Podcasts about Whiteshift

Eric Kaufmann is a political scientist and professor known for his research on demography, nationalism, and cultural identity. Kaufmann has written extensively on topics like white identity politics and the rise of populism. He has written several books on these topics, including Whiteshift and The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.For the Sake of Argument podcast: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@jakenewfield Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4k9DDGJz02ibpUpervM5EY Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for-the-sake-of-argument/id1567749546 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JakeNewfield

(This is a rebroadcast of a paid podcast episode from March 19th last year, which I now have made accessible to all. Hope you'll enjoy!)When Douglas Murrays book The Strange Death of Europe came out in 2017 I started recommending it to basically everyone I knew. Some of them, quite a lot of them actually, came back to me and said that they now saw the world in a different light. But they were also so disconcerted that they sometimes asked me to present a solution, since I was guilty of leading them down this path. What is to be done, Ivar? So today I'm putting that question to the author himself. He's one of the foremost thinkers and writers of our time, and that's not an exaggeration. He followed up The Strange Death of Europe with The Madness of Crowds two years later, which focused less on migration and islam, and more on the cultural issues afflicting us, centered around identity politics. And last year he came out with The War on the West which is what we focus on in today's conversation. Why is the west waging a war on the west? Why are we so preoccupied with feeling guilty over things that we fail to notice our achievements? How did antiracism become so racist? When did much needed self-criticism morph into abject self-flagellation?Below you can read the transcript of interview with Douglas Murray, for those of you who prefer that over listening to podcasts.Welcome, Douglas Murray, to Rak höger!– Very good to be with you!It's an honor to have you on! One of the reasons I've been very keen on having you on is because your books really are some books I recommend as I said before in the monologue. The latest one is called The War on the West and it came out a year ago and it really ties into the book you wrote before which was The Madness of Crowds and it sort takes it a step further. What is the War on the West and why did you chose choose that title?– Well, in in a number of recent books, as you say, I've been sort of groping towards what's going on in our time. In The strange Death of Europe I addressed the question of immigration and integration in the West, in particular in Europe. And this is obviously a subject which Swedes know very well, the challenges around. One of the things that I recognized that comes from mass migration and the great changing of a society is the identity of society changes. You might like the direction of change, or you might dislike it but it's pretty hard to argue against the simple proposition that if the people in the society changes, the society changes. One of the ways in which our societies have changed has been that we've had to change our guiding ethos and in my last book The Madness of Crowds, I looked at one of the things that is a changing ethos which is the way in which the public religion of our time has come to do with identity and what has become known as identity politics, obsessions with LGBTQIA+ issues, obsessions with women and the place of women in society and obsession with race and other identity related issues. These have become the dominant issue in our in our societies. – I addressed that as I say in The Madness of Crowds but there was an element of it that I had not addressed and which I wanted to address and did in in my most recent book in The War on the West, which is that in order for this to happen, it appears you also have to wage war on what we had in our societies. So to wage war on everything in our past to effectively presume that everything that happened in the past was bad and must be lambasted and criticized. In America, and we're all downstream these days, like it or not from American culture, in America this focuses on the idea that America has an original sin which is the sin of slavery. I don't deny the evils of slavery but it's a very s trange way to talk about it because of course, if America has original sin, is it the only country that does? Do other countries have original sins? What's the original sin of Uganda for instance? We in Britain and in Europe have ended up imbibing our own version of this and it comes in the form of anti-colonialism. The idea that for instance colonization is the original sin of Europe. In an obsession with slavery and any benefits that our society has had from that and in a third thing as well which is racism. Look at our societies and look at them through the prism solely of racism. Again, racism is a part of our past but it isn't the sole lens to look at it through and yet that has become the case. – I say that this has become a form of western anti-westernism and that's really what I write about in The War on the West. There are different types of anti-westernism, there is arab anti-westernism, there is Chinese anti-westernism and these are very interesting and important subjects themselves but the most important and the most dominant form of anti-westernism in our time is I believe Western anti-westernism and that's really what I write about in this book. The West's hate for its own past.When you read your book, it seems like there is a profound lack of curiosity about the actual inheritance and history and the people whose ideas have dominated or influenced our cultures for such a long time, to understand them and put them in their in their proper historical context, to understand where we come from.– That's right.I've been talking a lot about Christianity in this podcast lately I've interviewed Tom Holland, Paul Kingsnorth, Per Ewert and David Thurfjell on the subject and so much of that knowledge about the Christian heritage for example, you can just brush it over. Now in school, it's just one religion out of many and why should we learn more about that than others the other great world religions? I'm not sure if you share the sentiment? My own perspective is that if you're going to criticize something you better learn a lot about it and then you take it apart.– Well, but why would you have to learn and anything if you thought you already knew everything? Um I mean that's what's really happening. If you believe that everything that's gone wrong in the world is our fault in the West, you don't need to educate yourself about the rest of the world and you don't really have to educate yourself about your own past because you've already got this monomaniacal view of it, this single lens through which you need to look at everything, believing that everything was bad and that's all you need to know. Whereas to be informed, you would need to at least know the pros and the cons, the upsides and the downsides, the virtues and the vices. For instance, if you were to be interested in the historic subject of slavery, you would need to know both the ways in which it was done, the people involved, including the African nations involved and you would also have to know that it was the West that actually abolished slavery and how that came about including the Christian religious impulse, the Christian campaigners who brought it to an end.Perhaps my listeners know about that part, but it's not well known. That's one of the things that people are not so curious about, why did the West abolish slavery and Britain in particular?– Yes, it's a very interesting subject. Slavery has been a consistent throughout human history, almost every civilization we know of engaged in some form of it, it was the norm. First of all, principally, I hate that it makes me sound jingoistic, but when the British abolished slavery in the Nineteenth century, it was largely done through a moral argument whose moral force became impossible to resist, and the moral forces came from a Christian idea of the sanctity of the individual and that this sanctity applied to everyone, that everyone was equal in the eyes of God and that man did not have the right to enslave his fellow man. The moral force of this argument made by people like Wilberforce and others, as I say became impossible to resist and became so impossible to resist that actually slavery fell apart within a number of decades. It didn't fall apart simply through natural causes or from the force of that argument. It also stopped because the British navy patrolled the high seas and forcibly stopped vessels transporting slaves, for instance to Brazil which tried to continue slaving until the 1880s. So it was not simply through a force of moral argument but the initial impetus to ban slavery, to ban it not just in the British empire as it then was but around the world, undoubtedly had a Christian fuel behind it. That's a very important thing to recognize. There's another one that perhaps is more complicated morally, which is the Christian realization that was at the root of a form of colonialism, certainly in the age of the explorers existed, when Columbus and others set out, Columbus in particular and accidentally discovered the new world. One of the interesting questions that arises is what the natives in these places were and if the West had approached them in the way that many people think, among other things no missionary would have set out. It was the inside of European explorers, that said these people are like us. That's obvious to us today but it wasn't obvious at the time. Many other civilizations would have taken a contrary view. But the moment that people realize these were people like us, people with immortal souls, to use the language of the time, then of course the missionaries set out. And the missionaries would not have set out if these were not recognized to be, as it were, equals.While Britain was fighting Napoleon, the British parliament passed the act of the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. The argument is that it was the “white savior complex” and all that, and that's part of it maybe, but it was also the case that it was at a great cost that the British Empire did it. They fought a lot of wars to abolish the slave trade. A friend of mine who has roots from Africa was talking about slavery and colonialism on a panel a few years back. He said “most of you guys who are here are white, so you have sort of inherited a sense of guilt for the slave trade but my family actually owned and sold slaves for centuries and we only stopped because the Britons abolished the slave trade. That's the reason we stopped, so I have an actual inherited guilt from my family. But since I am black, I have the upper hand towards you, even though most of you were potato farmers until recently”. But that kind of argument is too complex. It's interesting that you're actually not interested in how these quakers, other Christians and British politicians like Wilberforce argued – that there souls were worth the same – they were part of the common humanity. But like you say, there seems to be a western war against the West and it's hard to understand why.– I'd say that the why is partly because it's so simple. It's so straightforward. It's such a simple narrative. The reality is complex the reality for the real story you have to know more? It would be absurd to for instance, look at the history of Africa and look at it solely through the lens of racism and slavery. You could do that but if you did, I think people would recognize you had a certain animus against the peoples of that continent. I think it's the same with the anti-westernism. I think there's an animus against the West that is revealed in this, that you're obsessed with this aspect of our past suggests that you have a problem with the West as a whole, because you want to focus only on the bad. If you did that with anyone, I think people would question your motives they would say why? Why can't you understand us in the round? Another example of that animus is something you mentioned in passing there. Phrases like “white savior complex”. This is a lose-lose situation that's been deliberately set up by people who I believe are simply antagonistic towards the West and its history. The lose-lose situation is if you've done something bad, you're blamed and if you do something good, you're said to be for instance, a white savior. What way out is there in this? The answer is none, it's a trap – don't fall into it. Anyone talking in that kind of language is inviting you to fail.One hundred years ago, if you look demographics a much larger portion of the world's population was living in Europe, and what we define as the West was much more powerful in all measures. If the great powers of Europe decided something, the rest of the world had to obey or fight and probably lose. Now we're in a situation where that's not the case anymore, I would argue. The West has declined to a large degree. China is a rising power and we have challenges to western power throughout the world. Is this guilt felt by the West a backhanded way to keep our self-image as powerful? That everything is our fault?– That's part of it. I would argue that one of the virtues of what has become known as the West, is self-criticism. I think is a vital part of the West's success economic, military, social and much more, is the desire to improve, the desire to hear arguments against yourself in the hope of getting better. That's not by any means a universal virtue, there are many societies around the world who have not engaged in that kind of self-criticism. I think that has an effect on the society itself. However, the problem of self-criticism is that it itself can get into overreach. And it gets into overreach and moves from being a virtue into being a vice, when it moves from self-criticism to self-laceration and then to self-loathing. – Some of the questions that has occasionally come up since The War on the West came out, has been people who said to me “How can you tell when a society moves from self-criticism to self-laceration to self-destruction?” I said well, it's in the same way that we all can tell it in our own lives. We've all developed an ability to distinguish between critics who wish us well and critics who wish us ill. I think everyone listening has had the experience in their own lives of hearing from people who criticize them in order to help them and people who criticize people they dislike. If someone who I knew loved me gave me advice, I would listen. If it was somebody who I knew loathed me, I think I'd be less likely to. How can I tell the difference? It's not hard and I don't think it's that hard in a society either. If somebody starts talking about original sins of your society, of guilt that is ineradicable and solely yours, who speaks in terms of “white savior complexes” and much more, you're dealing with somebody who doesn't want to improve you. You're dealing with somebody who wants to end you, who loathes you, loathes your society. That is not a hard thing to identify. It's there in all the language that is being used and in the campaigns that are being fought.One of the most concerning things about especially the English-speaking countries is the woke takeover of institutions, such as universities, the media and elementary schools and even the business world. You talk about this in your book, the critical race theory and what it says. The most popular books on the subject are bestsellers and they're being recommended in bookstores even here in Sweden. Of course more widespread in the United States and probably in in the United Kingdom as well. How can theories that are so counter to what we who are a little bit older, grew up to believe was anti-racism – namely colorblindness – and now it's the opposite. And not just the opposite – there is no good way to be white for an author as Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi goes even further than she does. How has these extreme theories gotten such a hold of our societies?– One explanation is that we're living an age of over-correction and this is the most benevolent and interpretation that I can give. Over-correction is something I addressed in The Madness of Crowds in relation to social issues. Nobody can deny that historically women had fewer opportunities than men. That's something that almost everybody in our societies today wishes to rectify. But there is a group of people who do not want to settle on equality between the sexes but want to as it were make up for lost time by over-correcting and socking it to the men for a while. To say, well, women were prejudiced against in the past so let's be prejudiced against men for a time. Over-corrections like that seem to be pretty common in our societies in this century. Trying to make up for historic wrongs, perceived or actual, by overcorrecting in the present. The most striking version of this is the one that you just referred to. Again, nobody can deny that historically and to some extent today, that racism exists. It's one of I think a number of human evils which we should all be aware of and as I say try to resist. The settlement we had broadly come to, as you say when some of us were growing up was colorblindness as an aspiration, which is to get to the point as my friend Sam Harris has put it, that skin color would be as unimportant as hair color for instance.– Again, there seem to be people who wish to go through an over-correction. They wish to say because in white majority societies as ours in Europe, there has been prejudice against black people in the past, we must rectify that in the present not by equality but by socking it to the white people for a bit by being unpleasant to the white people for a time. This is I believe a completely suicidal route to go down for many reasons. One of which is that you are warring against the majority in your population, and I don't think that's ever a recipe for success. But nevertheless, it's the vengeful period that we are in, in which things are said about white people that wouldn't be tolerated if they were said about other people. You quoted the appalling Robin DiAngelo, she says as you say that there's no good way to be white. Just flip that around and imagine how abhorrent it would be and how appalled we would all be if Miss DiAngelo or anyone else said there's no good way of being black, or there's no good way of being Asian. It would be appalling. This would be identified quite rightly as racism. Well, it is and should be identified as racism in this case too. It's quite appalling the tone in which people like Kendi and DiAngelo and others are allowed to talk about whole races of people. I'm amazed they've got away with it but they certainly have so far and I want them not to. There's a book by a professor in America called Colorblind Racism that asserts that the very principle of colorblindness is itself racist. That again gets you into this lose-lose situation.I think that's brilliant, even trying to stop seeing race – that's also racism. There's no escape.