Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:01 All right. Well, I'm going to get started. Um, welcome everybody. We are doing an ask me anything with professor Jason Hill. He is a philosophy professor at DePaul university. He is the author of several books. We have overcome what do white Americans, oh, black people. Um, and, uh, and he is a senior scholar at the Atlas society. So today we are doing an ask me anything. So if you have any questions about any topic, um, please raise your hand and we will invite you on up and a new time. You have quite a few questions that have come in from our 63,000 followers on Instagram. So, uh, it's very difficult to answer those in the one minute segments that we have on there. They're just kind of a little tasting. So, uh, so we're going to be able to get to some of them here. One that came up, uh, from maxi kielbasa was what do you think would be Rand's main concern about the world nowadays?
Speaker 1 00:01:38 Well, that's a difficult one. I think. Um, I think the S because she did identify irrationality, um, at a couple of the Fort hall forum speeches as the main problem and irrationality itself, giving way as being the preconditioned for any of the subsequent problems, she was, she was, she was able to derive any sort of, um, piecemeal problem that we could, or topical or episodic problem that we could find she would trace it back to irrationality. So I think in my view, the increasing assault, I mean, in her time, at least reason, I think still had some semblance of respect. I mean, it wasn't attacked and demonized the way it is today as the construct of European white racists and logic and reason were not as demonized. There, there might've been a slide towards the rationale and a slide towards greater mysticism as she, um, identified in many of her writings and her talks.
Speaker 1 00:02:52 But I think what she would probably be most terrified by today is the open naked on a bashed unapologetic articulation of reason and logic as not just impotent and incapable of adjudicating among competing truth claims, but, but worse than that, that reason and logic by themselves are the constructs of racists and said something like feelings and emotions are criteria for not even adjudicating truth claims, but criteria for settling in some kind of undefinable indefinite way disputes that arise among interlocutors. So I think I agree with her that irrationality, which, um, one could posit as a flaw is something that you can use to identify any subsequent, um, malarkey or any subsequent, uh, problem that problems that might have arisen, um, as a result of being rational. So I think to answer the question, I think she would be absolutely terrified at the articulation of reason and logic as racist constructs, not just the slide towards great irrationality, that our society has become more irrational, uh, but militantly, so not by default, but mid attentively, and then routinely our societies routine, the irrational in the sense that, um, it's first minutes, there's a militant movement against reason logic and then becomes routinized.
Speaker 0 00:04:37 I think that's a great way of summing it up. It's not, as you say, just this slide, it's not a passive trend. Uh, but now with postmodernism on the rise with critical theory, that it's actually a explicit attack on rationality and enlightenment values. And if our intellectuals have not only abandoned reason, but are tacking reason, then, um, then it only accelerates the process. Unfortunately, Scott,
Speaker 2 00:05:15 Yes. Thank you. I also thought that was a great answer. Um, I wanted to just, uh, ask about something that's going on, even on the Orthodox side where there's a bit of a debate about the, uh, freedom convoy, where some, you know, just see it as like, you know, an example and, and giving full throated support, and then others are saying, well, they're blocking roads. And so I don't know about that. That seems to be more of like the, you know, moderate position. So I'm just curious where you fall in that.
Speaker 1 00:05:51 Yeah, my, my, I think I'm going to take a random position here. She had the idea that the streets are for public passage, not for necessarily public protests. Although I, I think that there, there, there can be, there can be circumscribed cases where you get a permit to lead a peaceful protest. As you know, we found in some, some aspects of, uh, some parts of a civil rights movement, not all parts of the civil rights movements and marches and so on. But I think, I think if what you're referring to the, the truck is in Canada right now, it's not, yeah. I think that, you know, look, that's just, that's, that's sort of co-opting and appropriation of, uh, what's really public property, um, for one's own, um, uh, to, to, to register a protest of one's conscious consciousness against one takes to be a violation of one's freedom.
Speaker 1 00:06:54 And as Ron would say, you have the right to do that on the property of your adherence and you have the right to do that. Um, and I would say that you have the right to do that. If you, uh, you know, you properly apply for permits and so on, but I think this has gone way beyond the point of reasonableness where they're really messing up with the supply chain, they're blocking the passage of, of, of north American, um, commerce into Canada. That's proper trade agreements that we have with Canada. And they're, they're, they're just messing up with a lot of proper procedures and protocols that have been in place. And I am, although I am definitely, let me just say most emphatically, not a fan of that socialist Trudeau, uh, prime minister or whatever you want to call him. I'm certainly clear was himself a feminist and a Canada has no identity. I think he a colossal disgrace, the Canada. I completely agree with him in terms of removing the, you know, starting the process of arresting these people, because you cannot have this wholesale blockage of public space. Uh, you cannot have proper public space on such a large scale to simply for the purpose of what accents is simple. It's a big deal, but for the purpose of registering a protest, uh, in terms of your it's a way of them using it as freedom of speech. Um, and I think that it's, it's, it's inappropriate.
