topics include liberalism, the need for individualism, how people find meaning, and more!Helen Pluckrose is a British author and cultural writer known for critiques of critical social justice and promotion of liberal ethics, notably in the Grievance Studies Affair (along with Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay).More from Helen:Substack Twitter/XThe Counterweight Handbook, Helen's new book  Watch this episode on YouTube.Japanese America PodcastWelcome to Japanese America, where we come to talk all things Japanese American.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

Helen Pluckrose is a political and cultural writer and commentator, addressing current affairs from a liberal humanist perspective. Her particular focus is current Critical Social Justice (woke) scholarship and activism. Helen took part in the Grievance Studies Affair (along with Peter Bogossian and James Lindsay) which submitted shoddy, ridiculous and ideologically biased papers to academic journals known for publishing Critical Social Justice scholarship. In 2020, she co-authored Cynical Theories with James Lindsay, which traced the evolution of postmodern thought into Critical Social Justice scholarship. In that same year, she co-founded Counterweight, an organization for helping individuals push back at authoritarian Critical Social Justice policies and training programs at their place of work, university or child's school. Helen continues to work with individuals and organizations to resist ideological capture. Helen really just wants you to value evidence-based epistemology and consistently liberal principles.

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“There are people—a non-trivial number of people—who teach in the academy, many of whom have tenure, who have obtained their credentials fraudulently. They have lied, they have cheated on their PhD, and that is an extraordinarily serious problem on multiple levels.”As professor of philosophy at Portland State University, Peter Boghossian was known for challenging orthodoxies. Today, he uses his distinct “Street Epistemology” method to teach communication and critical thinking.“There is something about giving people the tools to ask really good questions. But not only are we not giving them the tools so they don't have the questions, but they're force-fed one answer, and particularly to moral questions. And the consequence of that is it becomes an ideology mill, where the goal is to replicate the dominant ideology—whatever is morally fashionable,” says Professor Boghossian.He is known for his role in the Grievance Studies Affair, where he co-authored a series of intentionally fraudulent papers that were published in well-known academic journals, exposing the corruption of scholarship in a number of disciplines belonging to the humanities.“My guess to you is, you're looking at 7-to-9 percent of dissertations in the humanities that are plagiarized. If I'm wrong, it's not because there are fewer, it's because there are far, far more,” says Professor Boghossian. “We have endemic corruption in our academic institutions. The only other question is what to do about it?”Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

James Lindsay was first with us a few months ago after his great speech on Woke in the European Parliament. He returns to Hearts of Oak to unpack a recent thread of his on X, titled 'How totalitarian cults control people through shame'.  We often find that presenting information and facts often fails to sway those trapped in totalitarian ideologies (like Woke, Covid or gender queer).  People do not like to admit they were wrong and certainly do not like others knowing they believed shameful things.  The battle we face regards social identity, not error. Belonging and not belief.  Before it is possible to get people out of such a cult mentality, they must realise they have permission to believe against cult doctrine.  Join us as James breaks all of this down in his own imitable and profound style.  Discussion based on https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1731784407688544285?s=20 James Lindsay is a professional troublemaker, mathematician, author, internationally recognized speaker and the founder and president of New Discourses. James is a leading expert on Critical Race Theory and is best known for his relentless criticism of "Woke" ideology, the now-famous Grievance Studies Affair, and his bestselling books including Race Marxism and Cynical Theories, which has been translated into over a dozen languages. In addition to writing and speaking, he is the voice of the New Discourses Podcast and has been a guest on prominent media outlets including The Joe Rogan Experience, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and NPR. Connect with James... X:                    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames GETTR:           https://gettr.com/user/conceptualjames Amazon:         https://www.amazon.co.uk/James-Lindsay/e/B009BBX7BI/ref=aufs_dp_fta_dsk Connect with New Discourses... Website: https://newdiscourses.com/ X: https://twitter.com/NewDiscourses Interview recorded 5.12.23 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/   *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 

In Principle of Charity on the Couch, Lloyd has an unfiltered conversation with the guests, throws them curveballs, and gets into the personal side of Principle of Charity.Guests Tigress Osborn (she/her) is a fat rights advocate and Executive Director of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), the world's oldest documented organization working towards Equality at Every Size. She is a co-founding leader of the Campaign for Size Freedom, which supports passing legislation to outlaw size discrimination. Tigress is a two-time women's college graduate with degrees in Africana Studies (Smith) and English (Mills). She is an intersectional feminist teacher and writer whose professional background as a youth empowerment leader and DEI educator has informed her fat liberation activism since 2008. She has been featured in USA Today, Newsweek, and the cover of the Smith College Alumnae Quarterly; heard on BBC AntiSocial, Burnt Toast, and NPR; and seen on ABC News, NewsNation and Free Speech TV's Feminism Today. Helen Pluckrose is a liberal humanist and political and cultural writer and commentator. Her writing has focused on the evolution of postmodern thought into contemporary Critical Social Justice activism which she regards as counterproductive to the goal of genuine social justice. Helen is best known for participation in the Grievance Studies Affair, co-authoring Cynical Theories and the foundation of the organisation Counterweight to support workers at risk of cancellation for not supporting Critical Social Justice theories. She mostly just wants people to value evidence-based knowledge and consistently liberal ethics. Your hosts are Lloyd Vogelman and Emile Sherman. This podcast is proud to partner with The Ethics Centre.Find Lloyd @LloydVogelman on Linked inFind Emile @EmileSherman on Linked In and Twitter.This Podcast is Produced by Jonah Primo, Bronwen Reid and Danielle HarveyFind Jonah at jonahprimo.com or @JonahPrimo on InstagramFind Danielle at danielleharvey.com.au Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We live in a culture that is obsessed by weight. About a third of adult women in the US are on a diet at any given time, and a fifth of men. Those who aren't dieting are thinking about dieting, with well over half of all adults actively wanting to lose weight, with men only slightly trailing women. To feed the obsession on weight, or to help people manage their weight, depending on the way one looks at things, there is a global weight loss and management industry that is expected to surpass US$405 billion by 2030. So what is going on here? Why is there a near pervasive belief that it's good to be thin and bad to be fat. In this episode we explore some of the reasons why fat has come to signify so much, looking at issues like health, shame, self-discipline, beauty and more. Guests Tigress Osborn (she/her) is a fat rights advocate and Executive Director of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), the world's oldest documented organization working towards Equality at Every Size. She is a co-founding leader of the Campaign for Size Freedom, which supports passing legislation to outlaw size discrimination. Tigress is a two-time women's college graduate with degrees in Africana Studies (Smith) and English (Mills). She is an intersectional feminist teacher and writer whose professional background as a youth empowerment leader and DEI educator has informed her fat liberation activism since 2008. She has been featured in USA Today, Newsweek, and the cover of the Smith College Alumnae Quarterly; heard on BBC AntiSocial, Burnt Toast, and NPR; and seen on ABC News, NewsNation and Free Speech TV's Feminism Today. Helen Pluckrose is a liberal humanist and political and cultural writer and commentator. Her writing has focused on the evolution of postmodern thought into contemporary Critical Social Justice activism which she regards as counterproductive to the goal of genuine social justice. Helen is best known for participation in the Grievance Studies Affair, co-authoring Cynical Theories and the foundation of the organisation Counterweight to support workers at risk of cancellation for not supporting Critical Social Justice theories. She mostly just wants people to value evidence-based knowledge and consistently liberal ethics. Your hosts are Lloyd Vogelman and Emile Sherman. This podcast is proud to partner with The Ethics Centre.Find Lloyd @LloydVogelman on Linked inFind Emile @EmileSherman on Linked In and Twitter.This Podcast is Produced by Jonah Primo, Bronwen Reid and Danielle HarveyFind Jonah at jonahprimo.com or @JonahPrimo on InstagramFind Danielle at danielleharvey.com.au Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2017 and 2018 James Lindsay along with Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian staged a broadscale hoax against postmodern Academia by submitting a series of bogus papers for academic review. Mike Nayna documented this so-called “Sokal Squared” affair and has produced a documentary on the matter found on this substack:  https://michaelnayna.substack.com/p/the-reformers-recommended-viewing?sd=pf  Lindsay's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/NewDiscourses  Their twitters:  https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames https://twitter.com/MikeNayna Support this channel: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/benjaminaboyce --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/calmversations/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/calmversations/support

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Dr. James Lindsay break down how Marxism evolved from a singular ideology into a genus, spawning many oppressor/oppressed dogmas across modern culture such as equity, critical race theory, and queer theory. They trace these sub-Marxist doctrines back past fundamental narrative into the theological realm, and detail their utility in the acquisition of power. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Lindsay also discuss the Grievance Studies Affair, of which Dr. Lindsay was a co-author and which casts a spotlight on the Marxist capture of our academic and scientific institutions. An author, mathematician, and political commentator, Dr. James Lindsay has written eight books spanning a range of subjects including education, postmodern theory, and critical race theory. Dr. Lindsay is the founder of New Discourses, an organization dedicated to shining the light of objective truth in subjective darkness. Dr. Lindsay is the co-author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody” and the author of “Race Marxism,” as well as, “The Marxification of Education.” Dr. Lindsay has been a featured guest on Fox News, Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, and NPR, and he has spoken at the Oxford Union and the EU Parliament. - Links - For Dr. James LIndsay: Twitter @conceptualjames https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor New Discourses (Wesbite): Newdiscourses.com Marxification of Education (Book): https://amzn.to/3RYZ0tY Race Marxism (Book): https://amzn.to/3RYZ0tY Cynical Theories (Book): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1634312023/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1634312023&linkCode=as2&tag=newdiscourses-20&linkId=5349986ff015163a02e68c57138dcf6d