– No escape. They've barred all of the exits while setting the house on fire. That's what these people have done and it's one of the things that I'm calling them out for in The War on the West, and what I want to identify for readers as a major challenge that we have to address.We have people like me who perhaps have an ideal of colorblindness and integration and then you look at what's going in the Swedish institutions. Here race is not as prevalent, but gender and sex and trans issues are. The mix is the same but it's just…– You have slightly different emphases.Yes, exactly. But then you start to think that “hm, if we are the only ones upholding the liberal principles of equal treatment, meritocracy, non-discrimination, and the other side are fighting tooth and nail to have their candidates on the board or their policies enacted, then we're going to lose.” I myself remember the first time I really reflected on me being white because for me, it was like an American phenomenon that you could see on television, and it was it was not that long ago. I think I was reading in the sociology class and somebody said it and I was like “Okay, so I'm not just an ethnic Swede, I'm white. Of course there's a biological core to some of these concepts but they are also socially constructed and then you start to identify with them and then they become a reality for people. That's something that has happened quite late in Sweden. I know Eric Kaufmann has written about this in Whiteshift and I've had him on. He said “If other groups are waging identity politics, the majority has a right to do it themselves”. What's your take on that?– My own view is that this way lies hell but it might be unavoidable if people keep going the way they're going. I don't want to identify by my skin color and I don't. If you were to say “Douglas, how do you think about yourself?” I would first of all say “I don't, very much. I don't sit around pondering.”That's refreshing!– I know, I don't sit around pondering myself. But if you say “Who are you?” or “How do you identify yourself?” I'd have an awful lot of things to say probably, starting with “I'm a writer”.  But I don't think that at any point, or at least it would be quite a long way down the list, would I say “I'm white”. I don't think it would actually be in my list particularly. I just don't like to think of myself in that way and I think most liberal minded people, for want of a better term, people in the West, also don't want to think in those terms. They don't want to be made to be white. It's reductive, it's got all sorts of implications. But if you push people endlessly, that might well be one of the places that they will go to. Eric Kaufman says it's a sort of legitimate understandable endpoint in this. I agree with the provision that I think that it's a very undesirable endpoint. I don't think the re-racialization of society is a desirable thing but it's certainly something that is going on. I don't want people to be pushed into identifying in this way. But I say at the end of The War on the West, I give an example of the options that are available and anyone who reads the conclusion to the book will see that. Rather stark way in which I lay this out.One of the things that's at the core of your three latest books that we're mainly talking about, is what is the West and why is it worth defending? The Strange Death of Europe is a very somber book in a lot of ways. It's in the title, that Europe is killing itself in a lot of ways. One of the main arguments that you have in the book is that Europe itself has lost faith in its beliefs, traditions, and legitimacy. That's also what you explore in The War on the West, how Europe is not even legitimate in many people's eyes. Why is it worth defending then?– My own belief is that it remains worth defending because it's still, by long way, the best of all available options. If you look at the alternative dominant systems in the twenty first century, I think all of them are infinitely less desirable than the systems that exist in what has become to be known as the West. I don't believe that for instance, the Chinese communist party's vision of the future is a desirable one, it's certainly not one I would want to live under. But it is an alternative scenario in which a degree of financial opportunity exists. a very minimal but a degree of it, and in which personal freedom is not regarded as being of any particular, significance. The things that we take for granted, like personal liberty, like human rights, and again, some people think this is a shocking thing to say but nevertheless it remains true: These are Western concepts, the Western constructs. And they are things that came from the West. People might wish to argue that or resile from even asserting that, but nevertheless it remains true. Anyone who actually cares about some of the subjects we've been discussing ought to reflect very seriously on whether or not they are in their critiques of our societies, not engaging in that fallacy. Immanuel Kant famously gives in the example of the dove that flies in free air that may mistake the resistance of the wind and think that in the absence of this wind, it would be able to fly faster when in actual fact, the wind is what keeps it up. – Another analogy would be the fish that believes it would swim faster if it weren't for the water. Perhaps there are a lot of people in our societies who are making this fundamental category error of thinking that if it weren't for the system that is around them. They would be going so much further and faster, and I think this is a delusion. There are certainly things that we can improve in our societies in the West, but the idea that the whole system itself needs replacing is a very serious mistake to make, because as I say the alternatives are highly undesirable.I know you were in a panel with Tom Holland and you spoke about the role of Christianity. And you were a friend of Christopher Hitchens and you've described yourself as a reformed Anglican turned atheist and but in that debate, you didn't sound triumphant so to speak. I know Tom Holland himself says that he sort of wished he could go the whole yard, but he recognizes the role Christianity has played in the West and I think this is a more and more common recognition by public intellectuals such as yourself, that maybe we've emphasized enlightenment, philosophy, liberalism and that part of our tradition too much and paid too little attention and given too little credit to Christianity. Now that our societies are more and more secular, or at least the majority populations are, then the question is: Is there a core missing here? Of what it means to be a Westerner?– Yes, I think there is and it's something we've seen in the last twenty years in particular. I think one of the results of 9/11 was a form of strident atheism that that found for instance, and I was a part of this, but found that one of the ways to criticize growing dominance of Islam in our societies, was to criticize religion as a whole. I think that's one of the things that went on in the 2000. Although in the case of Islam that remained difficult to do, in the case of Christianity, the atheists were pushing at a pretty open door. It was already fragile. I think that, without in any way speaking for my late friend, I think that one of the things that's happened in the last ten years, has been a greater reflection which you can see in the work of Tom Holland and others, a greater reflection on what you just laid out. Yes, part of our inheritance is enlightenment, part of it is reason, rationalism and the inheritance of ancient Greece and much more. But it is also the inheritance of Christianity. Twenty years ago, that seemed to be a slightly harder thing to assert than it is now. I think that the work of for instance Larry Siedentop, distinguished political philosopher who wrote a book some years ago called Inventing the Individual, without in any way being a dogmatic Christian himself, Larry Siedentop proves that concepts that we take for granted as the water we swim in, are to a great extent of Christian inheritance. People might like that or dislike it but it's the case whether you like it or not and we need to have a truthful understanding of ourselves and not one based on falsehoods that we just happen to enjoy.One argument that's been made is that what we call woke, which is a broad term but it's an umbrella term and it incorporates many of the things that we've been talking about, CRT, LGBTQ-issues, trans rights, diversity – it's also a view on power, who are the powerful, who are the powerless. But that is the god-shaped hole that's left behind by Christianity and woke moves in there and it gives you structure to the world, to your place in it. And it also has some of the concepts, like guilt, original. You could see these scenes from after George Floyd was killed by that policeman, you could see the scenes of white people washing the feet of black people. It was sort of a Christian tradition, but it also was not.– Well, here's the thing that's not. I agree with the observation, I regard a lot of these modern social movements as being forms of spilt Christianity or residue Christianity which the people engaging in it don't recognize and would be quite annoyed by if told this. Nevertheless, as you say very visible, recognizable aspects of Christianity are interwoven in this. But here's the difference and here's the fatally important difference: What is being offered at the moment is a form of secularized Christianity, without any ethic of redemption and that is dangerous. Very, very dangerous. The great brilliance of Christianity is the concept of redemption. The possibility of successfully atoning for sins. Take away the possibility of successful atonement, and all you have is a perpetual cycle of guilt and I believe that is what underlies a lot of the unhappiness in our societies today. Ok I'm told I'm evil, evil from birth. I'm told I'm guilty from Birth and I'm told that my very existence is some kind of insult or assault on the planet, that's part of the green movement, how my very being here is part of the problem and there's no way out other than to live a life of complete innocuousness or harmlessness. That was something that Jordan Peterson and I have discussed in the past and indeed I raised with Roger Scruton in what was sadly his last public appearance. Roger and I discussed this as well, this idea that harmlessness had become the great modern virtue that you were meant to slip into this world and slip out of it without having made any mark, certainly done no harm. This is a highly demoralizing stage of affairs to be in, but it is a dominant one that is being pushed on people. I don't like it at all, I want people to be extraordinary and successful and innovative and much more and I don't want us to live lives of thwartedness, of repression, of guilt without redemption. I think it's a hideous system.Sometimes there has been this criticism against Christianity, that it's too easy… – Well, they haven't tried it hard then.No, exactly and that you just go to confession in a Catholic…(this is my Swedish Lutheran upbringing here) You just go to confession…– Yeah, I was going to say that's recognizably protestant critique of Catholicism. But real forgiveness in the Christian sense is an awesome thing to behold when you really meet it. A few years ago, to cite a pertinent example, here was a white American youth who went into a black church and shot at congregants and killed a lot of them and it was a hideous crime of a kind that is uncommon, but happens.And his motive was to kill black people.– Yes. And some of the families of the people who were murdered said that they did not hate the killer, they forgave him. That's almost beyond my comprehension. I'm overwhelmed with admiration for anyone who could even aspire to such a state of grace actually took for want of a better term, perhaps there isn't a better term. So actual forgiveness, in the Christian sense, is an awesome thing to behold when it when it is actually exercised and should not be taken lightly.In this new woke religion, this is totally lacking. There is no way out so to speak. Your mere presence, if you have certain characteristics, being white or having a certain sexual orientation, destroys the fun for everyone.– That's also part of the victim hierarchy, the aspiration to victimhood which again I have very little sympathy with because I believe that our lives can be much better than simply trying to be victims. hat. It is one of the anomalies of the last generation, that we have moved the public ethic from an admiration for heroism into an admiration for suffering and what it means is a scramble to suffer or to claim suffering. Nobody actually wants to suffer but they want to claim to have suffered, and because to do so is to have the right to hold the microphone. But yes, what you describe correctly is a situation which we find ourselves in in Western societies, is what a chess playing friend of mine tells me in chess is known as “Zugzwang” which is when you have to move but every move will make your position worse. That's the position we find ourselves in and it's one I want to break and I'm very explicit about that. I believe that this system that we're describing, the anti-westernism and the wokeness and much more, it is a system that we should aspire to break in order that people can move on with their lives and move on to better things.I think that the conversations you've had with Jordan Peterson and Roger Scruton about being harmless, is certainly true about boys and men in our culture and you're very scared about masculinity and you're scared of men, and you have to keep them down. I would like to hear your thoughts about that and if there is a way out of it? And also, we're having a small MeToo-moment here where a politician has been accused by a member of his party for touching her thigh and not respecting her nine years ago. I suspect that he will be gone from the public eye and there's no way back for him. There's been a criminal charge now but I don't think it will pass the court law. So the first question is, is there a way out of pathologizing men and the second is what is the legacy of MeToo?– I address the overreach of MeToo, which I think was an overreach, an overcorrection. I address that in The Madness of Crowds. I believe you should not make all the interactions between men and women a sort of minefield that we've made them. Men can do terrible things to women, but they don't do it all the time and not everything is terrible. It should be possible for a man to make an advance from a woman and be rejected and for that to be the end of the matter. Again, there has to be a way to have a bad date for instance, men should not be in a society set up in such a position as they have the opportunity to make one move once on a woman and it has to be 100% successful and they have to hit the bull's-eye on the first throw, and this has to be the person they marry and so on. I'm afraid that everyone who knows the dating game knows that that's highly unlikely to happen. Mistakes are going to happen, and you have to have a reasonable view towards that, which includes forgiveness and moving on and much more That's quite different from when somebody behaves genuinely badly, but I believe all of this has been wrapped up in this into being the same thing and it's very dangerous because it makes relations between the sexes all but impossible and somebody who would like our species to continue I think that men and women have to be able to find a way to get on.I did the mistake of trying to ask two questions in one, but this ties into the first question I tried to ask. We also have a quiet new consent law in Sweden so you have to prove that you had consent instead of proving that you said no if there's a situation with an accusation of rape or something. You have to take a step back now as a man out of precautions, and as a young man because they are of course looking for a partner. What can be done about the situation for men right now because I think we have put them in quite of a bad situation and there are a lot of debates in Sweden about how first you ridicule men because they're too soft, I've certainly sometimes been guilty of that, and then you ridicule them or are angry with them when they try to be tougher and you ridicule men who are sensitive and vulnerable because they take too much space and attention from people who deserve it more, women. And then if they're too hard and don't show any feelings then they're toxic. So how can you solve this?– Exactly, it's not a good time to be young and heterosexual. I believe this this all has to be addressed and solved because otherwise…all of the stats, all the data shows that an increasing number of young men in particular are basically stepping out of the whole system. The evidence on the number of people who've had sex in the past year and so on, shows an increasing tendency towards young men basically stepping out of the system, thinking it's just all too difficult, too toxic and giving women a very wide berth. Again, I think this is a creation of a form of feminism which those people who created it will live to regret or the least the people who come after them will live to regret. It has to be solved.I just visited Åland which is an island between Sweden and Finland, thirty thousand people live there. I was giving a lecture with my college Anna-Karin Wyndhamn and we spoke about these issues. The same day we were there, they were debating to vote through a law that will have gender neutral pregnancies. So… why? Why is a tiny island in the north where many of the questions concern practical issues, dealing with this? All of a sudden, the most woke things are being debated in their parliament.– That's the story of our era and it has happened everywhere, and I don't care for the people who underestimate it, it seems to me that they haven't left the house very much in recent years. It's everywhere and it's a great waste of time and energy. My goodness, there are so many other things that are more important to be getting on with, so many bigger challenges that are literally on our doorsteps.Do you feel like you're wasting your time then, because you've written brilliant books, but they are about stupid people?– My hope is that I help to clear them out of the way, one of my self-appointed asks is to clear these people out of the way help my readers clear these people out of the way in order that people can get on to doing what they should be doing with their lives. And that's really what I want to do and if I have any success in my life, It'll be in in helping people to do that.Thank you Douglas Murray for being a part of Rak höger.– It's a great pleasure. Thank you.Inför varje podd…Tack för alla inspel inför den här podden. Som ni hör i avsnittet så är det till stor hjälp för mig att ta del av era tankar och frågor. Fortsätt gärna att skicka frågor och tankar till mig!Inför varje avsnitt av podden diskuterar jag ämnet med er och tar med era frågor till samtalet. Det ni behöver göra för att delta i samtalet är att ladda ned Substackappen och vara med i Rak högers chatt. Många är redan med, men jag hoppas givetvis på fler.För att gå med i chatten behöver du ladda ner Substackappen, som nu finns tillgänglig för både iOS och Android. Chattar skickas via appen, inte e-post, så slå på push-notiser så att du inte missar konversationen när den händer.Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.enrakhoger.se/subscribe