Speaker 0 00:08:21 Roger, so great to see you here.
Speaker 3 00:08:25 It's good to be here. Um, I love when Jason's on, uh, professor hill is one of my favorite clubhouse folks, as well as favorite people to read in general. Um, especially like, uh, the work that you did, uh, on, uh, when you were talking about, uh, let's not call it genocide. Uh, what happened to the, uh, to the natives? That was an interesting, uh, you know, it was a war. Uh, it was really interesting, but in that vein, I like to ask you about, there's a potential war on the horizon in Europe, the Russians have 130,000 troops on the border of the Ukraine and the United States, uh, has decided that, uh, they're not going to stop that. Uh, and, and, uh, and, uh, as a non-interventionist myself, uh, I think that that's probably the proper response, um, but what we will follow up with is going to be sanctions. And I just wanted to get your take on, you know, what you believe that the proper role would be for the U S in this type of a situation. And, uh, and maybe, uh, if you could point out where we're, we're gonna make some fatal mistakes in the coming weeks and months.
Speaker 1 00:09:43 Well, I always go back to what Ronald, if Putin wouldn't dare be doing what he is doing, and Ronald Reagan were alive because it was right on just the command that Ronald Reagan would issue, Mr. To get your goddamn troops away from the borders would probably send shivers down his spine because he, he would probably know the consequences of his actions. So I am an interventionist. I'm not a paleo conservative. I am actually a Hawk. And I do not think that it is an America's national self-interest to have a country like Russia, which is a thug nation that is hell bent on recovering, um, or recreating its lost empire. It cannot have to have that nation existing in Europe cannot be in Europe's national self-interest and it cannot be in America's long-term, um, secure national self-interest to just to have that kind of blatant display of the aggregation of the rights of the citizens of, of Ukraine and the sovereignty of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 00:10:48 Um, I think that we should, um, to lend a lot of military support to do Korean, we should have thousands and thousands of troops stationed at the border with the Ukrainian, uh, army and put up a formidable, terrifying, um, um, front to Putin to sit Tim to suggest that if he dares to invade, uh, the Ukraine, that there will be repercussions, that there could be military progressions. I'll go as far as to say that we can say that there will be a loss of life in Ukraine if he invades cause wars went to break out. And I think one of the most justified uses of, of, of war or, or of, of intervention that I've seen in recent times was, well, not so much in recent times was Clinton's bombing of Belgrade to stop a little bit on the loss of it from, you know, the ethnic cleansing against the cost of old people, the ethnic Albanians, uh, he bombed the hell out of Belgrade and that was a good use of force.
Speaker 1 00:11:57 Uh, so I think that, uh, I didn't really don't expect anything from the Biden administration. Um, but I think that it cannot be in America's self-interest and it cannot be in Europe self-interest to have a thug thug like Putin, um, acting unilaterally enacting and this sort of patients way, um, trying to reclaim his empire Ukraine is a sovereign nation. And, um, and that we should, we, we should lend or military support how far we get into a war. If a war were to start is open to reason and is open to debate. But I think we should, rather than withdrawing withdrawing troops, we should really be, um, blockading that region, um, with the military, um, bolstering that region with military, with military arsenal and troops. That's just, that's, that's just my view. Cause I don't see how it can be in our long-term interest to have Russia, um, advance Russia has a manifest destiny and its manifest destiny is to go around the world, undermining the democracy of other countries, just like, oh, you know, um, Hamas has a manifest destiny of obliterating Jews from that region and establishing global califate Iran has its own manifest destiny.
Speaker 1 00:13:20 China has the manifest destiny and next thing, a third, no of a globe, including Africa and most of south America and where I'm from most of the Caribbean. Uh, so these countries all have a manifest destiny. And if America doesn't sort of assert some semblance of power and, and uh, not power, but assert some semblance of moral and political authority. Um, we're just going to have a sort of global commons in which anyone can run rough shot over the sovereignty and autonomy of nations in the world.
Speaker 0 00:13:53 All right. Uh, again, I want to invite anyone in the audience. If you have a question for professor hill, please raise your hand. We've got a couple of others up here and I've got, and speaking of arsenals, I've got a heavy arsenal of questions from our Instagram audience Suresh.
Speaker 4 00:14:14 Hey Jennifer. Yeah, I do have a question for Jason. Is it possible to embrace individualism in an organization which promotes collectivism?
Speaker 0 00:14:26 Is it possible to, I didn't get all of that.
Speaker 4 00:14:30 Yeah. Is it possible to embrace individualism and then organization, which promotes collectivism?
