2017/02/25: Postmodernism: practice and pathology

[Music] So yeah, my name is Christine Van Geen. I'm currently the Ontario Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We work on issues of lower taxes, government waste, and accountability. Oddly enough, this is the third time in six months that I've done a speech or talk publicly about the issue of free speech, and specifically free speech on campus. I think that this is a defining topic and mood of 2017, and oddly support for free speech is increasingly falling along partisan or ideological lines.

Now CTF, we at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we deal exclusively with fiscal and economic issues. You would think that that subject—government debt, generational debt, and balanced budgets—you know, you would think that that's non-controversial. But not so on university campuses. Our student group, Generation Screwed, has been kicked off of campuses, headroom space denied, and we were even told by one university student union that we may need to change our name, Generation Screwed, because "screwed" is oppressive.

So while we may not have encountered the kind of blowback that some of the speakers today will have received from universities, it just goes to show you how little it takes to trigger university administrators and students on campuses, and just how restrictive and ham-fisted they can act when restricting speech.

So with that, I will introduce our speakers. Our first panelist is Gad Saad. He's the professor of marketing at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He's the holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in evolutionary behavioral science and the Darwinian consumption. Sorry, he is also quite well known for his popular YouTube channel, The Saad Truth, a channel that has garnered over four million views.

Yeah, so everyone please welcome Gad Saad. Our second panelist is, they're not sitting in the right order, but I'll introduce in the order in which they will present. If it's John Carpe, on the far end, he's the president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, an organization that he founded to defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through litigation and education. He has a BA in political science at Laval University in Quebec City and a law degree from the University of Calgary.

So please welcome John Carpe. And our third panelist is Jordan Peterson, seated in the middle. He's a psychology professor at the University of Toronto and a clinical psychologist with two main areas of study: the psychology of belief, including religion, mythology, and political ideology, and the assessment and improvement of personality, including the prediction of creativity, academic, and industrial performance.

So everyone please welcome Jordan Peterson, and we're going to begin with remarks from Mr. Saad.

All right, so apparently a food restaurant here in Ottawa caused me some food poisoning, so even the restauranteurs are trying to stifle my famous speech because I almost didn't make it to the session. So what are some strategies for stifling opposing opinions? If you live in a dictatorship, then of course you just kill the intellectuals, those who oppose you. You get rid of them. If you are unable to implement such a strategy, then you perhaps have some hate speech laws or some campus speech codes. And of course what flows from that is the third way to stifle people: create an environment that is sufficiently ominous that people engage in self-censorship.

This picture right here is worth a thousand words. It basically says, "We condemn freedom of speech that hurts other people's feelings." What I'm going to do for the rest of today's lecture is simply read to you first-person accounts of emails that I receive. I receive these in their innumerable. How many I receive where either students, professors, parents are writing to me to document the stuff that they are facing on campuses.

And the best way to actually show you this is to just read a bunch of them. So bear with me as I actually go through about seven or eight of these. The clock, by the way, is not working, so I don't know how much time we have, but I'll assume we're okay.

So here is a student testimony example one: "I'm a 47 year old white male who, because of an injury, made a choice to return to school. Sadly, it looks like my path through university is going to be interrupted and the first year, to maintain full-time status, I'm forced to take another social justice Black Lives Matter course. The challenges: students are not allowed to challenge or question the course content because that's considered disrespectful and may disrupt someone's safe space. I believe I am a respectful student with good attendance and whose marks average in the mid-80s. That said, after a few weeks of the one-sided syllabus, I'm considering dropping out of the program and leaving school. This leftist academic world is a little too much for me."

Testimony two: "Today we had a panel discussion on the Quebec City shooting with two historians and two sociologists, where I was told with solemn moral righteousness that there is no such thing as good and bad immigrants. My heart was racing and my teeth were clenched, that's great, grinding listening to this. Finally, despite my heart beating out of my chest, I asked a question: 'How do you, the panel, interpret Charlie Hebdo, the Danish cartoons, ISIS, Salman Rushdie, and the Babylon shootings?' The denial of individual responsibility and complete disregard for any value-based interpretation was off the table. I think I screwed myself because I'm pretty sure my professor is let's say quite suspicious of me now because this person aired his opinion. He knows that he's in trouble. I just feel really alone, but the thought of restoring strength, tolerance, and diversity of thought to the university really keeps me going. Today just really proved to me the map against and how alone I am."