This episode we are excited to welcome James Lindsay, a bestselling author who has spoken and written extensively against the woke onslaught.    His recent speech in the European Parliament looking at the Neo-Marxist Cultural Revolution that is engulfing us all has really gone viral.  In this interview James looks at the Marxist thread that runs through Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory and we end by looking at his latest book "The Marxification of Education". James Lindsay is a professional troublemaker, mathematician, author, internationally recognized speaker and the founder and president of New Discourses.  James is a leading expert on Critical Race Theory and is best known for his relentless criticism of "Woke" ideology, the now-famous Grievance Studies Affair, and his bestselling books including Race Marxism and Cynical Theories, which has been translated into over a dozen languages.  In addition to writing and speaking, he is the voice of the New Discourses Podcast and has been a guest on prominent media outlets including The Joe Rogan Experience, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and NPR. Connect with James... GETTR:                       https://gettr.com/user/conceptualjames Twitter:                       https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames Gab:                            https://gab.com/ConceptualJames Truth:                          https://truthsocial.com/@conceptualjames Facebook:                  https://www.facebook.com/ConceptualJames/ Minds:                        https://www.minds.com/conceptualjames/ Amazon:                     https://www.amazon.co.uk/James-Lindsay/e/B009BBX7BI/ref=aufs_dp_fta_dsk Connect with New Discourses... Website:                     https://newdiscourses.com/ Twitter:                       https://twitter.com/NewDiscourses Facebook:                  https://facebook.com/newdiscourses YouTube:                    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg Podcast:                     https://open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp Interview recorded 2.6.23 Audio Podcast version available on Podbean and all major podcast directories...  ⁣https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ Transcript available on our Substack... https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more...  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Please subscribe, like and share! Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with James Lindsay. Of course, the founder and president of New Discourses, and I was delighted to get him on after seeing him at a number of conferences over stateside. And it was his recent speech in the European Parliament, which really intrigued me. I know that has really gone viral. And I think the title was the Neo-Marxist Cultural Revolution Engulfing the West, now known as WOKE. What a title, what a topic to bring to the European Parliament. So he discusses the kind of response on that and how a lot of the battle lines that we are on, the Critical Race Theory and also the Queer Theory, how those fit under that socialist Marxist umbrella. He unpacks that and then we end up on education. He's just written a book, the end of last year, on the Marxification of education. We have no time to get into the topic, but I just wanted to get his thoughts on why he'd put pen to paper on a book specifically focused on education. So much packed in. I, know you'll have followed James for a long time. I know you'll enjoy listening to his thoughts on speaking in the European Parliament on such a topic and unpacking some of those other issues.  And hello Hearts of Oak. Today it is wonderful to have a best-selling author with us of many titles. We'll refer to some of them, The Marxification of Education and Race Marxism, The Truth About Critical Race Theory, amongst many others. An internationally recognized speaker, the privilege of hearing him first at the American Freedom Alliance conference back in June last year, and the founder and president of New Discourses, and that is James Lindsay. James, thank you so much for your time today. (James Lindsay) Hey, I'm glad to be here. Thank you. It's great to have you and your handle there @ConceptualJames on Twitter, Gab, Truth, GETTR, and newdiscourses.com is the website. People can find everything there. Before we start, James, could I just ask you to take a moment and introduce yourself before we get down to the issue? That's actually a hard thing to do. I'm a very kind of peculiar character, I think, and kind of the whole thing. But the long and short of it is that my academic training was in mathematics. I received a PhD in mathematics, or completed one, I suppose. They didn't give it to me. They don't give those away. But I earned a PhD in mathematics in 2010. I immediately left academia after finishing my doctorate. I became disillusioned with the course that it seemed to be on at the time. Then I just worked for myself at a small private enterprise for a number of years. To be academically engaged, I got involved with fighting with people online basically. This led to discovering the woke movement quite early on. This led to my participation in what was called the grievance studies affair, which I'm fairly well known for, which is where we wrote a large number of at fake academic articles for feminist journals in 2017 and 18 for whatever it's worth there's a new film that just came out telling the backstory with all of that a man named Michael Nayna put that out and it's called The Reformers, so you can find that on his substack, which I think it's michaelnayna.substack.com, The Reformers is the name of the film. John Cleese apparently saw it the other day and loved it, so that's a pretty ringing endorsement. From there, I went on to write, actually, Cynical Theories next, which is a book that did extremely well at getting some of this information into people's hands. It's actually hit somewhere around a quarter million sales, so a lot of people had a chance to encounter these ideas, which is the ultimate goal. And then I built New Discourses from there and I spent all my time researching, studying. Basically the woke movement and all of its kind of intellectual, intellectual is a generous word for them, antecedents and forebears. So I created New Discourses with the goal, it says all fancy on my website, shining the light of objective truth into subjective darkness. But the fact, that was my business partner's idea, honestly, the goal was I want to study woke and understand woke and expose woke and everything that's tied to it as fast as I can create and publish materials. And so that's what it's for. So it hosts mostly three different podcasts that I have in-house as well as articles that I write, videos that I do, and you can find links to the books that I've written, which which we tend to publish in-house because publishers are so slow and this is moving so fast. So anyway, that's me. I don't know how many books I've technically written now because some of them are blurry and they're, you know, things I've done with other people and some of them have been translated into a large number of languages. Those are the things that people care about. A lot of people know me because I've been on Joe Rogan's podcast three times also, which gets you kind of in the public eye a little bit. Okay, well, it's that criticism of woke ideology that I saw two months ago. You were in the European Parliament. You delivered a short address at a conference there, Woke a Culture War Against Europe. How did that come about and kind of how was that received? Well, they just reached out to me. Apparently the group there, which is a European-wide political party called Identity and Democracy or Identity Democracy Foundation, something like this. I don't quite know the organizational structure of these things. They invited me because they put together a three conference series to be held there at the European Parliament in Brussels and asked, they thought that I would be a perfect voice for the inaugural of the three, the first of the three. And so they invited me to come to Brussels and speak at the parliament. And so I gratefully accepted and went over and somehow or rather luckily delivered what I believe is given the fact of the significance of the room that I think I delivered my best public address I've ever delivered, which worked out pretty good because I could have bombed that sucker. And it was very good and very succinct. Part of it was that I realized the night before talking to another audience that there's a language barrier that kind of cuts across my humour, so I had to be very plain spoken. Maybe I should take notes on that and deliver more plain spoken addresses in the future. But it was received extremely well. Now, of course, the room was largely composed of MEPs that are of that party, so you would expect them to be interested in these ideas. It was also, there was a group there, the other speaker was Frank Ferretti, and a fairly well-known guy. And so his organization had a contingent there. And other than that, it was actually kind of timed to correspond with a youth conference for the ID Foundation. And so it was primarily a lot of people in their twenties, political interns and people interested in political party, young people. So most of the people were in their twenties, they were younger. And of course, their energy is really good, really, really a positive reception there. It came out online and they got a little bit of attention. And then for whatever reason, I don't know why a month later it went viral and it has just blown up everywhere. And the reception online has been extraordinarily positive. I'm sure that there are people who are very unhappy that that happened, but I haven't heard much from them.  Well that group, the ID group, is a fantastic group, probably the best bulwark against what is happening in Europe, and I've watched them closely through all my involvement of politics over the many years. But could I ask you, what was it like going into the, I guess, the ruling chamber in Europe and helping them understand the danger of socialism, which many of them call themselves socialists. They really do believe the state knows better than the individual. What was like kind of going into that? Obviously the ID group are on side, but as a chamber, as a parliament, they're very much against anything that will shine the light on the evils of socialism. So what was that like, kind of explain to them the dangers of socialism?  Well I mean it was surprisingly, again surprisingly positive, I thought it might be quite hostile. I thought there might be at least some people who would come by, you know, interested to see what people against their view might say. But I don't get the impression, or at least anybody who did stayed very professional and very polite. It was a very I mean, I don't want to say it's a very bureaucratic building because I don't know that I got that impression. But it's a very, very professional environment. So that wasn't, it wasn't like where I spoke at North-western University a month ago and got heckled and yelled at and protested the whole time or anything like that. The building itself was more interesting than my experience inside of it, I don't know if you visited Brussels and seen this but so walking around there's a... Brussels is, I'm sorry any Belgians watching is not the most beautiful city Down in the older part of the city the older the where the castles and things are that part is quite nice but over by the Parliament is, it's just kind of plain European city. It's not particularly beautiful. So but there's a little park there that's okay. And I found it striking that right outside the backside of the European Parliament building, there's a small grassy area with a number, maybe a dozen, maybe two dozen, somewhere in between statues in the grass. And what they are, when you look at them at first, you think, what are these? Are these aliens or something very peculiar? And you look closer, but no, they're ostriches with their heads buried in the ground, all of them. So it looks like a three-legged thing, but it's not. It's an ostrich with its head buried in the sand and there are you know dozens of these and I thought that's a weird installation to have, you know, on on site then you come around to the front to go into the to the actual Parliament building which you can't do without passes and a guide and all these things you can't just go in, but there's this statue right by the door that I found very striking and it's of this kind of very angry almost Soviet looking woman holding up a very sharp, angular, I'm trying to dig into the semiotics here like aggressive European and, you know, Euro-e. And she's standing triumphantly over a man that she seems to have conquered, who looks quite dejected and broken and so, you know, there's there's this weird vibe about the place, plus it's this weird building of steel and glass and an otherwise kind of fairly quaint European city, that just this kind of this glass. It's not the scary circular one that's in Spain or wherever that is. It's but this is, you know, intimidating steel and glass structure, that is just so out of character for the rest of the city. But as far as being inside the building, we went afterwards, after it was all people that were on site. And then after the talk, there was a little reception out in the hallway. And that was all, nobody bothered us. And then we went upstairs to do some interviews. And there was at the interview area with all the cameras, the media area, with the good lighting and all of that, There was another group, and I don't know who exactly they were, Renew Europe or something like this, I think is what it said, and they had a European Union flag with the stars. But instead of it being solid blue, that kind of deep blue that they use, it was rainbow. I think the stars might have not been in a circle, but might have been in a heart or something silly. So I asked them, and so obviously these people are not my people, so I asked them, I said, I love your flag, can I borrow it for a picture? And they were quite accommodating and they had a friendly chat with me and they don't know my views, but they were polite and professional as one would expect in a building of that sort. So I didn't find it's, I find more hostility going into American government buildings from Democrats here in the US than I experienced in the EU. But that might've just been stroke of luck or something like that. Just before I move to the issues, how do you see it? Because as an American, there is a culture where there is a battle happening, and it is one side against the other. When you look at Europe, it's much more one-sided than it is in the US. In the US, we look across the water and see the battle amongst the side of truth as being positive, strong, having arguments and holding the line, where in Europe, even the good countries have been succumbed into that EU of hating themselves and of rewriting history and all of that. How do you see that as an American? Well, I'll point out first, because I do agree with you generally, not the Flemish, the Flemish do not have that attitude. For certain and I found that I was spending quite a bit of time with it with Flemish men and women and some of the Italians do not have that attitude and they were very nice to spend time with, even a few Germans would they're very German, you know, everything must be according to the protocol, you know, very, I love Germans, but no, the fact is, what I see in Europe is that Europe is far more tipped to socialism, far more tipped to kind of this overarching, less accountable or even unaccountable governance. This bureaucracy that's beyond the reach of the people, and it knows better, and therefore, you know, it's going to deal with the people for them than we see here in America. But it's not nearly as woke and that was actually kind of the crux of this conference that they wanted to put together is yes, yes, we know we're very socialist and we know we're very far down that road, but whatever's happening in the Anglosphere, so the UK is actually heavily included in this, it's a very different animal than continental Europe, is very crazy. It's properly almost insane. There was no confusion that I ran into among virtually anybody, about what a man and a woman for example, and in the European context. But the idea that the taxpayer money would just be wasted on everything that they want to do is, you know, just kind of taken for granted. It's just something they say, of course, this is how things work. Of course, the taxes will be crazy. Of course, we'll waste money on flying a stupid American over here and giving him lots of beer or something like this, you know, to show him a good time in Belgium. So it's a very different attitude. Europe is very dangerously tipped toward favourability toward socialism, but it's still repelling, and that was really again the crux of the conference, it's still repelling the very almost antinomian, insane, woke kind of, whether it's race, race politics is actually the most relevant. The sex and gender politics, people are a little bit naturally repellent to that still, but I don't think that that can last if they open the doors. So my goal was to warn Europe, like, yeah, you guys are already pretty well screwed up with socialism and maybe, you know, talking to the Flemish, maybe you can turn some of this around or do something with it in the future, but you do not know your danger if you think that you can kind of just not be proactive in keeping the woke ideology out. Yeah. You end, I don't know if it was actually the end or in the middle, telling them that according to Marx, socialism was not economic but religious in essence. Do you want to just kind of unpack that and is that why we are having this difficulty because it is religious in nature? Well Marx made it, he tried to make it look very much like it was economic. But if you read his earlier works, which sort of set the foundation and you catch the flavour of it throughout his as later works, Marx was very invested in this idea of understanding the world and man at a fundamental level. What is man? Who is man? And to answer these deep fundamental questions, and what does it require of man to do this? And so I actually think that he's more of a theologian in a kind of an anti-theology way. He's casting down God and replacing God with not man, but man enlightened to the secret truth of reality, which is that man is a social animal, a perfectly social being that lives not for himself but for the species when he's properly awakened to who he is. My contention is that if you take that as a fundamental substrate so that then it separates the world into the people who have access to power and the people who do not have access to power, then that they're intrinsically in conflict so that the underclass has to to awaken to its nature's true historical agents of change and seize the means of production, that the means of production are, in a sense, fungible. You can change them out. But the idea is that what are you producing? And everybody thinks it's, oh, it's economics. You're producing in the factory with goods and services. You're producing in the field with food and agricultural goods, and that's the hammer and the sickle, obviously. But no, you're producing man. You're producing man as who he's meant to be, which that's a fundamentally theological project, not a fundamentally economic project. And Marx believed that economic conditions to determine who man is. But if you were to say, well, it doesn't work, obviously in Britain and obviously in the United States and in Canada, economic conditions were not successful at agitating people into the historical class consciousness as change agents of history. But if you say that race or sex or gender or sexuality or whatever, those are actually the determinants. When you have material comfort. When you have, as some of the Marxists in the 20th century put it, an advanced capitalism that delivers the goods and allows people to build a good life, you are not going to get them on economic conditions. Economic conditions are not determinant of who they are. They are, but on a deeper level that they don't perceive. This is the thesis of Marcuse's one-dimensional man. You've been made one-dimensional. You can't even perceive the fact that economic conditions are relevant to your life. So instead, you have to come where it matters, which is in personal identity. If you're comfortable, where do you turn? You turn to yourself and you think about your identity and who you are in the world. And so identity politics became the weapon that allowed to subdue the West. So if you take out economic conditions as the producer of man, where the means of production have to be seized and you put in cultural issues around race or what it means to be a certain sexuality or what it means to be man or woman in terms of sex itself and gender, then you can just kind of get these other dimensions, whether it's critical race theory or queer theory or feminism as a kind of a Marxist flavour of feminism or within what they call critical pedagogy in education. It's who gets to be a knower and who doesn't. So being considered knowledgeable becomes a form of social property that has to be challenged by the people who are excluded from it by the existing knowing system. Listen to the way the woke talk. It's all about other ways of knowing and knowing systems and all of this. That's where this comes from. But it's the same fundamental architecture. It's, you have this theology of man, or maybe I think the technical word is an Anthroposophist, I can't even say it, anthrosophist, something. Anthro for man, sophi for, you know, sophistry. Sophistry of mankind. Somebody else can say it for me. I can write it. Type it out on the screen for you, but it's technically that, but you have this theology that has at its heart the idea that man is producing himself by some mechanism, and that mechanism can be seized by the underclass of its dynamic and taken over to transform what man and society is. And every one of their theories just, once you understand it that way, every one of their theories just falls out. So you can start making very keen guesses on what's going to happen as this progresses and develops. Here's one, I think I mentioned this in the EU, and I think it's very pertinent for the both European but also the UK context. So if you'll forgive me, just for simplicity, I'm going to consider the UK part of Europe. I know, we can't do that, but I don't want to have to say UK and Europe over and over again. So the broadly European, maybe I'll use broadly European context, that side of the Atlantic context, what you actually have, you guys live in, there is actually a text you can read. If you want to figure out what's happening in Europe, you read Douglas Murray's, The Strange Death of Europe. There is a single text, it's not that long, that you can read to fully understand whose Europe you live in, and it's John Paul Sartre's Europe. He wrote the foreword to Franz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth, so you're not going to go find one of Sartre's books. You're going to go get Wretched of the Earth, which is by Franz Fanon, who was a post-colonialist in the 50s and 60s in France. You're going to go get his book. And then he is from, I always get it wrong, Martinique. He's from Martinique. And so he was in this kind of colonized condition, but also a French psycho analyst. And so that forward though has a very important part. The book is all about, the colonial condition. So who's a native and who's a settler. And now you have that same dynamic, that same mentality, the same exact structure of how it creates who you are as a person. And Fanon argues that violence is the only way to overcome the colonized condition. And Sartre writes in the foreword to this that Europe, he has a letter to Europe, and he's like, Europe, you better listen. The payment for colonization is coming. And this is in the 60s. What you need to do, early 60s, you need to do is you need to decide, are they gonna get it by violence or are you going to propitiate yourself and give it away and hope that the violence doesn't come? And he urges Europe to start giving away their society to their former colonies. When they come and make a claim on your society, give it to them. Maybe they won't be violent. Maybe they'll spare you. So in the kind of very Trumpian, I see a Trump hat behind you, so very Trumpian kind of slang language of the 2020s, go ahead Europe and cuck yourself before the people who you previously colonized, give your societies away to them