Speaker 0 00:14:38 Is it possible individualism and an organization that promotes collectivism? Okay.
Speaker 1 00:14:46 Well it certainly, it's certainly more difficult to practice, but I think in the end, you, we, we all are individuals and we all have to act as individuals and the big libel collectivism really is that ultimately when you analyze the behaviors of people who are acting as if they're acting as if they're sort of putting in a balance, their own rational self-interests, or sort of suspending them or acting in a way as if their existence, um, can only be justified by serving the interests of others above their own, uh, is that when you read it really analyze their behaviors, um, what seems to be self-sacrificial behavior? Altruistic behavior really is something that serves psychologically speaking, um, something that shores up their self esteem or shores up their identity or shores up their, um, their deepest image of themselves. So it certainly is more difficult to practice individualism in a institution that promotes collectivism.
Speaker 1 00:15:53 But I think that most of our organizations today do actually operate on that premise. I mean, if you just look at the diversity equity and inclusion programs that are suffusing our institutions today, those are collectivists, um, programs, um, based on, well, let's just take the, the equity, which is sort of metaphysical egalitarianism that ran wrote about, which is the quality of outcomes. Um, that is a radical collectivist notion and it demands that we comport ourselves in a certain way to advance the goals of institutions that hold that. So one can be, and I certainly would address myself as I don't mean to put myself in the sense of self-centered, uh, as center in the center position, but I could certainly, I do use myself as evidence of what's possible. That is one can be a conscientious objector and practice the virtues of individualism and stand apart from the collectivist ideas and, and, and, and policies that are being advanced in a corporation.
Speaker 1 00:17:02 You certainly pay a price for it. Um, but there are also various ways, you know, one can operate by stealth. One can operate, um, covertly or overtly it or expediency. It just depends on how one chooses to practice one's individualism or, or, or one's individuality in a atmosphere, Emilio in which collectivism is promoted. But to answer your question directly, I think that the bottom line is that we can't help, but promote our own self-interests. We can't help, but be individuals. Uh, we can't help, but, um, de ratify the lie that our purpose here on earth is to, um, justify our existence by serving the interests of others at the expense of our own. At some point, um, the lie is going to objective. Reality is going to be the final arbiter as objective reality is always the final arbiter. And we're going to find that, um, we're, we're sort of dying to use one of Enron's terms.
Speaker 1 00:18:10 We're not going to die apocalyptical, but we're going to be bled to death, death by thousands of tiny scratches. So it's harder. I mean, look, the United States is trending towards collectivism, towards socialism or institutions are trending or universities or academic institutions or corporate corporate institutions are all trending towards collectivism. It's very, very hard to get individualists, but, um, the more people realize that are various and what is individualism really means in terms of what Ron said. It, it just, it really boils down to inability of your rights. Um, that's one way of looking at it. And so those are not negotiable. So if one takes certain rights, that one, um, possesses as being non-negotiable and being, um, inalienable, um, and one manifests them and live and, and continue to live them. That's, that's the way of being a sort of revolutionary without being a radical in the, in the true sense of the word. And that's the way of sort of undermining. That's the only way we're going to sort of undermine, uh, if one is not a collectivist, one is truly an individualist undermining that sort of ethos and pathos also that suffuses the, or environment one has to just be an intransigent individualist. Now the degree and the manner in which one does that is going to be dependent upon one's personality, one's temperament, um, one's particular orient wants to take a personal constitution, but it is hard, but I think it is possible.
Speaker 0 00:19:48 So rash. Does that get to your question? Did you have an example from something in your own experience of being in a
Speaker 4 00:19:58 Yeah, that, that helps me, Jennifer, thanks so much, Jason. Yeah. I could deal out like specific instances where collectivism like beam, beam, elect team rights were given priority over individual rights, but yeah, the answer which Jason replied pretty much, pretty much makes sense.
Speaker 0 00:20:22 Awesome. Well, you know, I also want to recommend anyone who is on Instagram, um, to follow the Atlas societies account there. Uh, you know, it is a little bit wave tops, but we usually put in a link for where you can, uh, explore, um, more in depth articles or more in depth. Um, but twice a week we do takeovers there and the star of the takeovers. Um, at least my favorite is Richard Saltzman, professor Salzman another, uh, senior scholar at the Atlas society. So, um, those graphics go up twice a week and any questions that you might have, uh, send them our way, but we do get quite a few, so I can't guarantee that they will get answered as I can here. So Sam, with the lovely hairdo. Welcome. Do you have a question for professor hill?