What can I do? I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that the Godfather—that's yours truly—would be able to help direct my future research projects since most professors and required courses I have to take seem to be run by social justice warriors feigning intellectualism.

The reason I'm contacting you is because as an honors cognitive student, part of my requirements is to complete 12 credits worth of individual research. However, because of purely political reasons, I'm apparently a violent misogynist, racist, Trump supporter. I have not only lost my job at a prestigious Behavioral Neuroscience laboratory—I hid the identity at YYY—but my name has been removed from the publication on research I personally conducted. The lead researcher told me that he would never work with me again.

This is not North Korea; this is Canada. This is us. Help! I'm a fourth year student in a five-year teaching program. I'll be heading to YYY next year for my one year of Teachers College. Only recently have I realized the radical left-wing messages embedded in virtually all of my classes, and I know that it will only get worse at the school in question. What can I do about this? How do I stand up for the truth without risking my career as an elementary school teacher? Thank you.

Let's move on to some faculty. Those were all students. "I very much appreciate your courage to fight the cancer that is taking over American academia. People like me feel cheated in their attempt to pursue a tenure-track career. It only takes a glimpse to the job offerings that the Modern Language Association publishes each year to understand what is expected from recent graduates like me: it is political activism and I refuse to mix that with my academic interests. I will save you my long stories of dealing and suffering career-wise from politically correct nonsense from the directions of feminism, gender ideology, trans extremism, and Islamophobia."

"I am trying to keep a lid on things for now, as my wife is a very promising academic but hasn't secured a position yet. I know that if I started voicing my thoughts and arguments on social media she’d be completely shut out of the academy if she does secure a tenure-track spot. I'm off to the races, and you and others would see that I would like to take notice of seriously. I’m more than happy to transition out of philosophy at this point, which has become a virtue signaling competition."

"As a fellow professor who has been frustrated by the discourse within academia on issues such as political correctness, moral relativism, and social justice, I'd like to thank you for speaking up the way you have. A bent from within academia, while my training and research has further removed from social issues than yours, I have nevertheless been frustrated by the conformism and groupthink I see and hear around me. I see otherwise very reasonable and capable people abandoning reason and cowing to the narrative of the regressive left on many social issues. These are all things which I would like to get involved in once the tenure decision is behind me—about one year to go. As upsetting as it is, one fears expressing unpopular social ideas prior to tenure. In the meantime, please keep fighting the good fight for freedom of speech and against thought policing and orthodoxy."

Almost done. I won't read this whole one, but basically this person writes to me thanking me for my conversation with Sam Harris, agreeing with some of the issues that I raised regarding some issues dealing with Islam. But then look at the bottom: he says, "If you decide to mention this information in your videos, I would ask that you do so without mentioning my name. I do not have tenure yet. This is from a parent of a high school student."

"I recently received an email from my son's school district that they are going to be screening a film called I'm Not Racist, Am I? as an in-school field trip at the end of January for high school students. I did some preliminary research on this, and I'm absolutely appalled at the content of the movie. Based on the descriptions, the trailer, and additional material surrounding it, it appears to be a feature-length film pushing the agendas of white privilege, institutional racism, and white people are the problem. It scares me beyond belief that they are attempting to force these ideas on developing minds.

And now, of course, the usual request that they be anonymous for reference. My son is a junior at XXX. I have included the original email as well as the PDF of the communication that was sent out. If it is something you feel you should share with others, I only ask that you keep identifiable information for my son or myself out for our safety. This is not North Korea, for his safety, I'm sure you understand."

So to conclude: freedom of speech is everything, and I should know. I come from the Middle East. I escaped that which you don't want to have replicated here in Canada. So no more language police, no more thought police, no more echo chambers that shun intellectual diversity, no more identity politics, no more culture of offense and the ethos of perpetual victimhood, no microaggressions, no trigger warnings, no safe spaces, and no cultural appropriation. Science, reason, and logic trump ideology and feelings. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Is it okay to move this away? Thank you very much. Good morning. My thanks to the Manning Center, Manning Conference, for inviting me to speak with you this morning. And it's a great honor to be on the same panel with Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Saad. Free speech in Canada is not dead, but at Canadian universities, it certainly is on life support. Each year, the Justice Center releases the Campus Freedom Index, most recently with a new website, www.campusfreedomindex.ca, where you can very easily and quickly look up your own university and see what letter grade (A, B, C, D, F) has been assigned to your university or to your student union based on its policies and practices.