Connor interviews Professor Eric Kaufmann, adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and head of the Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the University of Buckingham, about his 2018 book Whiteshift, the origins and aims of Woke, and if demographic change spells cultural extinction for the Anglosphere.

My guest today is Eric Kaufmann. Eric is a political scientist who's written several great books, including "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?" and "Whiteshift". Eric was a professor at Birkbeck College, University of London for many years. I think he was actually the head of the department there, before he was pushed out for his political views. So we talk about that story at the top of this interview.We also talk about a whole bunch of other topics. We discuss the sociologist Daniel Bell. We talk about why birth rates are declining in the secular world and why it matters. We talk about high birth rate populations like Hasidic Jews and the Amish. We talk about the tension between liberal politics on immigration and liberal politics on LGBTQ. We talk about why Canada and Scotland are so much further to the left on gender and trans issues than America is. Finally, we talk about why it is that conservatives appear to be happier in data than liberals generally, and why religious people also tend to be happier than secular people, and what lessons, if any, we can draw from that. This was one of my favorite podcasts I've done this year, and I hope you enjoy it.

My guest today is Eric Kaufmann. Eric is a political scientist who's written several great books, including "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?" and "Whiteshift". Eric was a professor at Birkbeck College, University of London for many years. I think he was actually the head of the department there, before he was pushed out for his political views. So we talk about that story at the top of this interview. We also talk about a whole bunch of other topics. We discuss the sociologist Daniel Bell. We talk about why birth rates are declining in the secular world and why it matters. We talk about high birth rate populations like Hasidic Jews and the Amish. We talk about the tension between liberal politics on immigration and liberal politics on LGBTQ. We talk about why Canada and Scotland are so much further to the left on gender and trans issues than America is. Finally, we talk about why it is that conservatives appear to be happier in data than liberals generally, and why religious people also tend to be happier than secular people, and what lessons, if any, we can draw from that. This was one of my favorite podcasts I've done this year, and I hope you enjoy it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My guest today is Eric Kaufmann. Eric is a political scientist who's written several great books, including "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?" and "Whiteshift". Eric was a professor at Birkbeck College, University of London for many years. I think he was actually the head of the department there, before he was pushed out for his political views. So we talk about that story at the top of this interview.We also talk about a whole bunch of other topics. We discuss the sociologist Daniel Bell. We talk about why birth rates are declining in the secular world and why it matters. We talk about high birth rate populations like Hasidic Jews and the Amish. We talk about the tension between liberal politics on immigration and liberal politics on LGBTQ. We talk about why Canada and Scotland are so much further to the left on gender and trans issues than America is. Finally, we talk about why it is that conservatives appear to be happier in data than liberals generally, and why religious people also tend to be happier than secular people, and what lessons, if any, we can draw from that. This was one of my favorite podcasts I've done this year, and I hope you enjoy it.

  0:00 - Trump's message to any supporters who show up in Miami for arraignment 14:11 - Dan & Amy update the Los Angeles Dodgers' decision to honor an anti-Catholic drag group called the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” at a game on June 16 29:33 - Sentimental barbarians on Trump indictment 46:41 - Sexual Orientation Identity Mobility in the United Kingdom: how many LGTBQ+++ keep that identity 01:01:42 - Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank, shares details from his new book Best Things First. Order Best Things First today and follow Bjorn on twitter @BjornLomborg 01:21:29 - President at Wirepoints, Ted Dabrowski, reviews Gov Pritzker's "Office" themed NU commencement address. Get Ted's latest at wirepoints.org 01:36:05 - Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, Eric Kaufmann, attempts to "narrow the boundaries of acceptable debate" Check out Eric's book Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of White. Majorities 01:48:59 - Dan & Amy react to a Sunday Times investigation that shows COVID came from a Lab in Wuhan... and Dan admits he watches Drew Barrymore's daytime talk show 01:53:54 - New York Post Columnist and Fox News Contributor, Michael Goodwin: FBI's Biden bias is on full display See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week's episode, Ricky and Jon interview return guest Eric Kaufmann. Eric is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He most recently authored a study into "The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology on American Education" which we spoke at length about. Other topics covered include the rise of LGBTQ self identification, legislating against Critical Social Justice Ideology in schools AND more.---ARTICLES AND LINKS DISCUSSEDSchool Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education:https://www.manhattan-institute.org/school-choice-not-enough-impact-of-critical-social-justice-ideology-in-american-educationFollow  Eric on Twitter:@epkaufm---FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION ON reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/thenewfleshpodcast/---SUPPORT THE NEW FLESHBuy Me A Coffee:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thenewflesh---Instagram: @thenewfleshpodcast---Twitter: @TheNewFleshpod---Follow Ricky: @ricky_allpike on InstagramFollow Jon: @thejonastro on Instagram---Logo Design by Made To Move: @made.tomove on InstagramTheme Song: Dreamdrive "Chase Dreams"