Speaker 5 00:21:23 Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. Um, did God create man in his image or did man create God in his image? The reason I ask is seen as man's desire a God being omniscient, all knowing omnipotent, all powerful omnipresent, all present seems man's desire for these. And yes, there is a natural order we live in and that requires power, but there's this inevitability of this constant fight for which God, or which rules or morality needs. You sit in the genealogy and morality is a power decides that too. We just see it throughout human history. It just seems inevitable to continue.
Speaker 1 00:22:31 Well, I can't speak for God because I don't really know the mind of God if there's a God. And, um, but I, but I can, I can speak anthropologically to some, some extent that if you look at, from primitive civilizations to more advanced one Egypt, indigenous cultures, if you look at the religious artifacts, um, from the, um, from animus religions, as we have in, in many indigenous cultures in Africa, um, Sub-Saharan Africa, um, to the Abrahamic religions, you know, um, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, um, it does seem to be the case. Anthropologically speaking, that individuals have fashioned a God or gods. If you look at the Greek gods, for example, and the Roman gods that individuals have fashioned a God or gods, um, in their image. And, um, this speaks to a very interesting question because there are, there are certain psychologists, uh, their names elude me right now, but there are certain psychologists and anthropologists who have made the point that there is something called a religious impulse that people have like a design or more something like desire for exaltation and worship, but desire to look up.
Speaker 1 00:23:57 And that desire to look up often manifests itself in something like the creation of a deity or mult, a multiplicity of deities. And it would seem that based on an understanding of their human cultures, human nature at the time that they fashioned a God or gods that reflect that human nature, or if you're anonymous reflects the nature that you see around you, since if you're anonymous, you don't obstruct yourself from nature at all. Unlike if you're a Christian you're, you are not a part of nature, you're separate and apart from nature and you have strapped yourself from nature. So, um, you know, the first question, the first part of the question is impossible to understand that anyone who attempts to answer that question is I think kind of a bit maybe guilty of hubris, but it does seem anthropologically speaking that, um, when you look at cultures and their formulation of whether one is a rational dentist, who's a Christian or a rational DSS, some of the founding fathers were who might not have believed that the village of Christ, I don't know.
Speaker 1 00:25:04 Um, it does seem anthropologically speaking that individuals belonging in different cultures or different cultures have fashioned God or gods in their image that is in their ability to apprehend the universe. They're able to perceive the universe. Some of them believe that consciousness produces reality. Others are more objective. And of course, believe that there's an objective reality and that it's perceived by man's consciousness, um, depending on one's capacity to perceive or how one perceives the world. I think the concomitant image of God is going to be forthcoming. Uh, so I prefer it to be a materialist and answer the second part of the question and not really try to answer this the first part, because, you know, I just wouldn't know what image, if God made man in his own image, um, how, how would we apply philosophical, meaning tests to that? How do we qualify it? How would we quantify it? How would we subject to any kind of rational scrutiny and then corroborate it? We can't, it's a matter of faith that we would have to have, but I think the second part of the question is much more interesting philosophically because that you can have sensitive points by looking at how cultures have formulated their gods or a God based on their apprehension, their perception, and an apprehension of the universe around them.
Speaker 0 00:26:37 Thank you, Sam. Hope that helps. All right. Good. Uh, JP, welcome. Good to see you here. Do you have a question for professor hill Scott, you yourself, JB, while you are doing that? Uh, we have another question here from Chris rain tasks on Instagram. What would you do if you were president, what would be your priority?
Speaker 1 00:27:16 Um, I would put so many of the principles of objectivism into policy. The first thing I would do is I completely abolished the income tax, um, which I think is a travesty because of what you really do. And I'm glad that this question is being asked because, um, what you do with income tax is you, you almost psychologically incentivize people from working. You're punishing them for that. You're punishing them. You can, you can have sales tax on luxury items. I mean, if that's more, that's more reasonable, but on somebody's income, somebody who is producing a value or producing a multiplicity of values in the world, which other people benefit from and to tax them on that that is, uh, expropriate their labor and appropriate their, their money is so Eva phenomenon that it makes me just shake that the next thing I would do was I was completely, um, defund the universities.
Speaker 1 00:28:14 Um, I would, um, get rid of the department of education and I would not only get rid of the department of education. I would, um, allow parents who are taxed, but so I said I would abolish income tax, but assuming that the income tax would not be not be abolished, then all states, I would certainly as precedent, make sure that those parents who want to send their children to charter schools or private schools are most emphatically not taxed on the income, um, on which they would use to send their children to private school. I would increase military spending by a lot of money because I think that the defense is crucial to any strong economy. Um, I would, um, I would get rid of every single regulatory policy that makes it difficult for small businesses to coming in, come into practices into existence. That is all the licensing and the regulations that prohibit lower income people from starting from the scratch, from starting their own private companies.