We're trying to follow Dr. Michael Walker's great dictum: if it matters, measure it. So the annual campus Freedom Index measures with objective criteria the state of free speech at over 60 Canadian universities. The situation on the whole is very bad. There are far more Fs handed out than there are A letter grades. And the Justice Center has been involved with over 12 court actions against universities and student unions in four provinces. Fortunately, we have had some successes.

A number of years ago, the University of Calgary took it upon itself to censor a small pro-life group on campus and threatened the students with trespassing charges, and even with non-academic misconduct charges, with penalties ranging up to expulsion if they continued to express their pro-life views on campus. The students continued with their expression, and they were indeed found guilty of non-academic misconduct for having done so. Now the penalty was not expulsion; it was a warning. But we took the university to court, and in 2014, in the case of Wilson vs. University of Calgary, we got the court ruling setting aside the University of Calgary's decision to find the students guilty of non-academic misconduct.

So that case is now a precedent that can be used by students across Canada. We also, recently this past summer, sued the Brandon University Student Union, which had banned a campus pro-life club—which of course is significant because if you don't have the official club status, you cannot participate in clubs day, or book a table, or you cannot, on par with the other clubs, rent out a room or hold an event, invite a speaker, or host a debate, etc.

So we sued the Student Union at Brandon University, and before the action got very far, they did settle and they reinstated the club, so another positive result. But universities are very clever. So we've got the University of Alberta, which is obviously aware of the precedent against the University of Calgary.

So rather than censor speech directly, what the university does is it lets the mob censor the expression that is unpopular. So in 2015, the pro-life group put up a peaceful stationary display and there's a huge mob of people who came with sheets and towels and banners and megaphones and swarmed it, rendering it completely impossible to carry on any kind of civil conversation or dialogue or debate.

Now in spite of the fact that the University of Alberta's code of student behavior expressly prohibits interrupting, obstructing, or interfering with university related activities and events—in spite of very clear provisions in the code of student behavior when this disruption and obstruction took place, campus security stood by and watched and did nothing to enforce it beyond the university's own code of conduct.

The following year, 2016, the students went back, filled out a form to have another display in the university says yes, you can put up a display on campus, provided that you pay us a security fee of seventeen thousand five hundred dollars. Now, of course, if it's the campus gay pride march or if it's a feminist or socialist or aboriginal or environmentalist expression, there's no security fees required for that. But if your opinion is unpopular or controversial, you're not allowed to express it on campus unless you pay a security fee of seventeen thousand five hundred dollars.

So we're suing the University of Alberta, and the court in Edmonton is going to hear our case coming up in June, and it's going to be huge. For better or for worse, you can't predict ahead of time if you'll win or lose, but this is going to have a huge impact on the rule of law because the message that the University of Alberta is sending to its own students and to the whole world is that if you disagree with somebody else's opinion, you should shut them down and silence them.

And that's the message. You know, it's tempting for people who disagree with, or perhaps despise or detest, the pro-life viewpoint. It's tempting to chuckle because you know this is being shut down, but it should be obvious to any thinking person that if this is the condoned trend, it's going to cut in all directions, and it's not going to be too long before you're going to see all kinds of views and eventually even left-wing views, they're going to get shut down by mobs if this is not fought immediately and urgently.

What to do about the situation? I've got five recommendations. Firstly, exercise your free expression rights. Freedom is like a muscle. If you don't exercise your muscles, they atrophy and wither and become weak and useless. Conversely, if you exercise your muscles, they stay strong and get even stronger. So exercise your expression rights. Do not be intimidated by the name-calling. We've all heard it: racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, etc., etc. If you self-censor, you are giving ground to the enemies of freedom and we have to make a commitment to the idea that it's better to die standing than to live on your knees.