or else there'll be blood, is the message. And that is literally the message that Europe adopted. So while you haven't in Europe broadly construed, although the UK has taken up with quite a bit of woke. Scotland is, in Ireland or Scotland especially, is particularly bad. You guys have taken up quite a lot of this, but the element of the broad woke pantheon of powered gods or whatever that really strikes hardest is this post-colonial status, which has allowed you or made it so that not only have you guys opened your borders utterly, but that the entire social welfare state that you guys have built up around your socialist sensibilities pours into this yawning black hole of need. And the reason is discoverable in a French existentialist Marxists wailing about a post-colonialist saying that there must be blood to pay for colonization, which is a very obviously you're not allowed to even say these things, but a very one-sided understanding of, the impacts of colonialism. Yes, bad, but also you're not even allowed to mention that yes, good, too. It was a mixed bag brought through brutality and much injustice for certain, but at the same time time. Ethiopia famously is the least or the only completely uncolonized, if I remember right, country in that area of Africa. And they're also the ones that have been struggling the most and the most backwards in many regards for so long. They were the Somalia and Ethiopia where when I grew up as a kid, it was, you know, the starving kids in Ethiopia, eat your peas because the starving kids in Ethiopia don't have any, you know, they were the, they the poster child of backwards and broken. Maybe that was a meme that's not true, I don't know, anyway, Europe has that on its plate, and I think that's comprehensible. I actually think the strange death of Europe is utterly comprehensible out of the foreword that, Sartre wrote. If you read any of Sartre, who the hell wants to live in his world? What a nightmare. Well, you do, and what a nightmare. Tell us, because you mentioned colonialism, that's one of the battle lines, the critical race theory is one of the battle lines, you talked about that and how that fits under socialism. I know it was last year you published Race Marxism, the truth about critical race theory and people can get that. The links will be in the description for them to get hold of that and to go deeper into it. But how does critical race theory fit under the umbrella of socialism or Marxism? Well, it's a redistribution of cultural capital that ties into actually redistributing material capital. So the idea is that there's this form of cultural property that white people erected for themselves during the colonial eras, particularly to justify colonialism and to justify slavery in the 17th century, primarily 16th and 17th centuries, going some into the 18th century. And falling apart in the 19th century. So this idea of whiteness as a cult form of cultural property that generates white supremacy and racial superiority and even racial identification was created by white people to enshrine their own power and to impose, racial identity and inferiority, social and cultural and even economic inferiority on others. So-called people of colour, but particularly blacks and critical race theory builds out completely from this. And the goal then is to seize the means of cultural production around the ideas of what it means to be a member of a certain race. And it's actually a very interesting theory because it's still, unlike some of these other woke theories which seem just off in the air, it's got one foot very firmly still rooted in material reality. It's in a sense a lot more, not explicitly Marxist, but much more critical and materialist. And if you read their early writings, in fact, if you read virtually all of their writings through the 1990s, and I expect, so 70s through the 90s, and I expect we're gonna see another rash of this writing coming now, given what's happening in the United States Supreme Court. It's a very American theory, by the way. It doesn't really fit in other contexts, and Europeans have noticed, as have Brits. Like, we didn't do this, what are you talking about? But the fact is what it's really centered around is seizing the means of affirmative action, is what it's ultimately about. And I don't say that to be cheeky. If you read their books, affirmative action is brought up as a core and key issue hundreds of times. It's not mentioned kind of tangentially here or there, it is a central issue that comes up again and again. And their goal is that they're seeing affirmative action gaining public disfavour through the, say, the 80s. They see, you know, the Supreme Court starting to say, well, maybe it needs a time limit. And they explicitly say, no, it doesn't need a time limit. Not only do we need to maintain it, we need to expand it. It needs to be bigger and more and more and more. So it's like it's very materialistic, seize the means of opportunity redistribution, I guess, in material resources. This is where the reparations conversations come in. And so it takes the entire architecture of literally of Marxism, infuses it with the later critical theory, and then recentres it in race. And in fact, you can find authors like Gloria Ladson Billings is a famous critical race theorist. In the 90s, she writes a paper called Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. And what she says is in that paper, and I can't quote it from memory anymore, I used to do it a lot, but she says that, the point of critical race theory is to make race the central variable for understanding all inequality. So is where a classical Marxist would say that access to capital is the central concern that determines all inequality, and that's the production of man for critical race theorists, is that race actually supersedes that. And there's a wonderful book explaining all this that I thought was extremely clarifying and elucidating. It's one of the better books that I've read. It's by a former philosopher of race. I've been told I'm not allowed to call him a critical race theorist, technically. His name's Charles Mills, very famous guy. He wrote a book called The Racial Contract, which takes Rousseau's social contract and turns it into a racial phenomenon. But he also wrote a book called From Class to Race, where he explains how he moved from being a classical Marxist to a critical race philosopher. And he argues that he became convinced that at least in the American context, when we understand what Marx was really saying, what he really meant by ideology, what he really meant by social structures, superstructure, infrastructure, the base, and how they interact to create a structure of society, that race is by far the more relevant variable in American society, in American history. So he moves from, it's a book about his own philosophical journey, From Class to Race. And it's the title of the book, From Class to Race, by Charles Mills. It's a staggeringly interesting book. The first chapter was so eye-opening to understand Marx. It's one of the top three most important things I've read to understand Marx. And he's got a very heterodox view, according to Marxist standards. So people criticize my view of Marx, as I've largely derived it from Charles Mills, who's a Marxist, just a fairly heterodox one. He's late Charles Mills to be clear. I don't know if I mentioned he died a few years ago. But that's, in a nutshell, what critical race theory is. Rather than capital being the special form of private property that basically appropriates every deterministic thing in society, including who you are as a person, race becomes, whiteness in fact, becomes the central piece of private property. This is based off of a paper explicitly called Whiteness as Property, written by Cheryl Harris, a famous critical race theorist, in 1993. I think, they're always in really big ones, I think that one's Harvard Law Review. It might be Cornell Law Review. I have to always kind of look up and check where it was published, but it's one of these very big universities law review. And it's a very, it's like 93 pages. It's a very long article arguing that whiteness functions in parallel to the way that Marx lays out capital as a form of bourgeois private property. She even uses the phrase bourgeois property a few times in the paper, that the white people have set themselves up as a racial bourgeoisie and everything just kind of follows from there. And so critical race theory becomes this, that's why I titled the book Race Marxism, as a matter of fact, this Marxist theory of race. It latches onto that post-colonial, just for you broadly UK, European context folks, it latches onto that because there are often racial components to colonialism. I mean, if you've colonized Africa, most of the people you've colonized happen to be black. If you've colonized Asia, most of the people you've colonized happen to be Asian. So you can understand why they would attach these arguments about whiteness and race back through, and that's kind of the back door there in the UK-European context, is that they're using the colonial context and then saying, well, the real reason for all this was racial, where it's not, it's straight up, it's directly, openly, unabashedly, historically, imperial. It's the British empire was proudly an empire. The Spanish empire was proudly an empire. You know, their goal up until World War II, I think every European country threw on its hat to try to conquer the world of its empire. And then finally we realized with nuclear weapons and machine guns and jet airplanes and things like that, carpet bombing, maybe that's not good anymore. Maybe military colonization is not a functional approach for a humanity that wants to survive, into the 21st century. Well, can I, then another battlefront, and you raised this so that you didn't really go into it in the speech, is queer theory. And I think that's where we have more of a battleground in Europe. Critical race theory seems to be less an issue, certainly in our education system, where it is queer theory, and of course, we're celebrating the holy month of pride this month. But tell us, how does that- How does that-  The power be upon us. And how does that fit under socialism queer theory? Yeah, well, it's the same model. So if we understand this concept that there's economic conditions blah blah blah and you get all of Marxism that falls out from the Marxist kind of axioms, and then you say well if we consider economic production to be fungible for racial production as a cultural property, then you get critical race theory Well, if we consider both of those again to be fungible and we pull out that and we say well there's a certain class in society that have designated themselves by virtue of their larger numbers by virtue of having been successful and put themselves in positions of power, but they've declared themselves normal. And other people outside of that are not normal, or they're abnormal, or they're aberrant, or they're perverts, or they're queer, queer against normal, and the kind of even old meaning of the word, then queer theory falls out in your lap. It's just that simple. But this is a very scary phenomenon, whereas critical race theory at its very bottom has, and Marxism both at their very bottom, have a blatant visible grift involved. We're going to seize the means of production. We're going to establish a permanent and stronger and increasing, accelerating affirmative action regime. These are very blatant grifts. We're going to take resources and power for ourselves as an identifiable group of people or whatever. With the queer theory, it's a very different thing. They're looking at the cultural production, it is largely sex, gender, and sexuality, but it can apply to anything. Fat studies emerged mostly in the UK, as it turns out. So did the study of ability, what's called the social model of disability, is from a a man named Michael Oliver, who was a Brit. I don't remember where, if he was London or where, but they actually use the same underlying architecture and engine as queer theory. So now instead of it being about sex or gender or sexuality, it's about your body weight, your health status, your ability status as a very awkward politically correct term we use to not say handicapped or whatever. Well, in America, is fatness now a designated characteristic in New York? I don't know how that's going to work, but yeah.  Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I've been I noticed in December that I had some fatness going on. So I, believe, get this I started eating less and moving more and the fatness started to go away. It's incredible  Revolutionary  Yeah, I know you guys use fake measurements like kilos or stones or whatever that nobody knows what they are, I think I lost like I'll do it in stones. I think I lost 1.6 stone If I'm making up numbers correctly, whatever that works out to is 28 pounds. Maybe you could get repatriations for the time you were over with at all. I don't know could be  I hope so but the idea with queer theory is anything that kind of the broad consensus of society considers normal is, illegitimately determined so that certain people get to have power. So what they're trying to do is seize the means of production of of normalcy, what people consider within the boundaries of normal or normative or even healthy or good behaviour, presentation, being, society. And that's very dangerous because unlike the other ones, see, critical race theory has to at the end of the day maintain its grift, right? Marxism at the end of the day has to maintain its grift. Queer theory, the second is let's say that they get LGBT or just LGB, they get gay acceptance, gay marriage, gay equality, gay everything, full civil rights movement that succeeds. I actually think that that's separate, by the way, the civil rights movement was more of a broadly liberal phenomenon, and I think it was separate from this very radical phenomenon. And there's a much historical and theoretical reason to accept that I know what I'm talking about with that claim, but you get broad LGBT acceptance in society, full equality in society, etc., and that becomes a new norm. Immediately you have to attack the new norm, and they actually have names for this. They have words. Homo-normativity. You've heard of heteronormativity that has to be combated. Homo-normativity has to be combated, and homo-normativity means the the broad acceptance of homosexual people in society, that's a problem because it actually prevents them from being radicalizable. Anything that would cause somebody to become a stable functioning member of society within the boundaries of normal has to be attacked. So every inch of ground queer theory takes, it has to turn around and wage war on its previous success to take it even further. They have to constantly, they call it queering. They have to constantly say, well, if you actually look at the people who designated that they're normal, a lot of them are perverts and private. So are they really normal? Or are they just repressed and have to keep their perversion in the closet? And that's just like other people being in the closet and they blur out all these contexts. But it's a war against normalcy. It's a war against norms. It's a war against decency and expectations of decency. It's also a war against any boundaries. The boundaries, you could say that, maybe it's artificial, the boundaries between heterosexual versus homosexual. But at some point, we're not talking about artificial boundaries, the paedophilia, bestiality, these kinds of very perverse things. The boundaries between what in the slang terms get called vanilla and kink. There's some kind of boundary. They say that these things are all actually, there is no boundary. There's no meaningful boundary and their goal is to dissolve those. So what ultimately happens is, queer theory is like a universal solvent. It's an acid that will dissolve anything. And anything that you try to put as a container around it, it necessarily has to dissolve that too. They even have, I thought there was just one, I looked it up, There are many papers that have some variation of queering queer theory as their title in their queer literature, Because queer theory itself had become too normative. So they have to queer that they have to make it even weirder less normative, and so it's uh it's socialist though in the sense that it's trying to seize the means of production and redistribute shares of social acceptance and opportunity, according to whether or not you're considered normal. Phrases like bring your whole self to work are very queer. Like, no, do not bring it. Leave most of yourself at home, as a matter of fact, is actually what we call professionalism. And that they would say that that's restrictive of people who say want to wear fetish gear to the office, kind of like we have in our White House happening right now. Kind of very visibly what we have. There's military officials wearing literally pup fetish, we had this bizarre character in charge of our nuclear waste and other things who was stealing women's clothing from airports and he's been arrested now three times for this. And it turns out he's a member of this troop that's now controversially the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in Los Angeles that is doing the very antinomian religious provocation at Dodger Stadium that's all in the news. He's not a current member, he was a former member Sam Brinton is this character's name, you know, bald, shiny head, looks like an alien, has a moustache dressed in a fabulous gown he stole from some woman of colour immigrant who built it, that you know herself. Very bizarre, but queer theory is well, who's this? There's an old sketch on Saturday Night Live. I encourage people to look this up It's it's the character's name is sex ed. So it's sex ed Vincent. His name is Ed Vincent. He's a sex educator Everybody should look this up This is the perfect expression of queer theory and actually post-modernism where he's describing very bizarre fetishes as a joke, right? It's very funny and he's obviously very nerdy weird guy, but then it's his tagline is, is that weird? well who's to say, and he's teaching like a class, is that weird? and everybody says like who's to say, that's the ultimate idea of queer theories is that outside of the boundaries of normal? Well who gets to say that obviously people who set themselves up that way so we're gonna redistribute who has the power to determine what is and is not normal including drag queens in front of children and you know, provocative displays pride parades as a parade for for civil rights or even to celebrate the fact that for many years homosexuals were very oppressed in society, often viciously oppressed in society a pride parade that would just march and you know wave flags or whatever for a day, as it used to be would be one thing. This isn't what happens at all this thing is this crazy celebration that sprawls now across not just a month with a season. The entire public square turns into a rainbow for for upwards of 60 days and beyond. It's you know, there are fetishists running around enticing children and doing crazy things. It's really turned into something like a much grosser version of carnival, and it's, their fundamental view is well, is that out of bounds? Well, it's illegitimate if anybody but us decide, every individual should get to decide for themselves what's publicly out of bounds. So this is, literally like it to some very Jordan Peterson issues. It's the chaos monster right or the chaos dragon It's Tiamat being released on society that will ultimately tear it apart. Just to finish off, your latest book published in December was an education, The Marxification of Education, Paolo Ferrer's critical Marxism and the Theft of Education. We have no time to go into the topic at all, it is there, links are all there for the viewers and listeners, but could I just ask you as we finish, why you wanted to write a book specifically on education. Well I got sucked into it. I was gonna, I knew it was important and nobody was covering what's called Critical Pedagogy, the Critical Theory of Education. So I read a couple of books on it, got a little informed. I thought I would do a flyby, and just, you know, a reconnaissance flyby, give some people some pictures. And it turns out it was like trying to do a flyby of Jupiter, I just got sucked into the gravity and stuck. It's just a huge universe, and it's so complicated. But I wrote the book particularly, I call it, you know, The Theft of Education, because I kept encountering parents who were saying, they're telling me they're not doing this in our school, but I know they're doing it in our school, I experience it with my children. What's going on? And so I had read enough to understand the magic trick, how they've stolen education, what the mechanism is. And it actually is the same trick I've described. We don't have to go into the nitty gritties, but they've set up who gets to be constituted as a knower. Who does society recognize as a knowledgeable person versus somebody who's recognized as ignorant or outside of that. And they've created a Marxist seize the means of production program, where Paolo Ferrari did out of that. And then he created a mechanism in education where you use the academic material as an excuse to have political conversations. So that's how they do it. They don't technically teach critical race theory. They show a math problem and use it as an excuse to have a discussion about racial injustice and do this over and over and over again. Informed by critical race theory would be more accurate than teaching critical race theory. And so I wanted to pull back the veil on how that happens and what's really going on and that this is actually a cult brainwashing program. And the book has been very helpful to parents across at least the United States in that regard. It's being translated into Portuguese now, so we'll see what happens with that. Well, James, I appreciate you coming on. The issue of woke is, I think, the issue in whether society and cultures will survive or collapse, how you respond to them. So I appreciate you coming on and sharing your insights on those. Yeah, well, I'm very glad to talk to you, very glad to get to spread the word. I think the European context has an interesting opportunity. UK is a little bit harder. You've already taken in a lot. But Europe has actually a chance, the ID group being that we mentioned before, being a great bulwark to stand up to this particular, very toxic aspect that will, as you can see, and whether it's the UK or Australia or Canada or the United States, that will rip a society apart if you let it in. Yeah, we're seeing that happen. And you mentioned in Brussels, their issue is immigration. 30% Islamic.  That clash between separate ideas of what culture should be and what freedom should be is why I would never want to live in Brussels. So, sorry.  Yeah. Well, I'll tell you the truth just quickly that this whole, if we look at Marx as a theologian philosopher-ish kind of character, A lot of his model, he says he inverted it, but he derived it from Georg Hegel preceding him. And Hegel's belief, and Marx definitely adopted this part, was that history is this inexorable force, almost like a deity itself that has a trajectory and a purpose and a defined endpoint. And the key part is that it moves through conflict. And if you understand nothing else about everything we've just talked about, that the people that think this way, that have adopted this worldview, understand that they move history to a desired endpoint through generating conflict. You don't have to get into the granular details of how until later. You can understand many of these decisions. Why are you pulling in 30% of your population now is going to be a different religion with a different culture, and then you take tremendous care of them and inflame these tensions across the divide and cause these conflicts, because conflict moves history. In other words, truly their view, religiously speaking for Hegel explicitly, is that the conflict working itself out through history actually finishes or actualizes God. So God doesn't become God until the conflicts have all played out, so they have to generate the conflicts to create the finalized deity, at which point everything will be perfect at the so-called end of history with the people that live in it called the last man.  Yeah. Well, we'll finish, James. The viewers and listeners @ConceptualJames on GETTR, Gab, Truth, Minds, wherever your preferred social media platform is, you'll find James on it, and of course newdiscourses.com. So thank you so much once again for your time, James.  Yeah, thank you.