Speaker 1 00:29:36 Um, whether it means setting up a little stall in a park, uh, without a damn and, uh, just setting for those store and allowing people to take their own risks. And I mean, we have this in Jamaica where I come from. I mean, you can, in some sense, Jamaica is a lot for the United States in terms of small businesses starting up, because there are just certain licensing requirements and regulatory, um, uh, policies that are just absent. Um, and this was ironically a holdover from the socialist government of Michael Manley who wanted upward mobility for the people. So he got rid of a lot of Vil regulations and the licensing, and just allowed people to open their stalls in, in these humongous marketplaces, everything from fish fries to, um, knitted, knitted caps and sweaters to shorts, uh, anyone who had any kind of creative, uh, creative imagination and could translate that into something tangible.
Speaker 1 00:30:36 So I would get rid of a lot of the regulations that stifle or prevent small businesses from coming into existence, um, immediately. So those are just some of the things I, I certainly would do. Um, I'm not sure that I would, um, I would, I would shrink the government as, as much as possible, but my big concern is, is the income tax, because I think the abolition of the income tax, I'm a big abolitionist when it comes to income tax. For reasons that I explained earlier would be, um, on the top of my priorities, because I think it's a violation really of, um, a person's right to his or her, um, the products of that person. So labor, I mean, I am a lucky and in this respect that that private property is the containment of reason with labor and to propagate that, um, is a form of legalized theft.
Speaker 1 00:31:31 Um, so I, yeah, and I would get rid of the public school system, like I said, I would get rid of the department of education and, and, and try to decentivize. Um, well, I wouldn't say incentivize, just, I would get rid of the teacher's union also heavily. If you get rid of the department of education, you're going to be on a movement towards abolishing public schools. So I would, it's a funny question. You're asking me because I could never become president because I'm not even an American citizen here, but yes, I would. I would completely, um, be in favor of abolishing all public schools, universities, private schools, uh, exactly. For the reasons that we see, uh, today that is the advancement of critical race theory, um, all the, all the, so many of the evils and so many of the things that are counter to the American ideal and the American Republic, uh, from cancer culture to the assault against the first amendment, um, then the criminalization of reason logic, the incubators are at the, so I think the funding, the universities, um, would be first on my priority and abolition of the income tax.
Speaker 0 00:32:47 And of course you would be incorporating into most of your speeches. So when we do get round to crafting Jason Hill, hopefully you will become a citizen. I know a very good speech driver that would be willing to work. So, um, Alan, welcome. You have a question for professor hill.
Speaker 6 00:33:12 Thank you, Jennifer. Yes. Um, I'm sorry. I came a little late to this stage. Um, so I'm not sure if any of this was discussed, but, um, in relation to the whole controversy, that ha that, that that's been happening with, um, certain persons in the media comments about the Holocaust and then other people being cultured, uh, canceled. Um, I wanted to ask you a question, um, and the, the author Upton Sinclair once said in his book, um, you can never get a man to understand you when his income depends on him, not understanding you and my take on that is you can never get a man to understand you when his self-esteem or his identity depends on not understanding you. And, uh, I've seen in a lot of these debates when, when there's, um, what, when the debate is between individualism versus group identity. And certainly CRT is, is a big proponent of group identity that, that the debate can't even begin to happen because people are identifying with their groups so heavily. Um, and yet that's still Springs from an individual from an individual level. So I'm wondering what's your co and we've seen that be weaponized now, I think in, in both the university system and in politics. So I'm wondering if you had any comments about, you know, how we can promote that sense of individualism again, and the sense of self-esteem that comes from that, because certainly in my own personal life, I've seen that to be a factor. So I'm wonder, I
Speaker 1 00:35:37 Hope there's a question
Speaker 0 00:35:39 In there, but I'd love to. Thanks, Alan. I'd love to actually, the question was, uh, kind of thoughts on maybe the Whoopi Goldberg instigated scandal with their comments, which she apologized Jason,
Speaker 1 00:35:58 Right? So, you know, I'm, I'm radically pro Jewish civilization, radically pro Israel. So people might think that my first inclination would have been to castigate, Whoopi. I think what people speaking from ignorance and here's, here's, here's my take on it. Jews today are now considered white. So Jew Jewish identity is, uh, an ambiguous identity because the Jews did become white after world war II, but the Jews were considered a separate race for a really long time. I mean, anyone I have, um, Jewish friends who, whose grandparents remember the time when in the 1920s, there were signs that said, no colors, no Jews need apply or not choose no colors can enter hotels, um, and hit their did regard the Jews as a separate race. There were, there were morphologically and from physic physio coming from, from that perspective from a morphological, um, perspective were considered, he thought they were attributes from the sides of their heads.