0:00 - Dan & Amy react to the most recent release of Fauci emails   17:27 - Dan & Amy continue their look at local and national school boards   34:34 - Dan & Amy react to night one of Tucker Carlson's Jan 6 video reveal     57:48 - Dan & Amy introduce Biden's nominee for FAA Administrator: Philip Washington   01:12:35 - Mitch Daniels, former president of Purdue University and former governor of Indiana, shares why he decided not to run for US Senate   01:30:02 - Ted Dabrowski, president at Wirepoints, explains how government handouts widen the wealth gap. Get Ted's latest for Wirepoints at wirepoints.org   01:44:51 - Dan & Amy listen in on the Josh Hawley exchange with Colleen Shogan, Biden nominee for National Archivist on her public social media posts   01:59:50 - Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, Eric Kauffman, argues School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education. For more from Professor Kauffman, check out his book  Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of White. majoritiesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

0:00 - Midterms -  Fetterman   13:21 - Are you going to let Pritzker, and this political class, get away with telling you lies about the SAFE-T Act?   32:50 - CAMPUS BEAT: ACT Scores   51:53 - Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment and chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition, on Stopping Biden's Student Loan Bailout. Phil's a great follow on twitter @kerpen   01:07:30 - Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, Eric Kaufmann, has the receipts to prove  The Media's ‘Far-Right' Obsession. Also check out Eric's book Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of White. Majorities   01:24:05 - LA City Council reminiscent of JB/Blago ‘08   01:41:34 - Lavender Bunde: 500 percent increase in non-binary, trans students 01:56:33 - Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor of City Journal, Heather MacDonald, explains The Marijuana Myth. Be sure to check out Heather's books  The War on Cops and The Diversity DelusionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Eric Kaufmann is a professor at Birkbeck, University of London, a columnist at Unherd and the author of Whiteshift. Twitter:https://twitter.com/epkaufmUnherd:https://unherd.com/author/eric-kaufmann/Whiteshift:https://www.amazon.ca/Whiteshift-Populism-Immigration-Future-Majorities/dp/14683169740:00 is race overrated or underrated?13:03 leftmodernism26:20 scapegoating33:20 ethnic nation states101:20 tolerance 112:20 DEI 119:50 Brexit This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cactus.substack.com

About Professor Kaufmann: https://www.bbk.ac.uk/our-staff/profile/8004549/eric-kaufmann Check out Professor Kaufmann's recent article on Quillette: https://quillette.com/2022/06/14/progressivism-sexuality-and-mental-illness/ Check out his latest book, Whiteshift: https://www.amazon.com/Whiteshift-Populism-Immigration-Future-Majorities/dp/1468316974 Get full access to Musically Speaking Podcast with Chuong Nguyen at musicallyspeaking.substack.com/subscribe

---ARTICLES AND LINKS DISCUSSEDFollow Eric Kaufmann on Twitter:@epkaufm---SUPPORT THE NEW FLESHPatreon:https://www.patreon.com/user?u=61455803---Buy Me A Coffee:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thenewflesh---Instagram: @thenewfleshpodcast---Twitter: @TheNewFleshpod---Follow Ricky: @ricky_allpike on InstagramFollow Jon: @thejonastro on InstagramFollow AJ: @_aj_1985 on Instagram---Logo Design by Made To Move: @made.tomove on InstagramTheme Song: Dreamdrive "Chase Dreams"

Dr. Eric Kaufmann discusses his book Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities.https://www.amazon.com/Whiteshift-Populism-Immigration-Future-Majorities/dp/1419741926/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=whiteshift&qid=1626368303&sr=8-1Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is the author of Whiteshift: Immigration, Populism and the Future of White Majorities (Penguin, October 2018). He has also written Changing Places: mapping the white British response to ethnic change (Demos 2014), Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth: demography and politics in the twenty-first century (Profile 2010), The Orange Order: A Contemporary Northern Irish History , The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America: the decline of dominant ethnicity in the United States (Harvard 2004) and two other books. He may be found on twitter at @epkaufm and on the web at www.sneps.net. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Eric Kaufmann discusses his book Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities. https://www.amazon.com/Whiteshift-Populism-Immigration-Future-Majorities/dp/1419741926/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=whiteshift&qid=1626368303&sr=8-1 Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is the author of Whiteshift: Immigration, Populism and the Future of White Majorities (Penguin, October 2018). He has also written Changing Places: mapping the white British response to ethnic change (Demos 2014), Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth: demography and politics in the twenty-first century (Profile 2010), The Orange Order: A Contemporary Northern Irish History , The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America: the decline of dominant ethnicity in the United States (Harvard 2004) and two other books. He may be found on twitter at @epkaufm and on the web at www.sneps.net.

Transcript: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=140326 00:00 Author F. Roger Devlin joins the show for 65 minutes, https://vdare.com/writers/f-roger-devlin 01:00 Sexual Utopia in Power, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=73147 02:00 Charles Murray's new book, Facing Reality, https://vdare.com/articles/charles-murray-s-facing-reality-ruling-class-must-accept-race-differences-or-provoke-the-disaster-of-white-identity-politics 04:00 Critical race theory, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/05/us/for-black-scholars-wedded-to-prism-of-race-new-and-separate-goals.html 7:00 Roger's reading habits 7:40 How much does it matter who's president? 8:00 Roger says Joe Biden was installed 8:20 The regime is going all out against opponents 10:00 Roger's voter fraud allegations 15:00 Why is the Left more effective? 18:00 Federal government needs a purge 19:00 Rise and Fall of the Alt Right 20:00 BLM and Antifa 23:00 Richard Spencer 24:00 The cause Roger fights for 26:00 When American politics revolved around the AR 27:00 When bad people do bad things with AR rhetoric 28:30 The Great Replacement, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement 39:00 The Cofnas Critique 47:00 Is Roger apocalyptic or revolutionary? 49:00 We need an insurgency, not conservatism 52:00 The Visegrad Group seems like a good place to raise a family 55:00 The strong take what they want and the weak endure what they must 58:50 Whiteshift by Eric Kaufman 1:03:00 Religion https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/myth-majority-minority-america/619190/ My 2014 interview with F. Roger Devlin: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/sexual-utopia-in-power-by-f-roger-devlin Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is the author of Whiteshift, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America and other books. He is co-editor, among others, of Political Demography and Whither the Child: causes and consequences of low fertility , and editor of Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities . An editor of the journal Nations & Nationalism, he has written for New York Times, Times of London, Financial Times, Newsweek International, Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. In this episode, Eric & I discuss: - The attempt to 'cancel' Eric by students - How progressive thought has taken control at Universities - How students have gained power - Similar attempts against Neil Thin, Steven Pinker and Bret Weinstein - The role of political discrimination at Universities - Can the Universities be saved? - Will things get better or worse? Links: https://www.youtube.com/c/FreedomPact​​ (video interviews) https://freedompact.co.uk/newsletter​​ (Healthy, Wealthy & Wise) https://instagram.com/freedompact​​ http://www.sneps.net https://cspicenter.org/reports/academicfreedom/

Professor Eric Kaufmann is one of the leading public intellectuals on populism, immigration, and identity politics. His 2018 book, Whiteshift, sparked debate across Western intellectual circles over what the driving forces behind the rise of Trump and Brexit actually were. Apart from speaking about Whiteshift, our conversation looks at Dr. Kaufmann's work with The Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology (CSPI), the academic climate today, and future projects he's working on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYLU52VlvCE&t=1s

Thad Russell & Eric Kaufmann: I am fascinated by the global nationalist populist movement—the alliance of the Brexiteers in Britain, Trump and the ascendant MAGA movement in the US, the LePens and National Rally of France, Bolsonaro in Brazil and many other major political parties and leaders across the globe—and so I was very pleased to sit down with Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, who is the author of Whiteshift—the very best book on the subject. It became one of the most illuminating political conversations I've had in a long time, which is saying something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXh1i3s0RC8

In this episode, Dinesh has an in-depth conversation with Eric Kauffman, political scientist at the University of London and author of the important book "Whiteshift," on the politics of whiteness.

00:00 My 55th birthday 03:00 Disunited Nations 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwVaUntpNQ 06:00 The Inflating of Fears, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwzU9MxmGy4 09:00 Life After Trump - China, https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=de2bc41f8324e6955ef65e0c9&id=bba991dfd7 27:00 Emotional Energy Levels, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdga_AHBGv4 33:00 Who won the great debate? Nick Fuentes or Robert Barnes? 37:00 Whiteshift by Eric Kaufmann: A Video Review, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R6MQVW35DU 41:00 Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome- causes, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, pathology 44:30 Hypermobile Ehlers Danlos Syndrome: My Story, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQr8Gu4WImg 49:00 “Sleep Disorders in Ehlers-Danlos and Related Syndromes: A Panoply of Paradoxes” - Alan Pocinki, MD, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr6Iv8_NVOw 54:20 Barricade Garage: "PLEASE SATISFY MY WHITENESS", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_IYNt79XIM 57:20 Opie & Anthony Was A Place For Men, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3P47R6sAg 59:20 Robert Barnes says Nick Fuentes hates Jews 1:00:10 Every Dr. Fauci Interview 1:01:50 Jewish matchmaking 1:04:00 The Opie & Anthony Show - Anthony "Dice" Seinfeld 1:06:45 Jewish girl prank calls her parents on Z100 1:11:00 Vaush Reacts To A MASK OFF "Pro-White Europe" Video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N9UILCQ53A 1:15:00 What if there is no such thing as character?, https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/what-if-there-is-no-such-thing-as-character-f71f02a75f02 1:19:00 Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139670 1:24:00 Empirical approaches to moral philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character-empirical/ 1:32:00 The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder, https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-accidental-superpower 1:40:20 Israel is a Giant Machine for Generating Anti-Semitism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpurS8LyuLI 1:44:30 Fat acceptance 1:48:10 The Psychology of Israel and Palestine | Jordan B Peterson 1:55:00 Pilleater: An Introduction to Al Stankard (HAarlem VEnison), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NcKRIWrIMc 1:56:30 Tucker Carlson on the Left's war on science Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

In this episode, Dinesh has an in-depth conversation with Eric Kauffman, political scientist at the University of London and author of the important book "Whiteshift," on the politics of whiteness.  As more evidence surfaces of Governor Cuomo's duplicity over the nursing home deaths he caused, Dinesh asks why the FBI is raiding Guiliani's offices but not Cuomo's.  And Dinesh shows the greatness of Flaubert in "Madame Bovary," a seemingly ordinary story of adultery in a provincial French town. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