“This is the unraveling of civilization, if we allow for the full-scale corruption—political and ideological corruption—of our knowledge-producing sector,” says James Lindsay.Lindsay is the founder of the website New Discourses, author of “The Marxification of Education” and “Race Marxism,” and co-author of “Cynical Theories.”He's also one of the minds behind the “Grievance Studies Affair” or “Sokal-squared Hoax,” in which they managed to get a number of fake papers published in critical-theory-based journals. The story is detailed in Mike Nayna's new documentary “The Reformers.”We discuss the corruption of education and the evolution of Marxism to the new variants we see today.

Imagine my surprise. Late last summer, I got an email from the Oxford Union formally inviting me to debate the proposition “This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far.” Then, a month or so after I accepted, while on a flight across the country to Southern California, I happened to stumble upon the Oxford Union debate schedule page a few hours after it was posted only to discover that the house had placed me in the opposition to the proposition. That is, Oxford Union had deemed that I do not believe Woke culture has gone too far. I was to be up against Toby Young, Konstantin Kisin, and Charlie Kirk, which was a considerable shock. I had no idea who the people on my side were. I was also pretty excited because it was an opportunity of a lifetime for me. I was going to get to take something like the Grievance Studies Affair to Oxford, live and in person, as myself. After sitting on this news for a few weeks, assuming the Oxford Union would realize its mistake and cancel me, seeing as the proposition side of the debate was already full, the decisive need to make travel arrangements loomed, so I emailed the Oxford Union to point out their error. Of course, I also made it clear I was willing and able to accept the side of the debate to which I had been assigned. The Oxford Union replied fairly promptly, saying, “We did not know that Dr Lindsay wanted to speak on the proposition side of the debate. However, at this point, the proposition side is full. Is there any chance Dr Lindsay can speak on the opposition side?” Obviously, I eagerly insisted that I could and would. Read more: https://newdiscourses.com/2023/01/james-lindsay-goes-to-oxford/ -James Lindsay Get James Lindsay's new book, The Marxification of Education: https://amzn.to/3RYZ0tY Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe. #newdiscourses #JamesLindsay #oxford