Speaker 1 00:37:05 And so on that, you could tell that there were different race. And I think what it was just like, sort of in a concrete bound manner, looking at Jews today, who are largely indistinguishable from whites and making that connection that and saying it wasn't about race, because I would like to think that she was operating from the premise of what Rand would call a knowledge of error and not a knowledge of evasion. Uh that's I'm going to, I'm going to say that in good faith, that she was, she was operating from a premise of, of an, an arrow of knowledge and not one of evasion that is had, she really understood the depth to which people saw Jews as not just being a separate race, but being a con contaminant race, either regard as vermin by the Nazis and by many of the German people.
Speaker 1 00:38:01 Um, as, uh, as a, uh, as a group, as a group, as a phenomenon that stood in the stake in contradistinction to the Irish and German ideal, that had to be radically shifted. If she had an understanding, I mean, I teach a class at DePaul called a history of European ethnic identities. Um, it's, it's an interdisciplinary class. And we look at the Irish, th the, the criteria that, that the us census use to determine identity, you know, from being German, to being Irish, to being Italian, Polish, and so on and so forth. And there was a point when the students came to understand how the Jews, there was a chapter in one of the books that I use called when did the Jews become white. So I think if shit understood the genealogy of the issue at hand, she wouldn't have made that comment. Um, do I think she should have been canceled for two weeks?
Speaker 1 00:38:59 Not really. I think, um, I think there's something quite punitive and ruinous of people's careers that's taking place when they make, uh, comments that are outside of receive wisdom or deviate from some sort of orthodoxy. I think she should have been schooled as in a, in a civilized and proper way. And the debates should have been continued on air that is at a joy bay, her or somebody else should have, or other people should have told her, look, you need to educate your, your, your, your, your, your, your miseducated, about the facts of the matter, and this rush to punish people and to cancer people, because they say things that are hurtful, or they say things that are, um, I wouldn't even say egregious, but they say things that are unorthodox is a very, very dangerous slope that we're sliding down. So, um, that's my take on it.
Speaker 1 00:40:04 I don't think she should have been suspended for two weeks. I think she should. No. Do I think she should have been put through some sort of sensitivity training workshop? I think a continued conversation should have been, um, uh, conducted and, and I think she seems to be a quite intelligent person. And, um, and with time she would have either come to an agreement that yes, the Holocaust was about race because the Jews were considered a separate race and Hitler wanted to exterminate them, or she wouldn't have, is that a sufficient condition for canceling someone? I don't think so.
Speaker 0 00:40:47 Thank you. I completely agree with you, uh, Lawrence question. Oh, and I want to recognize professor, uh, Steven Hicks, um, Rockford university, also a senior scholar at the Atlas society is in the room, grading papers. Now, I don't know what he's doing. He's listening and learning. And, um, I'd love to see him up on stage if he has a moment gotten about 15 more minutes, but Lawrence, did you have a question for professor hill?
Speaker 7 00:41:18 Yes, I did. Thank you. Um, Jason, uh, earlier in the discussion, when you talked about sort of the stance regarding Ukraine and speaking with people in Europe, specifically, Germany, there, there very much is the sentiment there of, they really want the U S military to stay over there because it's in their best interest to help defend against a Russian attack. But here in the states, talking with people I've seen many who have the sentiment based on how what's happening in our country today, we are truly living up to the ideas that America was founded upon. And why should we even go abroad and try to defend these, supposed that ideas they argued when we aren't even living up to them. And what's the use of wasting our lives on something so far away, so far removed when we have far more important things to be focusing on here at home. And I'd be curious to see, oh, what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1 00:42:22 I think that's a mistake to think that simply because Europe is over there in America is here or it's so far away that it's not in our national self-interest or in our security. I mean, that's, it's, it's a very pre-World war two isolation. His way of looking at the world look, or, or destinies are intertwined with each other. And it cannot be, I would say to someone like that, it cannot be in America's self-interest to have a thug like Putin, who again, wants to reclaim a lost empire whose manifest destiny is to undermine democracies across the world. Look, what, what is, what is the outcome for America? If we have democracies being undermined that does, that does not bode well for the position of the United States. That is then the United States is not an NGO or a country. And there are, there are, as I said, there are countries with competing manifest destiny.
Speaker 1 00:43:28 China has a, uh, an egregious manifest destiny. North Korea has a manifest destiny. Iran has, uh, has a terrible ambitious manifest destiny. Um, it cannot be in a rational self-interest to just pretend that Russia behaving with in this kind of way is, has nothing to do with America. W that I would say such people are thinking in short term, in a short-term manner. And so advance wants thinking in a long range manner. Um, it would certainly undermine the power and authority of America to act as a global leader in the world. And people say, well, why do we need to act as a global leader? Well, if we don't act as a global leader, uh, nature, abhors, a vacuum, who's going some, some nation state is going to act as the global leader. China's going to take that position. Russia is all too happy to take that position.