00:00 Dooovid joins to talk about Jewish studies, https://twitter.com/RebDoooovid 08:00 Jonathan Pollard says Jews ‘will always have dual loyalty' and would counsel young Jews to consider spying for Israel, https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/jonathan-pollard-says-jews-will-always-have-dual-loyalty-and-would-counsel-young-jews-to-consider-spying-for-israel 46:00 What You're Saying When You Give Someone the Silent Treatment, https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/03/psychology-of-silent-treatment-abuse/618411/ 1:03:00 Desirable But Dangerous: Rabbis Daughters in the Babylonian Talmud, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138063 1:21:00 Kenneth Brown drives for California, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMdS_BAp_lo 1:28:00 Unreleased Federal Report Concludes ‘No Evidence' that Free Speech Online ‘Causes Hate Crimes', https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/03/exclusive-unreleased-federal-report-concludes-no-evidence-that-free-speech-online-causes-hate-crimes/ 1:44:00 Seasons of a Man's Life, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLE2SITDUOM 1:48:00 Race and False Hate Crime Narratives, https://quillette.com/2021/03/25/race-and-false-hate-crime-narratives/ 1:55:00 Amy Wax + Paul Gottfried on cancel culture and the society it destroys, https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/cottogottfried/amy-wax-paul-gottfried-on-5JAUDSNMqWz/ 2:03:00 Matt Yglesias's Substack Generates $860k in Revenue Per Year, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138045 2:14:20 Covid Long-Haulers Fear for Their Future, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRikNbf8aGU 2:17:00 The Dubious Origins of Long Covid, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dubious-origins-of-long-covid-11616452583 2:21:00 Treating Chronic Pain – An Interview with Frances Sommer Anderson, PhD, http://www.wheretheclientis.com/2010/02/08/treating-chronic-pain-an-interview-with-frances-sommer-anderson-phd/ 2:23:00 Frances Sommer Anderson on Using Somatic Experiencing in Psychoanalytic Practice, https://relationalimplicit.com/anderson-septalk/ 2:39:20 Michael Beckley: USA as a Future Rogue Superpower, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf5JSJE2l_A 2:56:00 Your Public Persona: Self-Presentation in Everyday Life, https://www.audible.com/pd/Your-Public-Persona-Self-Presentation-in-Everyday-Life-Audiobook/1629979686 3:00:00 Whiteshift by Eric Kaufman, https://twitter.com/GuiDurocher/status/1375403850102882306 3:18:00 China's economy is not overtaking America's, https://www.aei.org/research-products/journal-publication/chinas-economy-is-not-overtaking-americas/ 3:28:40 The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-i_m8aqEQ 3:41:00 How Americans Were Driven To Extremes, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138059 Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/luke-ford/id1557388726

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, UK. He is principally interested in cultural politics: ethnicity, national identity and religion. He's the author of Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities. In this episode, we focus on Whiteshift. First, Dr. Kaufmann tells us about the main thesis of the book. We discuss the relationship between ethnicity and culture, and the relationship between ethnic identity and politics. We go through some of the factors behind the rise of the populist right, including the migration crisis, Muslim terrorism, and the 2008 economic crisis. We talk about different strategies to deal with immigrants. We speculate a bit about the possible future of the European Union. We ask if it is possible to have countries without borders, and if multiculturalism works. We end with a teaser to our possible second conversation, and talk about the relationship between religion and demography. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, MIRAN B, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AND MAX BEILBY! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER!