What is postmodernism? Does the Biden Administration support Critical Race Theory? How might a recommitment to classical liberal principles help fight "Woke-ism"? James Lindsay joins the show to answer these questions and more and discuss his book (co-written with Helen Pluckrose), Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.  About the "Grievance Studies Affair," here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

What is postmodernism? Does the Biden Administration support Critical Race Theory? How might a recommitment to classical liberal principles help fight "Woke-ism"? James Lindsay joins the show to answer these questions and more and discuss his book (co-written with Helen Pluckrose), Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.  About the "Grievance Studies Affair," here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Better than QandA is a new format live panel show that appeals to those who want to think deeply about the world today. Tonight's topic 'Impossible Conversations with Peter Boghossian' explores epistemology: how do you know what you know? After demonstrating multiple games of 'street epistemology' we will dive into the 'Sokal Squared' 'Grievance Studies Affair' where James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian successfully published hoax papers in peer-reviewed academic journals to demonstrate the intellectual corruption of academia. Panellists: Peter Boghossian joins us live, all the way from the USA. Peter is a Founding Faculty member at the University of Austin and the director of National Progress Alliance. His teaching pedigree spans more than 25 years and focuses on the Socratic method, scientific skepticism, and critical thinking. Peter's dissertation explored increasing the moral reasoning of prison inmates and aiding their resistance to crime. His most recent book is How to Have Impossible Conversations and his writing can be found in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Time Magazine, National Review, and elsewhere. His work is centred on bringing the tools of professional philosophers to a wide variety of contexts to help people think through what seem to be intractable problems. Flying in from Perth is Australia's most controversial comedian: Corey White. Transitioning from criminal lawyer to comedian, Corey has appeared at The Sydney Writers Festival, on Triple M, SBS, and at the Melbourne Comedy Festival. He's mic dropped on the SAS, police, "journalists", the legal profession and government approved comedians, with a swag of agenda fluid gags that are rigorously tested, safe and effective for all. Until 2023 he was Australia's most cancelled comedian for daring to raise impossible conversations. Support Peter and his non-profit, the National Progress Alliance: https://www.nationalprogressalliance.org All of Discernable's town halls, merch, interviews and events: https://linktr.ee/discernableofficial

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 101 James Lindsay, host of the New Discourses Podcast, gets asked all the time about what really got him started in his campaign against Woke Marxism. Invariably, the conversation includes a discussion of the Grievance Studies Affair, but what triggered that? Before the Grievance Studies Affair (https://newdiscourses.com/2020/01/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ ), there was "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" (https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf/ ), and before the Conceptual Penis, there was a real academic paper called "Glaciers, Gender, and Science: A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research" (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368/ ) by four researchers from the University of Oregon, writing on a significant National Science Foundation grant. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James revisits this paper and shares with you exactly what it says, now understood in great clarity. Join him to hear how he was "radicalized" to start fighting the Woke in a serious manner, in their own words. Pre-order James Lindsay's new book, The Marxification of Education: https://amzn.to/3RYZ0tY Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2022 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #newdiscourses #jameslindsay

Adoré Floupette, Ernest Lalor Malley, Sokal Hoax and Grievance Studies Affair aka Sokal Squared are all, at heart, satirical works with a sharp aim at foolish literary and academic circles. But a 1976 sublime satirical work about salt passing is the