Speaker 1 00:44:25 He, Iran is all too happy to take that position. Um, Saudi Arabia, you know, all these nations have manifest destinies. And so we have to stop behaving. Like we're, we're, we're an NGO. We are not. And, and, and as I said, um, something about, uh, I'm not something I'm a, I'm a Hawk. I'm not a paleo conservative. And it is in our national self-interest to curtail the rapacious, um, um, operatives of Russia, and to show the world that America has to make certain decisions that put it in a particular standing in the hierarchy of global nations, that it is a powerful nation that can make certain commands and make certain demands, and that others will yield to it. Not because there are American is doing it, but because they're proper, they're rational and they do serve our self-interest. Like I said, we cannot have a country like Russia.
Speaker 1 00:45:39 Russia has got to be contained, and we cannot have a country like Russia whose manifest destiny is to go around the world, undermining democracies, running rapaciously denying the sovereignty and the autonomy of a country. If America permits this, then what is the moral standing of America in the eyes of the world? Uh, it's not a very good one. What is America's capacity to command? Like I said, Mr. Mr. Brigans voice alone would have just made that man pee in his pants, Mr. Putin, right? He wouldn't tear, uh, have disobeyed Reagan's commands. Uh, he told Gorbachev to tear those walls down and that's exactly what he did. Cause that was a point in America, in a history when America could lead, when America had moral and political authority. Now America is a laughing stock and we're a laughing stock because we have retreated back to this isolation is pre-World war II position, where we think that we are an NGO and that we can just let the world burn while we just do nothing.
Speaker 1 00:46:48 And then that we won't be affected. I think that's a very child is short. I'm not saying you think this way, Lawrence, I'm just saying people who think this way have a very childish and short term and sh and short range approach to the consequences that accrue when we fail to act in a certain way. And also the idea of what's international self-interest is much, much, much more complicated than just a sense of it pointing to geographic distance. Right. Just saying that they're the Europeans and the Ukraine and we're over here and we haven't, we haven't gotten our stuff in our backyard together. So it's kind of more on narcissism, I think to say that we have to get our stuff together before we start interfering in the moral division of labor. I do think that in terms of foreign policy, um, we can be working on our own stuff, but we can also be working towards reestablishing or leadership and, or preeminence in the world as a superpower that we want. We want to wear.
Speaker 0 00:47:54 Thank you, professor hill. Um, as mentioned, we also have two of our other senior scholars and professor Stephen Hicks, not only in the room, but up here on stage gentlemen, I don't know if you either had questions for your colleague or if you had a, you know, that's one of the great things about the Atlas society. We have, um, diversity of views even among our brain trusts. So any slightly different takes on Canadian truckers or, uh, the, what be Goldberg or what you might do if you were present president unmute.
Speaker 8 00:48:41 Okay. I'll bite. I do. I do have a diversity of view. Uh, what B go, what the Goldberg, by the way did say, instead of it being, uh, anti-Jewish she said it was an example of man's inhumanity to man. So it's not as if she said the Holocaust was nothing, she, she over classified it. I mean, it is a particular example of a broader in humanity. Yes. But she's ignorant on the ultimate things that I, so I agree with that and she should not have been squelched like that. She's just ignorant, but not totally ignorant on what that was. Now. I wanted to conf kind of support Lawrence's approach. I don't think it's childish or narcissistic. I think the issue of whether, what the U S status is at any point is really important. So I agree with you. It's not the issue of, since the U S is no longer strong and a superpower.
Speaker 8 00:49:38 And I think, I think professor hill, you simultaneously, you know, described it as a laughing stock and a superpower, or would be super power. It used to be a superpower. I think it is a laughing stock right now. And for that reason, I would not give the kind of support you're talking about. So the two obvious recent examples would be a complete surrender of the Southern border. So the problem here is we care more about the Ukrainian border than the us Mexican border. That's just on tenable as most it's untenable to most Americans in some other contexts, might we care to help an ally secure their border, but, but here we don't give a damn about our own border. And you could say that Biden is a thug who was undermining us rule law and democracy. So let's fix that first and not prioritize the Ukraine border.
Speaker 8 00:50:33 But the second thing I would say is Afghanistan, the U S could not beat the Taliban. It would get wrecked by the Russians. Now I don't like saying that, but under the seat, under today's context, the us would get wiped out by Russia. It is so bad. It is so mismanaged. It is so into CRT over at the Pentagon. And as we know, we just saw this. They could not be the Taliban and why they would expect to, if it escalated, which I think it would under your scenario, why anyone would think Biden would be Putin in a war. It's not true. So I think that's, I think that's tragic. I think that's sad, but Biden is not Reagan. I wish he were Reagan since he's not, I think it's a very precarious proposition to say the U S should do with what you're suggesting they would do. But I do appreciate the viewpoint. I just wonder, I guess the broader principle I would ask you is, yeah. I think what you're saying is just because we're not consistently upholding our values doesn't mean we shouldn't try to uphold them halfway across the globe. Is it something like that?