In this episode we discuss Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities by Eric Kaufmann. Next time we will discuss True Names by Vernor Vinge. Some highlights from Whiteshift: Many people desire roots, value tradition and wish to maintain continuity with ancestors who have occupied a historic territory. This means we're more likely to experience what I term Whiteshift, a process by which white majorities absorb an admixture of different peoples through intermarriage, but remain oriented around existing myths of descent, symbols and traditions No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals – the gold standard for public opinion research – can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat. We are entering a period of cultural instability in the West attendant on our passage between two relatively stable equilibria. The first is based on white ethnic homogeneity, the second on what the prescient centrist writer Michael Lind calls ‘beige' ethnicity, i.e. a racially mixed majority group. In the middle lies a turbulent multicultural interregnum. We in the West are becoming less like homogeneous Iceland and more like homogeneous mixed-race Turkmenistan. But to get there we'll be passing through a phase where we'll move closer to multicultural Guyana or Mauritius. The challenge is to enable conservative whites to see a future for themselves in Whiteshift – the mixture of many non-whites into the white group through voluntary assimilation. Anyone who wants to explain what's happening in the West needs to answer two simple questions. First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones? Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect? If we stick to data, the answer is crystal clear. Demography and culture, not economic and political developments, hold the key to understanding the populist moment. Because Western nations were generally formed by a dominant white ethnic group, whose myths and symbols – such as the proper name ‘Norway' – became the nation's, the two concepts overlap in the minds of many. White majorities possess an ‘ethnic' module, an extra string to their national identity which minorities lack. Ethnic majorities thereby express their ethnic identity as nationalism. I contend that today's white majorities are likely to successfully absorb minority populations while their core myths and boundary symbols endure. This will involve a change in the physical appearance of the median Westerner, hence Whiteshift, though linguistic and religious markers are less likely to be affected. Getting from where we are now, where most Westerners share the racial and religious features of their ethnic archetype, to the situation in a century or two, when most will be what we now term ‘mixed-race', is vital to understanding our present condition. In our more peaceful, post-ideological, demographically turbulent world, migration-led ethnic change is altering the basis of politics from class to ethnicity. On one side is a conservative coalition of whites who are attached to their heritage joined by minorities who value the white tradition; on the other side a progressive alliance of minorities who identify with their ethnic identity combined with whites who are agnostic or hostile towards theirs. Among whites, ethno-demographic change polarizes people between ‘tribal' ethnics who value their particularity and ‘religious' post-ethnics who prioritize universalist creeds such as John McWhorter's ‘religion of anti-racism'. Whites can fight ethnic change by voting for right-wing populists or committing terrorist acts. They may repress anxieties in the name of ‘politically correct' anti-racism, but cracks in this moral edifice are appearing. Many opt to flee by avoiding diverse neighbourhoods, schools and social networks. And other whites may choose to join the newcomers, first in friendship, subsequently in marriage. Intermarriage promises to erode the rising diversity which underlies our current malaise. Religion evolved to permit cooperation in larger units.31 Our predisposition towards religion, morality and reputation – all of which can transcend the tribe – reflects our adaptation to larger social units. Be that as it may, humans have lived in large groups only in the very recent past, so it is reasonable to assume tribalism is a more powerful aspect of our evolutionary psychology than our willingness to abide by a moral code. Today what we increasingly see in the West is a battle between the ‘tribal' populist right and the ‘religious' anti-racist left. Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism and an ideology I term ‘left-modernism'. A sociologist member of the ‘New York Intellectuals' group of writers and literary critics, Daniel Bell, used the term modernism to describe the spirit of anti-traditionalism which emerged in Western high culture between 1880 and 1930. With the murderous excesses of communism and fascism, many Western intellectuals embraced a fusion of modernist anti-traditionalism and cultural egalitarianism, distinguishing the new ideology from both socialism and traditional liberalism. Cosmopolitanism was its guiding ethos. Unlike socialism or fascism, this left-wing modernism meshed nicely with capitalism and globalization. The left-modernist sensibility spread from a small elite to a much wider section of middle-class society in the 1960s with the rise of television and growth of universities, taking over as the dominant sensibility of the high culture. As it gained ground, it turned moralistic and imperialistic, seeking not merely to persuade but to institutionalize itself in law and policy, altering the basis of liberalism from tolerating to mandating diversity. This is a subtle but critical shift. Meanwhile the economic egalitarianism of socialism gave way to a trinity of sacred values around race, gender and sexual orientation. Immigration restriction became a plank of the Progressive movement which advocated improved working conditions, women's suffrage and social reform. This combination of left-wing economics and ethno-nationalism confounds modern notions of left and right but Progressive vs. free market liberal was how the world was divided in the late nineteenth century. A prominent plank in the Progressive platform was temperance, realized in the Volstead Act of 1920 prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The Prohibition vote pitted immigrant-origin Catholics and upper-class urban WASPs such as the anti-Prohibition leader and New York socialite Pauline Morton Sabin on the ‘wet' side against ‘dry' working-class, rural and religious Protestants. For Joseph Gusfield, Prohibition was principally a symbolic crusade targeted at urban Catholic immigrants who congregated in saloons and their ‘smart set' upper-class allies. This was a Protestant assertion of identity in an increasingly urban nation in which Catholics and Jews formed around a fifth of the population. Those of WASP background had declined to half the total from two thirds in the 1820s. What's interesting is that Anglo representatives did not make their case in ethno-communal terms, nor did they invoke the country's historic ethnic composition. Rather they couched their ethnic motives as state interests. Instead of coming clean about their lament over cultural loss, they felt obliged to fabricate economic and security rationales for restriction. Much the same is true today in the penchant for talking about immigrants putting pressure on services, taking jobs, increasing crime, undermining the welfare state or increasing the risk of terrorism. In my view it would be far healthier to permit the airing of ethno-cultural concerns rather than suppressing these, which leads to often spurious claims about immigrants. Likewise, immigrants' normal desires to defend their interests are decried as ‘identity politics'. [Randolph] Bourne, on the other hand, infused Kallen's structure with WASP self-loathing. As a rebel against his own group, Bourne combined the Liberal Progressives' desire to transcend ‘New Englandism' and Protestantism with Kallen's call for minority groups to maintain their ethnic boundaries. The end product was what I term asymmetrical multiculturalism, whereby minorities identify with their groups while Anglo-Protestants morph into cosmopolites. Thus Bourne at once congratulates the Jew ‘who sticks proudly to the faith of his fathers and boasts of that venerable culture of his', while encouraging his fellow Anglo-Saxons to: Breathe a larger air … [for] in his [young Anglo-Saxon's] new enthusiasms for continental literature, for unplumbed Russian depths, for French clarity of thought, for Teuton philosophies of power, he feels himself a citizen of a larger world. He may be absurdly superficial, his outward-reaching wonder may ignore all the stiller and homelier virtues of his Anglo-Saxon home, but he has at least found the clue to that international mind which will be essential to all men and women of good-will if they are ever to save this Western world of ours from suicide. [1916] Bourne, not Kallen, is the founding father of today's multiculturalist left because he combines rebellion against his own culture and Liberal Progressive cosmopolitanism with an endorsement – for minorities only – of Kallen's ethnic conservatism. In other words, ethnic minorities should preserve themselves while the majority should dissolve itself. Cosmopolitanism must manage the contradiction between its ethos of transcending ethnicity and its need for cultural diversity, which requires ethnic attachment. Bourne resolved this by splitting the world into two moral planes, one for a ‘parental' majority who would be asked to shed their ethnicity and oppose their own culture, and the other for childlike minorities, who would be urged to embrace their heritage in the strongest terms. This crystallized a dualistic habit of mind, entrenched in the anti-WASP ethos of 1920s authors like Sinclair Lewis and H. L. Mencken and the bohemian ‘Lost Generation' of American intellectuals such as F. Scott Fitzgerald. All associated the Anglo-Protestant majority with Prohibition, deemed WASP culture to be of no value, and accused the ethnic majority of suppressing more interesting and expressive ethnic groups. The Lost Generation's anti-majority ethos pervaded the writing of 1950s ‘Beat Generation' left-modernist writers like Norman Mailer and Jack Kerouac – who contrasted lively black jazz or Mexican culture with the ‘square' puritanical whiteness of Middle America. As white ethnics assimilated, the despised majority shifted from WASPs to all whites. The multiculturalism of the 1960s fused the Liberal Progressive pluralist movement with the anti-white ethos of the Beat counterculture. The situation by 1924 was a far cry from the pre-1890 dispensation, when a liberal-assimilationist Anglo-Americanism spanned both universalist and ethno-nationalist shades of opinion. Prior to 1890, most Anglo-Protestant thinkers held the view that their ethnic group could assimilate all comers. During moments of euphoria, they talked up the country as a universal cosmopolitan civilization; in their reflective moods, they remarked on its Anglo-Saxon Protestant character. By 1910, this Emersonian ‘double-consciousness' was gone, each side of its contradiction a separate and consistent ideology. Most WASP intellectuals were, like New England patrician Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, ethno-nationalists who backed restriction, or, like Bourne and Dewey, cosmopolitans calling for diversity and open borders. Few ethno-nationalists favoured open immigration. No pluralists endorsed restriction. Herein lie the roots of our contemporary polarized condition. Critical race theorists contend that white ethnics only ‘became white' when they became useful to the WASP majority. Even Bill Clinton, a southern Protestant whose Irish heritage is undocumented, latched on to the idea that his Irish forebears ‘became' white. Irish Catholics in the north, some claim, were important allies of southern whites in the struggle against Yankee republicanism, so southerners embraced the Irish.60 I'm less convinced. The Irish, Jews and Italians may not have been part of a narrower WASP ‘us', but they were perceived as racially white, thus part of a pan-ethnic ‘us'. This entitled them to opportunities not available to African- or Asian Americans. Post-1960s intermarriage led to an extension of American majority ethnic boundaries from WASP to white but the foundations for expansion were already in place. From the 1960s on, the religious marker of dominant ethnicity came to be redefined from Protestant to ‘Judaeo-Christian'. This chapter underscores several aspects of American ethnic history that are relevant today. First, that the US, like most European nations, has had an ethnic majority since Independence. Second, that the Anglo-Protestant majority underwent a Whiteshift in the mid-twentieth century which permitted it to absorb Catholics and Jews, members of groups once viewed as outsiders. Finally, certain ethnic groups – notably Anglo-Protestants and African-Americans – have become symbolically intertwined with American nationhood. Two thirds of Americans are not members of these groups, yet many recognize them as ethno-traditional: part of what makes the nation distinct. On the right, an ethno-traditional nationalism focused on protecting the white Anglo heritage is emerging as an important force in American politics. Culture is not ethnicity and the two have too often been conflated. Even if white culture remains the default mode, ethno-cultural decline may proceed apace. There are two separate ethno-cultural dynamics, white ethnic decline and the attenuation of the white tradition in American national identity. Only whites will be concerned with the former, but conservative-minded minorities may be attached to white ethno-traditions of nationhood. That is, they will wish to slow changes to the America ‘they know'. Where conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, which might be multiracial, authoritarians always prefer less diversity and dissent. Conservatives are not the same as authoritarians. For instance, authoritarians dislike inequality – a form of economic diversity – thus may find themselves on the left Electoral maps based on aggregate county results matched to census data offered the first snapshot of the social drivers of Trump, and it was apparent that education, not income, best predicted Trump success. Still, at first glance, maps reinforce stereotypes like the urban–rural divide. As with Brexit, income is correlated with education, but there are many wealthy people – think successful plumber – with few qualifications. Similarly, many resemble struggling artists, possessing degrees but little money. When you control for education, income has no effect on whether a white person voted for, or supports, Trump. Being less well-off produces an effect on Trump voting only when authoritarian and conservative values are held constant – and even then has a much smaller impact than values. Education is the best census indicator because it reflects people's subjective worldview, not just their material circumstances. Researchers find that teenagers with more open and exploratory psychological orientations self-select into university. This, much more than what people learn at university, makes them more liberal. Median education level offers a window onto the cultural values of a voting district, which is why it correlates best with Trump's vote share. In American exit polls, Trump won whites without college degrees 67–28, compared to 49–45 for whites with degrees. The changing racial demographics of America could permit the Democrats to consistently win first the presidential, then congressional, elections. Alternatively, the Republican establishment may be able to install a pro-immigration primary candidate. But is this a solution? With no federal outlet for white identity concerns or ethno-traditional nationalism, and with a return to policies of multiculturalism and high immigration which are viewed as a threat to these identities, it's possible the culturally conservative section of the US population could start viewing the government as an enemy. This is an old trope in American history and could pose a security problem. It is also how violent ethnic conflict sometimes ignites. For instance, the British-Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, where parties run on ethnic lines, meant Irish Catholics lost every election in the province between 1922 and the abolition of the Northern Ireland provincial government in 1972. This lack of political representation produced alienation which helped foment the civil war in 1969. What happens if rural and red-state America is permanently frozen out of power when it considers itself the repository of authentic Americanism? [EUROPE:] Liberals fought against the ‘normalization' of the far right, but with rising populist-right totals and coalition arithmetic pulling towards partnership it was only a question of time before the consensus gave way. The anti-racist norm against voting for the far right began to erode and centrist parties started adopting their policies. Elite obstruction may actually have contributed to an angrier anti-elite mood, recruiting yet more voters to the far-right banner. The anti-racist taboo against them has weakened but remains: more voters express strong anti-immigration views than are willing to vote far right.4 Yet, as I explain in chapter 9, the higher the populist right's vote share, the more the taboo erodes. This eases their path to a higher total when conditions permit, setting in motion a self-fulfilling spiral. Economic rationales frequently disguise underlying psychological drivers. For instance, in small opt-in samples on Prolific Academic, one group of white Republican voters scored the problem of ‘unchecked urban sprawl' a 51 out of 100, but another group of white Republicans who saw the question as ‘unchecked urban sprawl caused by immigration' scored it 74/100 (italics added for emphasis). Likewise, among a sample of white British Brexit voters, the problem of ‘pressure on council housing' scored a 47/100 but ‘immigrants putting pressure on council housing' was rated 68/100. In both cases, it logically cannot be the case that the immigration-driven portion of the problem of urban sprawl or pressure on council housing is more important than the problem itself. Thus what's driving opposition to immigration must be something prior to these material concerns. Likewise, the large-sample, representative British Election Study shows that concerns over the cultural and economic effects of immigration are tightly correlated. This suggests opposition to immigration comes first (Jonathan Haidt's unconscious ‘elephant' moves us to act) and various rationalizations like pressure on public services follow (Haidt's conscious ‘rider' telling us a story about why we acted as we did).17 But rationales matter. If a morally acceptable rationale is not there, this inhibits a party's ability to articulate its underlying anti-immigration grievances. This is why restrictionists tend to don the cloak of economic rationalization. The idea that the country has a traditional ethnic composition which people are attached to – what I term ethno-traditional nationalism – and which should not change too quickly, is viewed as beyond the limits of acceptable debate. This is a pity, because the ‘legitimate' arguments stigmatize minorities and are often racist in a way the ‘illegitimate' arguments about wanting to slow cultural loss are not. Only when the latter is taken to the extreme of wanting to bar certain groups or repatriate immigrants do they become racist. Rising diversity polarizes people by psychological outlook and reorients party platforms. As countries ethnically change, green parties move to capture cosmopolitan liberals and the populist right targets conservatives and authoritarians.88 While attitude liberalization did throw up cultural debates over religion, gay marriage and traditional values, these are on their way to becoming marginal in Europe as liberal attitudes attain mass acceptance. The legalization of drugs and the question of how best to address crime are live social issues, but neither promises the same radical transformation of society as ethnic change. Therefore it is ethno-demographic shifts which are rotating European societies away from a dominant left–right economic orientation to a globalist–nationalist cultural axis. The West is becoming less like homogeneous South Korea, where foreign policy and economic divisions dominate, and more like South Africa, where ethnicity is the main political division.89 When a regalizing order fails to make a charge of deviance stick, the norm begins to unwind, leading to a period of intense cultural contestation. Competing groups police norm boundaries and marginalize deviants who are seen to have violated their community's sacred values. I maintain we are currently in such a period, in which hegemonic liberal norms known as ‘political correctness' are being challenged by both populists and centrists, some of whom are trying to install new social norms, notably those defining Muslims and cosmopolitans as deviant. Fascism and socialism lost out after the Second World War, but what of the victor, liberalism? The Allies' victory did enlarge and protect the scope of negative liberty. But alongside this success a positive liberalism was smuggled in which advocated individuality and cosmopolitanism over community. Most, myself included, value individual autonomy, but one has to recognize that not all share this aim. Someone who prefers to wear a veil or dedicate their lives to religion is making a communitarian choice which negative liberalism respects but positive liberalism (whether of the modernist left or burqa-banning right) does not. Expressive individualism advocates that we channel our authentic inner nature, or what H. G. Wells or Henri Bergson termed our life force, unconstrained by tradition or reason. Aesthetically, it tended towards what the influential American sociologist Daniel Bell terms modernism, rejecting Christian or national traditions while spurning established techniques and motifs.22 Not only were traditions overturned but esteem was accorded to those whose innovations shocked sensibilities and subverted historic narratives and symbols the most. Clearly something happened between the nation-evoking historical and landscape painting of a Delacroix or Constable in the early nineteenth century and Marcel Duchamp's urinal of 1917. This ‘something' was the rise, after 1880, of what Bell terms modernism and Anthony Giddens calls de-traditionalization. For Bell, modernism is the antinomian rejection of all cultural authority. For Giddens, the shift is from a past- to a future-orientation and involves a decline in existential security.23 For Bell, modernism replaces contemplation of external reality and tradition with sensation and immediacy.26 The desire to seek out new and different experiences elevates novelty and diversity into cardinal virtues of the new positive liberalism. To favour tradition over the new, homogeneity over diversity, is to be reactionary. Left-modernism continually throws up new movements such as Surrealism or Postmodernism in its quest for novelty and difference. The shock of the new is accompanied by a cosmopolitan pastiche of borrowings from non-Western cultures, as with the Primitivism of Paul Gauguin. Yet there is a tension between the expressive-individualist and egalitarian strands of left-modernism. Gauguin, for example, who considered himself a cosmopolite defending Tahitian sexual freedom against the buttoned-down West, stands accused by the New Left of cultural appropriation, colonialism, orientalism and patriarchy. The social penetration of left-modernist ideas would take a great leap forward only in the 1960s as television and university education soared. In America, the share of 18- to 24-year-olds in College increased from 15 per cent in 1950 to a third in 1970. Given the large postwar ‘baby-boom' generation, this translated into a phenomenal expansion of universities. The growth of television was even more dramatic: from 9 per cent penetration in American homes in 1950 to 93 per cent by 1965.41 The New York, Hollywood and campus-based nodes in this network allowed liberal sensibilities to spread from a small coterie of aficionados to a wider public. Rising affluence may also have played a part in creating a social atmosphere more conducive to liberalism. All told, these ingredients facilitated a marked liberal shift across a wide range of attitudes measured in social surveys from the mid-1960s: gender roles, racial equality, sexual mores and religion – with the effects most apparent in the postwar Baby Boom generation.42 Since so much of the debate around the boundaries of the permissible revolves around racism, we need a rigorous – rather than political – definition of the concept. It's very important to specify clearly, using analytic political theory and precise terminology, why certain utterances or actions are racist. Only in this manner can we defend a racist taboo. I define racism as (a) antipathy to racial or pan-ethnic outgroups, defined as communities of birth; (b) the quest for race purity; or (c) racial discrimination which results in a violation of citizens' right to equal treatment before the law. The problem is that left-modernism has established racial inequality as an outrage rather than one dimension – and not generally the most important – of the problem of inequality. If racial inequality is one facet of inequality, it should be considered alongside other aspects such as income, health, weight or age. To focus the lion's share of attention on race and gender disparities entrenches ‘inequality privilege', wherein those who suffer from low-visibility disadvantages are treated less fairly than those who fit totemic left-modernist categories. A white male who is short, disabled, poor and unattractive will understandably resent the fact his disadvantage is downplayed while he is pilloried for his privilege. In effect, the 2010s represent a renewed period of left-modernist innovation, incubated by near-universal left–liberal hegemony among non-STEM faculty and administrators. Most academics are moderate liberals rather than radical leftists, but in the absence of conservative or libertarian voices willing to stand against left-modernist excess, liberal saturation reduced resistance to the japes of extremist students and professors. Social media and progressive online news acted as a vector, carrying the new left-modernist awakening off-campus much more effectively than was true during the first wave of political correctness of the late 1980s and 1990s. Angela Nagle finds that leftist radicalism emerged first, attracting a far-right response. One of the first to trace the emergence of this polarizing dynamic, she shows how, in left-modernist online chat groups, those who stake outlandish claims about white male oppression win moral and social plaudits. These in turn are lampooned by the alt-right, who leverage left-modernist excesses to legitimate blatant racism and sexism. This begins a cycle of polarizing rhetorical confrontation. Alt-right message boards adopt a playful countercultural style, emphasizing their rebellion against a stifling, puritanical-left establishment.11 Whereas bohemians like the Young Intellectuals of the 1910s and 1920s lauded African-American jazz and immigrant conviviality as a riposte to an uptight Prohibitionist Anglo-Protestant culture, the alt-right champions white maleness as a liberation from the strictures of the puritanical left. Hamid argues that being attached to an ethnic group and looking out for its interests is qualitatively different from hating or fearing outgroups. This is a distinction social psychologists recognize, between love for one's group and hatred of the other. As Marilyn Brewer writes in one of the most highly cited articles on prejudice: The prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups.54 If politics in the West is ever to return to normal rather than becoming even more polarized, white interests will need to be discussed. I realize this is very controversial for left-modernists. Yet not only is white group self-interest legitimate, but I maintain that in an era of unprecedented white demographic decline it is absolutely vital for it to have a democratic outlet. Marginalizing race puritanism is important, but muzzling relaxed versions of white identity sublimates it in a host of negative ways. For example, when whites are concerned about their decline but can't express it, they may mask their concern as worry about the nation-state. It's more politically correct to worry about Islam's challenge to liberalism and East European ‘cheap labour' in Britain than it is to say you are attached to being a white Brit and fear cultural loss. This means left-modernism has placed us in a situation where expressing racism is more acceptable than articulating racial self-interest. David Willetts, Minister of Education in David Cameron's Conservative government: The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.62 trying to reconstruct our racial categories from above through politics may be as difficult as trying to get people to unlearn the primary colours. This doesn't mean categories can't evolve, but it suggests the process is complex, evolutionary and bottom-up. As the median racial type changes, the boundaries of whiteness may expand because people judge categories based on the average type they encounter. Hispanics, like the Italians before them, may become part of the ethnic majority in the not-too-distant future. Many white Americans currently view those with Spanish surnames or Hispanic features as outsiders. A majority of Hispanics see themselves as white, but only 6 per cent of Hispanics who identify as white say they are accepted as such by American society. Even among those with just one Latino grandparent, 58 per cent identify as Hispanic.43 Yet this may change with increased intermarriage, cultural assimilation and the arrival of more culturally distant groups. Already, lighter-skinned Hispanics are more likely to vote Republican or live in the same neighbourhoods as whites.44 As group lines are blurred by intermarriage, ethnic boundaries may shift: Ramirez may be considered an Anglo-American on a par with De Niro. Hispanic surnames are unlikely to be ‘counter-entropic' barriers to assimilation. This assimilation process is a major reason why the centre-left writer John Judis revised his thesis that America's changing demographics will automatically produce Democratic victories in the future.45 When the criteria for defining who is in or out of the majority change, whole chunks of the population who are not of mixed origin – like the fully Irish John F. Kennedy – suddenly become part of the ethnic majority. The analogy would be if fully Hispanic or Asian Americans came to be viewed as white. I deem this unlikely, given the proximity to Mexico and the established nature of the racial categories noted by Richard Dawkins. What seems more likely is that the high rate of intermarriage between Latinos and whites, as well as the rising share of native English-speakers, Protestants or seculars among them, may expand the boundaries of whiteness to include those of mixed parentage. That is, those with some European background who are culturally assimilated and have Anglo first names – but who have Spanish surnames or a Hispanic appearance – may be accepted as white.