Yes, we're back with Jimmy Concepts, reliable source of dishonest idiocy.  This time, as a kind of 'bonus feature' to our last episode, Daniel reads out a representative selection of reviewer comments on some of the fake papers submitted to academic journals by Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian during the so-called 'Sokal Squared' prank.  It's very revealing... albeit of something we already knew: namely that Lindsay and his cohorts are absolutely full of shit. Content Warnings. Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1   Show Notes for 95: Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship ( https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ ) Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews ( https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 ). "BJ-Gay" reviewer's comment: - This paper claims to apply a combination of psychoanalysis and feminism to examine and critique styles of masculinity evident within grappling-based martial arts subcultures. Overall, I found the paper very difficult to read and cannot recommend it for publication. This is due to a combination of factors, namely: - A densely theoretical, often confusing style of prose in many parts of the paper; - An inconsistent application of theoretical concepts, most of which were not defined with any clarity for the reader; - Overuse of certain source material, as well as a fairly consistent tendency to misuse sources in support of claims that the papers/books in question do not actually support; - Many sweeping generalizations about (all) men involved in (all) grappling-based martial arts; - A tokenistic inclusion of discussions of women in these spaces, which was not reconciled with the analysis in any meaningful way; - A central thesis which is not, to my knowledge, supported by any of the empirical research in this area (despite the fact that several such studies were cited in the paper); - Bizarre, even farcical concluding recommendations which indicate a lack of knowledge about the martial arts in question, as well as a tenuous and selective grasp of feminism as applied to sport. - There is simply too much wrong with the paper to offer a more robust criticism as a reviewer. I recommend that the author spends far more time acquainting themselves with both the theoretical and empirical literature at the intersection of sport, martial arts and masculinity studies before attempting a re-write. The current offering sits far short of the standards of scholarship expected of academic publication, particularly in a journal such as Men and Masculinities. https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1444709707864674306 https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1402338497617285120 "The Joke's On You" reviewer comment: - Another sign of lack of integration is that there is not clear definition of the comedic. The very first paragraph offers one too narrow for the essay. Northrup Frye provides some useful definitions of irony, parody, and satire in his classic work, Anatomy of Criticism. Note, too, that Cynthia Willett, in Irony in the Age of Empire, shares a similar thesis with this essay, namely that irony works against arrogance and ignorance. That source should be acknowledged even as the author discusses her own different approach, and might help the author clarify definitions of the comedic and integrate argument. - Yet another sign of lack of integration are the mixed references from Oliver to Dotson, Bailey, et al.-- Oliver would support a strong postmodern or poststructuralist stance that would render claims to speak "truth" to power finally ironic or that would yield to a very serious act of witnessing alterity. The latter group of epistemologists (including Dotson and Bailey) seem to affirm a pluralism but also a truth that allows for objective claims. Humor that makes use of the latter approach would typically tend toward satire, not irony. Satire and irony just do not function the same way, and the author would want to decide which direction or use of them would most assist the argument. "Fat Body Builders" reviewer comment: - For instance, statements like these, “In order for fat to be seen as ordinary and familiar, we need to insert ourselves in the extraordinary and unfamiliar. Competitive bodybuilding venues may be unfamiliar, even intrinsically fat-exclusionary, but this can change” and “Though it goes beyond the scope of this paper to provide more specific methods for institutionalizing fat bodybuilding” illustrate the issue with the paper. The author has highlighted the negative implication of fat stigma, but with a lack of connection to implementation, it negates the reason for why fat bodybuilding is a solution over other means or methods. - This reader would encourage the author to improve the connection between fat bodybuilding and its role as a means of fat activism. The author certainly has a wealth of information about the field of bodybuilding and the author should use that experience to strengthen the connections mentioned previously. "Hooters" reviewer comment: - This then takes me to a core challenge in moving forward with your paper at Sex Roles: trustworthiness. All three reviewers share my concern about the lack of demonstrated methodological integrity in the present paper. This is where Reviewer 3 comes in. I recruited Reviewer 3 after the other reviewers, and because she is a member of our in-house staff, I shared both reviewers' (masked) comments with her. I asked her first if she felt there was enough evidence of rigor to pursue a revision. Because we (at this point) have incomplete methodological information, I cannot commit to making a positive judgment here, but I am committing to giving it a try. - Thus my second challenge to Reviewer 3 was to outline what next steps you will need to take (in addition to addressing the other reviewers' comments) to fill in these methodological gaps. As you can see from Reviewer 3's comments, this starts by laying out your procedural details and analytic strategy. My guess is that you will need to focus more specifically on theme development and justification (e.g., thematic analysis) rather than taking this aspect from grounded theory (in that your goal is not to develop theory). I have attached a recently published paper in Sex Roles by Sheryl Chatfield that lays out various approaches to qualitative methodologies and outlines our standards here at Sex Roles. My expectation is that Reviewer 3's comments and this paper will help you address this critical point, as well as to move one from there to fully flesh out your methods, analyses, and findings. "Dildos" reviewer comment: - In the opening sections, the author notes that "though Allan lays out psychoanalytic theoretical considerations that are strongly suggestive of the co-constitutive relationship between masculinity, thevariables listed above, and anality, currently there is no scholarly literature that engages the topic of straight male penetrative sex toy directly and substantively" (3). The author here is referring to Allan's article, "Phallic Affect," however, Allan's book, Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus (2016) might prove to be more useful in the context of this study. - The author writes that "there exists a far more extensive and applicable treatment in the book, The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure, but unfortunately this insightful volumes falls considerably outside of the scholarly academic canon" (3). I'm not certain that this is a problem, perhaps this is a difference of approach, but it seems to me that sex manuals are highly valuable resources in scholarly work and if there is a problem that the problem rests not with The Ultimate Guide but the Academy's inability to imagine value outside of itself. Indeed, the author might consider expanding this to include books like, The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Strap-On Sex by Violet Blue. Sci-Hub link: https://sci-hub.se/10.1353/tech.2007.0066 'So You Wanna Be a Hooters Girl' at The Smoking Gun: https://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl   Show Notes from 94 Again: https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/94-james-lindsay-and-the-grievance-studies-hoax James Lindsay, New Discourses, "Why You Can Be Transgender But Not Transracial."" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/06/why-you-can-be-transgender-but-not-transracial/ James Lindsay has a day job, apparently. "Maryville man walks path of healing and combat." https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Feminazis': What Three Academics' Hitler Hoax Really Reveals About 'Wokeness'. https://web.archive.org/web/20210328112901/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759 "First and foremost, the source material. The chapter the hoaxers chose, not by coincidence, one of the least ideological and racist parts of Hitler's book. Chapter 12, probably written in April/May 1925, deals with how the newly refounded NSDAP should rebuild as a party and amplify its program. "According to their own account, the writers took parts of the chapter and inserted feminist "buzzwords"; they "significantly changed" the "original wording and intent” of the text to make the paper "publishable and about feminism." An observant reader might ask: what could possibly remain of any Nazi content after that? But no one in the media, apparently, did." New Discourses, "There Is No Good Part of Hitler's Mein Kampf" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/there-is-no-good-part-of-hitlers-mein-kampf/ On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay, who helped to write the paper and perpetrate the Grievance Studies Affair, talks about the project and the creation of this particular paper at unprecedented length and in unprecedented detail, revealing Nilssen not to know what he's talking about. If you have ever wondered about what the backstory of the creation of the “Feminist Mein Kampf” paper really was, including why its authors did it, you won't want to miss this long-form discussion and rare response to yet another underinformed critic of Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose's work. The Grieveance Studies Affair Revealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k Reviewer 1 Comments on Dog Park Paper "page 9 - the human subjects are afforded anonymity and not asked about income, etc for ethical reasons. yet, the author as researcher intruded into the dogs' spaces to examine and record genitalia. I realize this was necessary to the project, but could the author acknowledge/explain/justify this (arguably, anthropocentric) difference? Indicating that it was necessary to the research would suffice but at least the difference should be acknowledged." Nestor de Buen, Anti-Science Humping in the Dog Park. https://conceptualdisinformation.substack.com/p/anti-science-humping-in-the-dog-park "What is even more striking is that if the research had actually been conducted and the results showed what the paper says they show, there is absolutely no reason why it should not have been published. And moreover, what it proves is the opposite of what its intention is. It shows that one can make scientifically testable claims based on the conceptual framework of gender studies, and that the field has all the markings of a perfectly functional research programme." "Yes, the dog park paper is based on false data and, like Sokal's, contains a lot of unnecessary jargon, but it is not nonsense, and the distinction is far from trivial. Nonsense implies one cannot even obtain a truth value from a proposition. In fact, the paper being false, if anything, proves that it is not nonsense, yet the grievance hoaxers try to pass falsity as nonsense. Nonsense is something like Chomsky's famous sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” It is nonsense because it is impossible to decide how one might evaluate whether it is true. A false sentence would be “the moon is cubical.” It has a definite meaning, it just happens not to be true.  "So, if the original Sokal Hoax is like Chomsky's sentence, the dog park paper is much more like “the moon is cubical.” And in fact, a more accurate analogy would be “the moon is cubical and here is a picture that proves it,” and an attached doctored picture of the cubical moon." Reviewer 2 Comments on the Dog-Park Paper "I am a bit curious about your methodology. Can you say more? You describe your methods here (procedures for collecting data), but not really your overall approach to methodology. Did you just show up, observe, write copious notes, talk to people when necessary, and then leave? If so, it might be helpful to explicitly state this. It sounds to me like you did a kind of ethnography (methodology — maybe multispecies ethnography?) but that's not entirely clear here. Or are you drawing on qualitative methods in social behaviorism/symbolic interactionism? In either case, the methodology chosen should be a bit more clearly articulated." Counterweight. https://counterweightsupport.com/ "Welcome to Counterweight, the home of scholarship and advice on [Critical Social Justice](https://counterweightsupport.com/2021/02/17/what-do-we-mean-by-critical-social-justice/) ideology. We are here to connect you with the resources, advice and guidance you need to address CSJ beliefs as you encounter them in your day-to-day life. The Counterweight community is a non-partisan, grassroots movement advocating for liberal concepts of social justice including individualism, universalism, viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas. [Subscribe](https://counterweightsupport.com/subscribe-to-counterweight/) today to become part of the Counterweight movement."" Inside Higher Ed, "Blowback Against a Hoax." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/08/author-recent-academic-hoax-faces-disciplinary-action-portland-state Peter Boghossian Resignation Latter from PSU. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for

So, in rank defiance of our recent promise to 'get back to the nazis' instead we continue our James Lindsay coverage.  (What... me? Irony? How dare you?)  This time, Daniel patiently walks a distracted, slightly hyperactive, and increasingly incredulous Jack through the infamous 'Grievance Studies Hoax' (AKA 'Sokal Squared') in which Lindsay and colleagues Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian tried (and then claimed) to prove something or other about modern Humanities academia by submitting a load of stupid fake papers to various feminist and fat studies journals.  As Daniel reveals, the episode was an orgy of dishonesty and tactical point-missing that actually proved the opposite of what the team of snickering tricksters thought they were proving.  Sadly, however, because we live in Hell, the trio have only raised their profiles as a result.  A particular highlight of the episode is Lindsay revealing his staggering ignorance when 'responding' to criticism. Content warnings, as ever. Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1   Show Notes: James Lindsay, New Discourses, "Why You Can Be Transgender But Not Transracial."" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/06/why-you-can-be-transgender-but-not-transracial/ James Lindsay has a day job, apparently. "Maryville man walks path of healing and combat." https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Feminazis': What Three Academics' Hitler Hoax Really Reveals About 'Wokeness'. https://web.archive.org/web/20210328112901/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759 "First and foremost, the source material. The chapter the hoaxers chose, not by coincidence, one of the least ideological and racist parts of Hitler's book. Chapter 12, probably written in April/May 1925, deals with how the newly refounded NSDAP should rebuild as a party and amplify its program. "According to their own account, the writers took parts of the chapter and inserted feminist "buzzwords"; they "significantly changed" the "original wording and intent” of the text to make the paper "publishable and about feminism." An observant reader might ask: what could possibly remain of any Nazi content after that? But no one in the media, apparently, did." New Discourses, "There Is No Good Part of Hitler's Mein Kampf" https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/there-is-no-good-part-of-hitlers-mein-kampf/ On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay, who helped to write the paper and perpetrate the Grievance Studies Affair, talks about the project and the creation of this particular paper at unprecedented length and in unprecedented detail, revealing Nilssen not to know what he's talking about. If you have ever wondered about what the backstory of the creation of the “Feminist Mein Kampf” paper really was, including why its authors did it, you won't want to miss this long-form discussion and rare response to yet another underinformed critic of Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose's work. The Grieveance Studies Affair Revealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k Reviewer 1 Comments on Dog Park Paper "page 9 - the human subjects are afforded anonymity and not asked about income, etc for ethical reasons. yet, the author as researcher intruded into the dogs' spaces to examine and record genitalia. I realize this was necessary to the project, but could the author acknowledge/explain/justify this (arguably, anthropocentric) difference? Indicating that it was necessary to the research would suffice but at least the difference should be acknowledged." Nestor de Buen, Anti-Science Humping in the Dog Park. https://conceptualdisinformation.substack.com/p/anti-science-humping-in-the-dog-park "What is even more striking is that if the research had actually been conducted and the results showed what the paper says they show, there is absolutely no reason why it should not have been published. And moreover, what it proves is the opposite of what its intention is. It shows that one can make scientifically testable claims based on the conceptual framework of gender studies, and that the field has all the markings of a perfectly functional research programme." "Yes, the dog park paper is based on false data and, like Sokal's, contains a lot of unnecessary jargon, but it is not nonsense, and the distinction is far from trivial. Nonsense implies one cannot even obtain a truth value from a proposition. In fact, the paper being false, if anything, proves that it is not nonsense, yet the grievance hoaxers try to pass falsity as nonsense. Nonsense is something like Chomsky's famous sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” It is nonsense because it is impossible to decide how one might evaluate whether it is true. A false sentence would be “the moon is cubical.” It has a definite meaning, it just happens not to be true.  "So, if the original Sokal Hoax is like Chomsky's sentence, the dog park paper is much more like “the moon is cubical.” And in fact, a more accurate analogy would be “the moon is cubical and here is a picture that proves it,” and an attached doctored picture of the cubical moon." Reviewer 2 Comments on the Dog-Park Paper "I am a bit curious about your methodology. Can you say more? You describe your methods here (procedures for collecting data), but not really your overall approach to methodology. Did you just show up, observe, write copious notes, talk to people when necessary, and then leave? If so, it might be helpful to explicitly state this. It sounds to me like you did a kind of ethnography (methodology — maybe multispecies ethnography?) but that's not entirely clear here. Or are you drawing on qualitative methods in social behaviorism/symbolic interactionism? In either case, the methodology chosen should be a bit more clearly articulated." Counterweight. https://counterweightsupport.com/ "Welcome to Counterweight, the home of scholarship and advice on [Critical Social Justice](https://counterweightsupport.com/2021/02/17/what-do-we-mean-by-critical-social-justice/) ideology. We are here to connect you with the resources, advice and guidance you need to address CSJ beliefs as you encounter them in your day-to-day life. The Counterweight community is a non-partisan, grassroots movement advocating for liberal concepts of social justice including individualism, universalism, viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas. [Subscribe](https://counterweightsupport.com/subscribe-to-counterweight/) today to become part of the Counterweight movement."" Inside Higher Ed, "Blowback Against a Hoax." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/08/author-recent-academic-hoax-faces-disciplinary-action-portland-state Peter Boghossian Resignation Latter from PSU. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for  