Speaker 1 00:51:44 Yeah, I mean, just because I would say that we can simultaneously work at secure in the Southern border. It's not one or the other, the two are not mutually exclusive. It's not that we have to get our domestic or domestic policies in place first, before in the, before we, you know, advance to a more distant foreign policy. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I don't think in the moral division of labor or intellectual or political or military division of labor that we have to get, we can operate on a multiplicity of different fronts at, at the same time. And so I think that yes, we can secure or Southern border here, but at the same time, look at what is strategically in our national self-interest. If Russia were to behave with impunity and to, uh, achieve its manifest destiny, which is to rebuild its empire by overturning the sovereignty and autonomy of the Ukrainian Ukraine. What's next? Um, Finland, um, I don't know. Um, do we really want a country in Europe? Um, behaving that way? I think not.
Speaker 0 00:52:53 Okay. Unless professor X is going to unmute then with the five minutes we have left, I'm going to try to get to both and Joshua apologies in advance. If we're not able to fully answer your questions. Um, in which case, bring him back to the next session. So Samhain, am I getting your name, correct?
Speaker 9 00:53:22 Hello? Uh, I am so sorry. I am, uh, I don't English. Uh, I am a Kurdish person. Uh, I listen, your, I didn't know.
Speaker 0 00:53:43 Well, keep coming and keep listening. Um, and we appreciate your being here. Yeah, Suresh says, so just keep trying. So yeah,
Speaker 9 00:53:56 I am only listen.
Speaker 0 00:54:01 All right, Joshua.
Speaker 10 00:54:05 Uh, hello? Hello. Um, yeah, interesting room, I guess a limited time I would ask this questions, you know, a simple question, throw it out there. Do you think that there is a mixture and a combination of both ideology and corporation? And if so, do you think the corporations actually care about the ideology or do they just switch and pick and choose between ideologies based on whether it's beneficial in the goal in which they want to achieve? For example, the open border policy, we see the clear hypocrisy in it, you know, it contradicts COVID, it contradicts a lot of things. We all see it, but who does that benefit by who's funding the ideas, promoting it. And for what reasons like Larry faint, black rock, things like that. It's just, just an interesting aspect of what,
Speaker 0 00:54:52 Yeah, actually Joshua, that's a great question. Uh, seeing a lot of virtue signaling, um, among corporations, not necessarily, well, maybe they think they're acting in their, um, their short-term interest, but Jason, what do you think?
Speaker 1 00:55:10 Um, well I think that they're there in the proper sense of ideology. No, no, not even our government, no one is committed to ideology anymore. I mean, ideology is dead in a proper, proper sense of ideology. People are operating corporations, uh, operating for, from political expediency, from economic expediency. As Jennifer said, there's a lot of virtue signaling, but a proper coherent, consistent rational ideology would commit you to a consistent set of policies and, um, consistency of application and consistency in articulation would be the norm. And what we see happening is just, you know, S a set of, of different viewpoints, a set of different policies that change according to matters of tastes. And, um, so I think, no, I think ideology is actually dead in this country, um, both on the left and both on the right and that what we see, um, superseding ideology, uh, is the issue of real expediency. Um, that's briefest answer. I mean, I could call it a little bit more, but that's the briefest answer that I could give people are not committed and disciplined enough, nor are they rational enough to really adhere to a consistent rational ideology that would regulate, um, uh, both ideas and regulate behavior or govern, I should say behavior.
Speaker 0 00:56:46 Great. Well, we're going to also keep that question in mind, Joshua, because it has come up a couple of times, a lot of people on Instagram asking about BlackRock. And so I, I do think, uh, it would merit, um, a longer and more in-depth conversation. And we're going to have plenty of opportunities for that this week. We have, uh, offense pretty much every day. Um, Rob Rosinski is going to be here tomorrow. Same time for the Atlas society. He's going to be talking about foreign policy as well. And then, uh, we've got our founder, David Kelly, and, uh, professor Richard Salzman doing a current events, um, on Wednesday it's an hour later than this time. And then we are back on clubhouse, same time, same bat channel, uh, on Thursday, also going to be talking about religion. And in this case is objectivism a religion. Some may argue that it sometimes behaves as one, so we will get into it. Thank you everyone. Thank you, professor hill. Thank you, professor Salzman, Roger Scott, all, everybody for great questions and wishing all of you a wonderful, happy Valentine's day. See you tomorrow,
Speaker 1 00:58:13 Jennifer.