Eric Kaufmann is professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and author of "Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities". Eric’s research interests focus on demography, ethnicity, nationalism, and the study of white ethnic majorities in Western countries, We talk about what Eric lays out as the 2 whiteshifts that are coming, Why support for right-wing populism in Western nations is driven by demographics, identity, and attachment, not economics, the causes of the dearth of scholarship on ethnic majorities, left modernism, the mutability of white ethnic identity, we touch briefly on critiques of critical race theory, intersectionality, and some of the responses to these lines of inquiry, we deal with the myth of conspiratorial white genocide, and learn why Professor Kaufmann sees the embrace of a symmetric multiculturalism as the only rational, humane path forward. Agora Politics is a podcast dedicated to making sense out of our outdated theories of politics. Subscribe on: Twitter: https://twitter.com/agora_politics Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/agorapolitics Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSDjdhAe9Z7EatYg3OGLKug Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/agora-politics/id1496531814 Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/agora_politics Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5xfgHAlhswC6PWlTZC5S58? Wherever you find your podcasts!

Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) is my guest today. He’s a professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and he was one of the first people to join Heterodox Academy. We’ll be talking about his book Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities. It’s about how the cultural and ethnic transformation of English-speaking nations, especially the United States, that has threatened many citizens who have a white identity. He suggests a number of ways of dealing with this transformation including his preferred solution multivocalism, which he contrasts with multiculturalism.

Discussion with Jack Aldane on Corner Table podcast, live from Malabar Junction restaurant in Bloomsbury, London, Feb 20. Discussion of Whiteshift (www.sneps.net) on the interplay of demographics, immigration, populism, white majorities and progressivism. https://jackaldane.com/2019/08/11/home-podcast/

Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, explains how white identity is threatened by immigration and how this trend drives polarization in English-speaking nations.

Eric Kaufmann is a Canadian professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is a specialist on Orangeism in Northern Ireland, nationalism, political demography and demography of the religious/irreligious. Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities is Kaufmann's expanise yet fine-tuned analysis of the current and possible responses of white majority populations in the West to the age of ethnic transformation, and the inevitable changes this will bring to its cultural composition and identity.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A discussion with Eric Kaufmann about white majorities and the future of politics in western democracies.

Stadig flere klager over polarisering; men kommer den til Norge? Eric Kaufman har skrevet boken Whiteshift om hvordan demografiske endringer påvirker kulturelle og politiske strømninger. Med innvandring følger fremmedfrykt og populisme. Men må den politiske korrektheten følge etter? Er Norge annerledeslandet? Eller vil deplatforming og avkolonialisering snart feie over landet?

Eneasz shares his reading of Whiteshift by Eric Kaufmann News story about the CFAR barricading Ted Cruz bad lip reading Hey look, we have a discord! What could possibly go wrong? Rationality: From AI to Zombies, The Podcast… and the … Continue reading →

From The Origins of Totalitarianism to The Crises in Little Rock Arendt’s thinking on race is controversial and has often led many to quickly dismiss her thoughts on race and antisemitism entirely. The Hannah Arendt Center’s 12th annual conference on “Racism and Antisemitism” will explore these oft shunned concepts in Arendt’s work in the context of our contemporary political moment which is marked by antisemitic and racist violence. Our conference will consider the following questions: • What is Racism? • Is antisemitism a form of racism? • What does anti-racism mean today? • Is it antisemitic to criticize the state of Israel? • Is equality possible in a world where prejudice exists? • How can we respond to racist fantasies?

Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and Eric Kaufmann (Whiteshift, Birkbeck College, University of London) Eric’s new book on populism and immigration, Whiteshift 0:12 Why it’s counterproductive to call Trump supporters racist 8:12 Eric’s vision of an American ethnic nationalism 13:12 Bob: Ideally, shouldn’t we get past ethnicity? 23:21 Will mixed-race children of the future identify as white? 30:18 Debating whether a purely civic nationalism is viable 37:28 The real reasons most white voters backed Trump 45:49 The two Democrats who Eric thinks would do best against Trump 57:28 Is ethnic affinity in our genes? 59:28

On this episode of the Argument Ninja podcast I talk about the difficulty of judging how much we really understand about the causes of complex social phenomena—even if we do lots of research and self-study. To help make the case I’m continuing my survey of different theories of the causes of the increase in social polarization that we’re currently experiencing. On this episode I look specifically at the work of two social scientists who have written extensively on this topic: Karen Stenner on the “authoritarian” personality type. Her 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic can be read as predicting the expansion of right-wing populism that contributed to the rise of Trump and Brexit. Stenner’s work has been influential on Jonathan Haidt’s analysis of polarization. Eric Kauffman on the effects of immigration on polarization in white majority countries. His latest book Whiteshift explores how demographic shifts are driving cultural conflict, and how this will likely play out in the longer run. But before I get to these topics, I give some Argument Ninja Dojo updates, do a recap of episode 034, and present a conceptual model for how we should think about the epistemological challenge of understanding complex social phenomena like polarization.