Author, social critic and part of the trio that put academia on its head during the Grievance Studies Affair, James Lindsay, talks to Jack Armstrong about those efforts, his boiled-down description of CRT and his fun with clown memes on Twitter. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 26 As most New Discourses fans will know, back in October 2018, James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose burst onto the scene with a scandalous expose of Critical Social Justice scholarship within academia. This effort to show the world what was going on in the humanities and (to lesser extent) social sciences research literature was billed the "Grievance Studies Affair" (https://newdiscourses.com/2020/01/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/), and the trio told their story in detail when the Wall Street Journal ended up breaking the story. The expose involved (https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/project-summary-and-fact-sheet.pdf) their having written 20 academic papers in about 10 months and seeing 7 of those accepted, 4 published, and 1 (about dog sex) having received recognition for excellence in scholarship. A further 7 papers were still under consideration or revision, and it has been assessed that at least 4 of these would probably also have been accepted (and eventually published). Among these papers, one very controversial example rewrote a chapter of Adolf Hitler's infamous book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and was accepted for publication by the feminist social work journal Affilia (title: "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," available in full here, https://drive.google.com/file/d/18DoO44m2G5tvJcQaMdau6d8CSrdKDRBf/view). This paper has predictably garnered a great deal of attention and has been the center of much controversy, including recently in an article by the progressive Israeli magazine Haaretz, where Swedish "Hitler expert" Mikael Nilsson recently brought (https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759) the issue back up (dated March 21, 2021) two and a half years later. His objective was to discredit the entire Grievance Studies Affair by showing the infamous "Feminist Mein Kampf" paper to have been a fraud (and darling of "right-wing" nonsense). He even makes the argument that the paper rewrites the least bad part of Mein Kampf, which is easily revealed to be horrifically misguided and believable only by removing the relevant context of the chapter. On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay, who helped to write the paper and perpetrate the Grievance Studies Affair, talks about the project and the creation of this particular paper at unprecedented length and in unprecedented detail, revealing Nilssen not to know what he's talking about. If you have ever wondered about the backstory of the creation of the "Feminist Mein Kampf" paper really was, including why its authors did it, you won't want to miss this long-form discussion and rare response to yet another underinformed critic of Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose's work. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.

Keri and Carter welcome James Lindsay back to the show for a live discussion. James is the founder and president of New Discourses (newdiscourses.com), an educational and media resources platform currently dedicated to explaining and helping people understand the Critical Social Justice scholarship and worldview. He is a bestselling author of six books and countless essays, including most recently How to Have Impossible Conversations (2019) with Peter Boghossian and Cynical Theories (forthcoming, 2020) with Helen Pluckrose. He's known for his participation in the Grievance Studies Affair (2018). You can follow James' work at the links below: New Discourses: newdiscourses.com Twitter: @ConceptualJames Cynical Theories: https://amzn.to/3j5rHVK The Grievance Studies Affair: https://bit.ly/2tEAA0g How to Have Impossible Conversations: http://bit.ly/ConversationsBook Thanks for watching! Please don't forget to like, subscribe, and share. Follow us on the following social media channels...at least until we get banned: Twitter: @unsafespace Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unsafepage Instagram: @_unsafespace Gab: @unsafe Minds: @unsafe Parler: @unsafespace Telegram Chat: https://t.me/joinchat/H4OUclXTz4xwF9EapZekPg Pick up some Unsafe Space merch at unsafespace.com! About Deprogrammed Hosted by former SJW Keri Smith, "Deprogrammed" is dedicated to unravelling Keri's former ideology. We'll explore the philosophy, strategy, and tactics that intersectional ideologues use to program "Social Justice Warriors," turning otherwise thoughtful, critically-minded individuals into armies of extreme leftist NPCs. Some episodes are interviews with special guests, and others are deep-dives into a different aspect of "social justice" culture, drawing both from Keri's personal experience as well as current events. YouTube link to video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/pv06fLzE1i4

Keri and Carter welcome James Lindsay back to the show for a live discussion. James is the founder and president of New Discourses (newdiscourses.com), an educational and media resources platform currently dedicated to explaining and helping people understand the Critical Social Justice scholarship and worldview. He is a bestselling author of six books and countless essays, including most recently How to Have Impossible Conversations (2019) with Peter Boghossian and Cynical Theories (forthcoming, 2020) with Helen Pluckrose. He's known for his participation in the Grievance Studies Affair (2018). You can follow James' work at the links below: New Discourses: newdiscourses.com Twitter: @ConceptualJames Cynical Theories: https://amzn.to/3j5rHVK The Grievance Studies Affair: https://bit.ly/2tEAA0g How to Have Impossible Conversations: http://bit.ly/ConversationsBook Thanks for watching! Please don't forget to like, subscribe, and share. Follow us on the following social media channels...at least until we get banned: Twitter: @unsafespace Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unsafepage Instagram: @_unsafespace Gab: @unsafe Minds: @unsafe Parler: @unsafespace Telegram Chat: https://t.me/joinchat/H4OUclXTz4xwF9EapZekPg Pick up some Unsafe Space merch at unsafespace.com! About Deprogrammed Hosted by former SJW Keri Smith, "Deprogrammed" is dedicated to unravelling Keri's former ideology. We'll explore the philosophy, strategy, and tactics that intersectional ideologues use to program "Social Justice Warriors," turning otherwise thoughtful, critically-minded individuals into armies of extreme leftist NPCs. Some episodes are interviews with special guests, and others are deep-dives into a different aspect of "social justice" culture, drawing both from Keri's personal experience as well as current events. YouTube link to video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/pv06fLzE1i4

InTerminable kicks off with James Lindsay as guest! Lindsay was a member of the trio who conducted the Grievance Studies Affair, submitting ludicrous pseudo-research papers to peer-reviewed journals and exposing major flaws in the system of academic scholarship. He speaks with Matt about the parallels between religion and critical social justice theory, the fallout from the Grievance Studies Affair, and the comedic angle on all of it. The Grievance Studies Affair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k&t=129s Postmodern Religion & the Faith of Social Justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zujHRbNTauU How to Have Impossible Conversations (by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay): https://www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical-ebook/dp/B07NL74KR2

My guest today is Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian). Peter is a professional philosopher and professor with more than 25 years of teaching experience. His primary research areas are moral reasoning and critical thinking. Peter is the author of several books, including his most recent, How to Have Impossible Conversations. He is also responsible for the infamous Grievance Studies Affair, which is the subject of a forthcoming documentary. Peter and I discussed how to expose ignorance, moral stereotypes, the inevitable decline of universities, and much more. I hope you enjoy our conversation as much as I did. 

In this episode of JavaScript Jabber the panel interviews Sean Grove from OneGraph; asking him questions about GraphQL tooling and common complaints about GraphQL. Sean starts by explaining what GraphQL is and how it benefits frontend developers. GraphiQL is a frontend open sourced tool produced by OneGraph, Sean explains how this handy tool simplifies GraphQL.    Authentication and authorization are one of the biggest criticisms of GraphQL. Sean walks the panel through the solution, getting a schema definition language and adding directives to build a simple authentication and authorization. The panel defines authentication and authorization and explains the difference.    The next issue common with GraphQL that the panel discusses is migration. Sean explains how OneGraph helps with migration using a Rust network layer and how it works. They also discuss how to migrate without this tool. Without the tool it is painful and he recommends incremental migration.    Sean explains that another problem in GraphQL is poor documentation. He explains why the documentation is poor and explains how they hope to fix it at OneGraph. The last issue they cover is the length of queries. Sean tells the panel how they can handle this problem with depth analysis or persistent queries. The episode ends with an elevator pitch for Reason.  Panelists Aimee Knight AJ O’Neal Charles Max Wood Dan Shappir Guest Sean Grove Sponsors Split CacheFly ____________________________________________________________ "The MaxCoders Guide to Finding Your Dream Developer Job" by Charles Max Wood is now available on Amazon. Get Your Copy Today! ____________________________________________________________ Links https://github.com/graphql/graphiql  https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/jsj-401-hasura-with-tanmai-gopal/  Follow DevChatTV on Facebook and Twitter Picks Aimee Knight: http://ergonomictrends.com/hand-wrist-exercises-computer-users/  Cats in your lap AJ O’Neal: The Grievance Studies Affair  Go Proverbs  Music Dan Shappir: Guatemala Tigana  Sean Grove: Yuki Li: “Breaking Out of Box”  Charles Max Wood: A Christmas Story Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer The Little Drummer Boy Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town The Ultimate Gift Frosty the Snowman

In this episode of JavaScript Jabber the panel interviews Sean Grove from OneGraph; asking him questions about GraphQL tooling and common complaints about GraphQL. Sean starts by explaining what GraphQL is and how it benefits frontend developers. GraphiQL is a frontend open sourced tool produced by OneGraph, Sean explains how this handy tool simplifies GraphQL.    Authentication and authorization are one of the biggest criticisms of GraphQL. Sean walks the panel through the solution, getting a schema definition language and adding directives to build a simple authentication and authorization. The panel defines authentication and authorization and explains the difference.    The next issue common with GraphQL that the panel discusses is migration. Sean explains how OneGraph helps with migration using a Rust network layer and how it works. They also discuss how to migrate without this tool. Without the tool it is painful and he recommends incremental migration.    Sean explains that another problem in GraphQL is poor documentation. He explains why the documentation is poor and explains how they hope to fix it at OneGraph. The last issue they cover is the length of queries. Sean tells the panel how they can handle this problem with depth analysis or persistent queries. The episode ends with an elevator pitch for Reason.  Panelists Aimee Knight AJ O’Neal Charles Max Wood Dan Shappir Guest Sean Grove Sponsors Split CacheFly ____________________________________________________________ "The MaxCoders Guide to Finding Your Dream Developer Job" by Charles Max Wood is now available on Amazon. Get Your Copy Today! ____________________________________________________________ Links https://github.com/graphql/graphiql  https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/jsj-401-hasura-with-tanmai-gopal/  Follow DevChatTV on Facebook and Twitter Picks Aimee Knight: http://ergonomictrends.com/hand-wrist-exercises-computer-users/  Cats in your lap AJ O’Neal: The Grievance Studies Affair  Go Proverbs  Music Dan Shappir: Guatemala Tigana  Sean Grove: Yuki Li: “Breaking Out of Box”  Charles Max Wood: A Christmas Story Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer The Little Drummer Boy Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town The Ultimate Gift Frosty the Snowman

In this episode of JavaScript Jabber the panel interviews Sean Grove from OneGraph; asking him questions about GraphQL tooling and common complaints about GraphQL. Sean starts by explaining what GraphQL is and how it benefits frontend developers. GraphiQL is a frontend open sourced tool produced by OneGraph, Sean explains how this handy tool simplifies GraphQL.    Authentication and authorization are one of the biggest criticisms of GraphQL. Sean walks the panel through the solution, getting a schema definition language and adding directives to build a simple authentication and authorization. The panel defines authentication and authorization and explains the difference.    The next issue common with GraphQL that the panel discusses is migration. Sean explains how OneGraph helps with migration using a Rust network layer and how it works. They also discuss how to migrate without this tool. Without the tool it is painful and he recommends incremental migration.    Sean explains that another problem in GraphQL is poor documentation. He explains why the documentation is poor and explains how they hope to fix it at OneGraph. The last issue they cover is the length of queries. Sean tells the panel how they can handle this problem with depth analysis or persistent queries. The episode ends with an elevator pitch for Reason.  Panelists Aimee Knight AJ O’Neal Charles Max Wood Dan Shappir Guest Sean Grove Sponsors Split CacheFly ____________________________________________________________ "The MaxCoders Guide to Finding Your Dream Developer Job" by Charles Max Wood is now available on Amazon. Get Your Copy Today! ____________________________________________________________ Links https://github.com/graphql/graphiql  https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/jsj-401-hasura-with-tanmai-gopal/  Follow DevChatTV on Facebook and Twitter Picks Aimee Knight: http://ergonomictrends.com/hand-wrist-exercises-computer-users/  Cats in your lap AJ O’Neal: The Grievance Studies Affair  Go Proverbs  Music Dan Shappir: Guatemala Tigana  Sean Grove: Yuki Li: “Breaking Out of Box”  Charles Max Wood: A Christmas Story Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer The Little Drummer Boy Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town The Ultimate Gift Frosty the Snowman

Listen to this episode on our podcast page or subscribe on your favorite podcast platform here. In the fifteenth episode of The Babylon Bee podcast, editor-in-chief Kyle Mann and creative director Ethan Nicolle are joined by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, of the famed "Grievance Studies Affair" who submitted hoax studies to academic journals and got three of them accepted. Peter and James are self-proclaimed atheists who are politically liberal, but their work exposing how certain areas of academia prioritize narrative above truth is not only important but hilarious. They also care a lot about having meaningful disagreements and are actively fighting "cancel culture." We talk to them about the Grievance Studies Affair as well as their new book, How To Have Impossible Conversations. They also have a new project for facilitating impossible conversations called New Discourses. As usual, Kyle and Ethan also get into a few news stories including John Bolton the walrus, vaping AR-15's, and Monopoly for Christian women. They extend the conversation with Peter and James in the subscriber-exclusive portion of the episode. Follow Peter Boghossian on Twitter Follow James Linday on Twitter (7:12) John Bolton Waves Goodbye, Returns To Sea To Be Walrus Again (11:02)  New Version Of Monopoly For Christian Women Has You Recruit All The Other Players Into A Pyramid Scheme (15:56) More E-Cigs Being Disguised As AR-15s To Avoid Ban (19:43) Interview: The Grievance Studies Affair and How To Have Impossible Conversations with Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay (56:57) Hate Mail (1:00:51) Paid Subscriber-Exclusive: Continuing the conversation with Peter and James about the insanity of academia, the ridiculous things their papers endorsed, and how social justice is like a cult (and also Gremlins) Become a paid subscriber at https://babylonbee.com/plans

Last fall, three writers and scholars announced they had submitted 20 fake papers to academic journals to test whether  — as they suspected — certain fields of study lacked scientific and academic rigor. Of the 20 papers they submitted before revealing their hoax, seven were accepted, four published, seven were “still in play,” and six were retired. The result is what’s become known as the “Grievance Studies Affair.”  But what does their experiment prove, exactly? On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we put this question directly to Jim Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian, who authored the controversial papers. Show notes: “Academic Grievance Studies and the corruption of scholarship” “Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies” (documentary video) “What the ‘Grievance Studies Hoax’ means” “Portland State says researcher violated the rights of the editors he duped” www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Article Links Grievance Studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair?fbclid=IwAR0BLzi8Y82VR5Slf1gqqmaPKJyBOmJ5Ol5N6UGxUnk2h-5FvGc8VTFjU9g Berkeley Language: https://www.apnews.com/e32a77acc6b64a6685e1ebfad9785928?fbclid=IwAR1QawAquDKvWnP09QBfgNvKk4iXEsELvpwvAhbLaQhLeZJk1mOSzl23HGY Scarlett Johansson: https://globalnews.ca/news/5495557/scarlett-johansson-comments-politically-correct-casting/?fbclid=IwAR0SvbUYO0t_FK_tGzAVU_kabq6HwaWYslbKwBZqVpEsQ6sx5Mc84tiFGTU

In this full episode of "Exploring Minds", Michele invites James Lindsay on to talk about a public scandal that came to be known as "The Grievance Studies Affair" and what their ultimate objective was in challenging modern day academia. - James Lindsay is best known for his work in the academic whistleblowing project known as the Grievance Studies Affair. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and is the author of several books, including the forthcoming How to Have Impossible Conversations, with his collaborator Peter Boghossian. YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzk08fzh5c_BhjQa1w35wtA Twitter http://twitter.com/ConceptualJames Essay https://areomagazine.com/2018/12/18/postmodern-religion-and-the-faith-of-social-justice/ Book https://www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323 Reference Materials: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 https://areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/ - SUPPORT US ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/exploringmindsshow FOLLOW ALONG FOR UPDATES AND NEW EPISODES: Discord - https://discord.gg/YhaAcN3 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/exploringmindsshow Twitter - https://twitter.com/ExploreMinds_TV Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/exploreminds_tv/ Website - exploringminds.show — Exploring Minds with Michele Carroll is the online show committed to exploring the world beyond talking points. Thank you for listening! Support the show.

In 1996, Dr. Alan Sokal, a physics professor, wanted to test the intellectual rigor of “postmodern cultural studies.” To do so, he wrote an article titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” This article was full of absolute nonsense—but Dr. Sokal believed it would be accepted by an academic journal anyway. And he was right. This hoax—called the “Sokal Affair” or “Sokal Hoax”—caused an uproar in academia because it questioned the validity of social science commentary on scientific inquiry. Fast forward to 2017. Three academics, editor Helen Pluckrose, mathematician James A. Lindsay, and philosopher Peter Boghossian, did something similar but bigger. And with a similar purpose—they wanted to test the intellectual rigor of academic journals in the fields of gender, queer, race, and fat studies—what they call as a whole, “grievance studies.” They wanted to see if they could produce absurd articles using the catch-phrases and biases they observed in cultural studies academic journals—and get them published. Of the 20 nonsense articles the trio wrote, 7 passed peer review and were published, and one even received recognition. Seven more were on the verge of publication before their hoax was uncovered. This academic project has been dubbed “Sokal Squared” as a nod to Dr. Alan Sokal’s hoax article from 1996. While it may sound like this topic is only of interest to academia, the authors believe it is relevant—in fact, crucial—for everyone to understand the implications of what is going on in universities and academic journals because the knowledge produced there affects us all. We spoke with all three of the “Sokal Squared” hoaxers, or “academic whistleblowers” as they would say, for today’s program. We should have the extended conversations with our guests posted by the evening of March 2, 2019.

Vincent Debierre interviews Alan Sokal, Professor of Mathematics at University College London and Professor of Physics at New York University. Musique by CelestiC : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFpG47llQKJuZ935fPM7H7Q Audio mixing by Arnaud Demion.

James A. Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter. His previous books include Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly and Life in Light of Death. He has been in the news for submitting, along with Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose, a series of hoax papers to peer-review (seven of which were published) in fields that categorise as “grievance studies”. SHOW NOTES: sigmanutrition.com/episode274

Host Guillermo Hamlin blasts off Season 2 with Dr. Joy Rankin, Author of ‘A People’s History of Computing in the United States’. Did you know that Dartmouth College only admitted male undergraduates in the 60s? Meanwhile, women were key in staffing its innovative Computation Center. They discuss The Sokal & Grievance Studies Affair, and her article “Why I’m Firing Michigan State: Sexual Harassment, Online Harassment, and Utter Institutional Failure”.

James A. Lindsay is a co-author of the Grievance Studies, a project designed to expose the politicized corruption within social justice geared humanities scholarship by creating bogus academic papers and submitting them to academic journals in the areas of cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. He and Bridget have a fascinating discussion about […]Sponsored by HoneyBook Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/walk-ins-welcome-bridget-phetasy/james-lindsay-discusses-punking-the-dogmatic-religion-of-extreme-social-justice/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Walk-Ins Welcome w/ Bridget Phetasy in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Many people are concerned that Dr. Peter Boghossian could be fired for exposing the shoddiness of gender studies and feminist academic journals.As one of the perpetrators of the Sokal Squared or "Grievance Studies Affair" hoax he faces disciplinary action over hoaxing peer reviewed journals. Often what people call social justice gets conflated with an ideology called intersectional feminism and the two could not be more different.Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)

Peter Boghossian, one of the three brilliant minds behind the "Grievance Studies Affair", talks to Armstrong & Getty about the state of higher learning in America--and the price he's paying for telling the truth. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com