On Thursday 22nd of August the Henry Jackson Society was pleased to welcome Professor Eric Kaufmann, author of Whiteshift and Professor of Politics at Birckbeck College, University of London, to lead a discussion on the UK’s future immigration system in the post-Brexit context. While it is widely understood that immigration concerns fed into the Leave vote, it remains unclear what our immigration system will look like after the UK finally leaves the European Union, and what changes are needed to satisfy those who voted to leave.

On this episode of the Argument Ninja podcast I talk about the difficulty of judging how much we really understand about the causes of complex social phenomena—even if we do lots of research and self-study. To help make the case I'm continuing my survey of different theories of the causes of the increase in social polarization that we're currently experiencing. On this episode I look specifically at the work of two social scientists who have written extensively on this topic: Karen Stenner on the “authoritarian” personality type.  Her 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic can be read as predicting the expansion of right-wing populism that contributed to the rise of Trump and Brexit. Stenner's work has been influential on Jonathan Haidt's analysis of polarization. Eric Kauffman on the effects of immigration on polarization in white majority countries. His latest book Whiteshift explores how demographic shifts are driving cultural conflict, and how this will likely play out in the longer run. But before I get to these topics, I give some Argument Ninja Dojo updates, do a recap of episode 034, and present a conceptual model for how we should think about the epistemological challenge of understanding complex social phenomena like polarization. Timestamps 00:00 - 01:22  Introduction 01:22 - 06:31  Argument Ninja Dojo Announcements 06:31 - 11:45  Recap of Episode 034 11:45 - 14:41  Outline of What's to Come 14:41 -  23:40 Argument Matrices and the Problem of Calibrating Our Knowledge 23:40 - 25:48  The Epistemological Challenge of Understanding Complex Social Phenomena 25:48 - 42:44  Karen Stenner: The Authoritarian Dynamic 42:44 - 01:04:35  Eric Kauffman: Whiteshift and "Multivocal" Nationalism 01:04:35 - 01:07:56  Reasons to Think We Know Less Than We Think 01:07:56 - 01:08:44  Reminder: Argument Ninja Dojo Discount Coupon Links Links Show notes Click here to learn more about the Argument Ninja Dojo and how to sign up using a discount coupon link for as low as $3/month. Karen Stenner's homepage Eric Kauffman's homepage  

Eric Kaufmann has been researching immigration, religion, and national identity for more than twenty years. During this interview, he talks with Matt about his book, WhiteShift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities.

A talk on Whiteshift by Eric Kaufmann at the Centre for European Policy Studies, the EU's leading independent think tank. July 10, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MQWUCb55L4

Going back and forth between Canada and Japan during his childhood sparked Eric Kaufmann’s interest in the question of identity. As a foreigner in an international school, he encountered young individuals from at least 60 other countries, and this made him think more about national identity and how people affiliate and interact with one another. Now as an academic, he explores how demographic changes — most notably caused by ethnic migration and assimilation — are the key to understanding Brexit, Trump, and pretty much every major issue du jour. Kauffman’s latest book Whiteshift, which examines how declining white ethnic majorities will respond to these changes, is on Tyler’s list as one of the best books of the year. The two discuss the book and more, including Orangeism in Northern Ireland, Switzerland’s secret for stability, what Tocqueville got most wrong about America, predictions on Brexit’s final form, why Portugal seems immune to populism, how Notre Dame should be rebuilt, whether the Amish — or Mormons — will take over the world, and much more. Transcript and links Follow Eric on Twitter Follow Tyler on Twitter More CWT goodness: Facebook Twitter Instagram Email

Eric Kaufmann, author of Whiteshift, and Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, talk to Toby Young about the European election results. Is national populism in decline? If not, how concerned should we be?

Eric Kaufmann, author of Whiteshift, and Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, talk to Toby Young about the European election results. Is national populism in decline? If not, how concerned should we be?

Time for another AMA! You all hit the big stuff in this one. What’s the purpose of this show? How do I prep for it? What did I think of the Whiteshift conversation? What has fatherhood changed in my worldview? What weird work habits do I recommend? How about weird techno sets? How about comic runs? Should we be optimistic about humanity in 100 years? How about 1,000? Why did I describe Elizabeth Warren as a “fighter” rather than “professor” candidate? What’s the likeliest sci-fi dystopia? All this, plus some vegan recipe recommendations and the proportions for a Vieux Carré cocktail! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Recorded on March 8, 2019 This is the first of our podcast series – The Integration Conversation – to discuss the latest developments in the field. Our first one features Trevor Phillips and Eric Kaufmann, discussing the issue of the decline of white majorities raised in Kaufmann’s book ‘Whiteshift’, alongside issues of knife crime, white flight, European refugee integration, Muslim integration, and the separatist message of the film ‘Black Panther’. Via http://www.integrationhub.net/podcast/the-integration-conversation-beyond-whiteshift/

Since the election of Donald Trump and, to a lesser extent, the Brexit referendum, there’s been a fierce debate about what caused these political earthquakes. Are the drivers of these votes primarily economic or cultural? The economic side of the argument is the more popular one. Consider, for example, the stereotypical Trump voter: someone probably in the Midwest who has been on the sharp end of globalisation. He has struggled to find work since deindustrialisation rendered his skills redundant. He is one of the losers of recent economic history. Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, London, thinks this caricature is badly wrong. His new book Whiteshift is attracting plenty of attention – and praise – for the more uncomfortable conclusion it draws: that recent ruptures like Trump and Brexit can be almost entirely explained by identity, not economics. According to Kaufmann, they are a consequence of demographic change. The white majority is declining and as it does so, it feels culturally threatened. That, he argues forcefully, is why the anti-immigrant message of candidates like Trump is so appealing. For the podcast this week, I met Eric in his Bickbeck office to talk about the ideas in his monumental and thorough study of a difficult subject. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This event hosted by Birkbeck on 15 November 2018 focused on and around topics from Eric Kaufmann's new book Whiteshift. The book argues that we need to talk about white identity if we hope to address the root causes of populism and polarisation. The West is in the midst of two epochal demographic transformations. First, the white share of the population is projected to drop to less than half the total by 2050 in North America and 2100 in Western Europe. Second, the mixed-race population is projected to rise exponentially late this century to form the majority in western countries by the early 2100s. The first phase of Whiteshift, which we are currently in, increases the existential insecurity of conservative whites and emboldens the cosmopolitan left, with its dream of radical cultural transformation. Left-liberal hegemony in the high culture and its attempt to stanch the expression of conservative anxieties in established institutions has delegitmated the cultural elite in the eyes of conservatives, opening space for right-wing populism and 'culture wars' polarisation. The advent of mass racial melting offers a way out of this impasse, if we are able to grasp it. Panellists discussed aspects of the theme of 'Right-Wing Populism and the Left' alongside Kaufmann's new book. PANELLISTS Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck and author of the forthcoming Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities (Penguin Allen Lane, 25 October, 2018) Munira Mirza was Deputy Mayor for Education and Culture of London. She is author of The Politics of Culture: The Case for Universalism (2012). Trevor Phillips, writer and broadcaster, was formerly head of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. John Judis, author of a new book The Nationalist Revival: Trade, Immigration, and the Revolt Against Globalization (2018) and The Populist Explosion (2016), an editor-at-large at Talking Points Memo, a former senior writer at The National Journal and a former senior editor at The New Republic. David Goodhart, author of The Road to Somewhere: the Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (2017), and The British Dream. He was founding editor of Prospect magazine, was director of the think tank Demos and is currently Head of the Demography, Immigration and Integration Unit at the think tank Policy Exchange. CHAIR Robert Singh, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck will chair the event. Robert is is a specialist in contemporary US politics and the politics of American foreign policy. He is the author of eleven books - including, most recently, In Defense of the United States Constitution (Routledge, 2018)

Eric Kaufmann talks to Philip Dodd about white identity, immigration and populism. Plus Hungarian politics with cultural historian, Krisztina Robert, journalist, Matyas Sarkozi and Zsuzsa Szelenyi of the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna. Eric Kaufmann's book is called Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of White majorities. Krisztina Robert teaches at the University of Roehampton Producer: Zahid Warley

Eric Kaufmann, a politics professor at Birkbeck College and the author of Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities, and Ben Cobley, author of The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity, talks to associate editor Toby Young. Kaufmann recently wrote a piece for Quillette about white privilege, arguing that non-whites discriminate in favour of whites as well as whites, so declining white populations won't necessarily end white privilege, and Ben Cobley's book was recently reviewed in Quillette by Helen Dale in which she praised him for explaining "how a frankly bonkers set of beliefs has stolen the Labour Party" and for showing "the danger of viewing people as members of fixed identity groups."

This event hosted by Birkbeck on 15 November 2018 focused on and around topics from Eric Kaufmann's new book Whiteshift. The book argues that we need to talk about white identity if we hope to address the root causes of populism and polarisation. The West is in the midst of two epochal demographic transformations. First, the white share of the population is projected to drop to less than half the total by 2050 in North America and 2100 in Western Europe. Second, the mixed-race population is projected to rise exponentially late this century to form the majority in western countries by the early 2100s. The first phase of Whiteshift, which we are currently in, increases the existential insecurity of conservative whites and emboldens the cosmopolitan left, with its dream of radical cultural transformation. Left-liberal hegemony in the high culture and its attempt to stanch the expression of conservative anxieties in established institutions has delegitmated the cultural elite in the eyes of conservatives, opening space for right-wing populism and 'culture wars' polarisation. The advent of mass racial melting offers a way out of this impasse, if we are able to grasp it. Panellists discussed aspects of the theme of 'Right-Wing Populism and the Left' alongside Kaufmann's new book. PANELLISTS Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck and author of the forthcoming Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities (Penguin Allen Lane, 25 October, 2018) Munira Mirza was Deputy Mayor for Education and Culture of London. She is author of The Politics of Culture: The Case for Universalism (2012). Trevor Phillips, writer and broadcaster, was formerly head of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. John Judis, author of a new book The Nationalist Revival: Trade, Immigration, and the Revolt Against Globalization (2018) and The Populist Explosion (2016), an editor-at-large at Talking Points Memo, a former senior writer at The National Journal and a former senior editor at The New Republic. David Goodhart, author of The Road to Somewhere: the Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (2017), and The British Dream. He was founding editor of Prospect magazine, was director of the think tank Demos and is currently Head of the Demography, Immigration and Integration Unit at the think tank Policy Exchange. CHAIR Robert Singh, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck will chair the event. Robert is is a specialist in contemporary US politics and the politics of American foreign policy. He is the author of eleven books - including, most recently, In Defense of the United States Constitution (Routledge, 2018)