A second point: come to the defense of others whose freedoms are threatened. Makes a huge difference, especially if it's somebody that you disagree with. The Justice Center takes—we have taken no position on—we're not pro-choice, we're not pro-life, but we're pro-free speech. So we take no position on abortion. As it turns out, most of our clients on university campuses are pro-life groups. We're also acting for the men's issues.

We're in a society which is suing a students union at Ryerson University. I'm sad to say that in most of these cases, when a pro-life group is getting censured by the university or by the student union, in most cases, they get no help from the campus Christian clubs, yet no help from the campus Jewish, campus Muslim, campus conservative clubs, and they're all alone. You can make a huge difference if you see somebody else being silenced or treated unfairly. When you speak up, it's especially powerful if you say, "I don't agree with their viewpoint at all, but they have a right to speak their opinions in a peaceful fashion on campus and what you're doing with your censorship is wrong." And that's very powerful. So we need to do more of that: speak up for others who are being persecuted.

Thirdly, sign our petition, "No taxpayer funding for universities that censor." It's high time that universities were stopped from perpetrating a fraud on taxpayers, which they do, by going to the general public and to the politicians and saying, "We believe in academic inquiry. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe in frank, honest debate as a tool for reaching truth." And they get thirteen billion dollars per year from taxpayers, most of it from provincial governments, and then they take the thirteen billion and turn around and they don't even honor their own mission and mandate.

That can be stopped by legislation. Provinces simply have to amend the legislation and say universities are not getting money unless they uphold free expression on campus. So please sign the petition. There are copies at our Justice Center booth and there are also copies in the back of the room.

Fourth point: support the groups that are defending the free society. Don't assume that the organizations out there that have their booths up that there's a few billionaires that are all giving these groups a hundred thousand dollars a year. I know, with the Justice Center, and I think it's true for a lot of the groups out there, the majority of the money that we get comes in the form of the $200, $500, $100 donations. That's 60% of our budget.

So don't leave it to some imaginary wealthy person, but step up to the plate and support the groups if you’re not already doing so that are defending the free society. Last but not least, when you yourself are in a situation where your fundamental freedoms are being violated, whether it's your freedom of expression, your freedom of conscience and religion, your freedom of association, stand your ground. Do not be intimidated. This is really where the war is fought. Freedom is lost when people cave in and capitulate on fundamental points of principle when they shouldn't.

And I said earlier, it's a great honor to be on the same panel with Dr. Jordan Peterson. If more Canadians showed the courage and fortitude that he is demonstrating on a daily basis in the face of adversity, we would be a lot better country. Thank you.

[Applause]

So I want to recommend a book first to everyone here. It's called "Explaining Post-Modernism," and it's by a gentleman named Steven Hicks. And you need to understand post-modernism because that's what you're up against. And you're up against it far more than you know or think, and it's a much more well-developed and pervasive, pernicious, nihilistic, intellectually attractive doctrine than has yet come to public realization. It absolutely dominates the humanities and increasingly the social sciences in the universities.

And what's happening? You see, someone once said—who unfortunately I can't remember, it might have been Friedrich Nietzsche—said that everybody is the unconscious exponent of a dead philosopher. And fortunately, the postmodern philosophers, most of them are dead—so that's a good thing. But that doesn't mean that their words aren't continually being spoken by people who are following in their wake, let's say. And it's not like any given person is absolutely possessed, saved by the spirit of post-modernism, because often they're not educated enough to know all the details about what it is that has them in their grip, but if you get 20 of them together, and they're all 5% influenced by the post-modernist ethos, you basically have the spirit of the mob that's a mouthpiece for that particular philosophical doctrine.

And if you understand the doctrine, then you understand why things are progressing the way that they're progressing. And so I'm going to tell you a little bit about the doctrine because it's not optional to understand this. It's absolutely crucial to understand this. You can't underestimate the power of ideas and also the power of words, of course, because ideas are expressed in words.

But you see, the post-modernists completely reject the structure of Western civilization. And I mean completely. So I can give you an example. In one term, Jacques Derrida, whose head trickster for the post-modernist movement, regarded Western culture—let's call it the patriarchy—as phallocentric.

Okay, so phallocentric comes from phallus, P-H-A-L-L-U-S, and so that's the insistence that what you see in Western culture is the consequence of a male-dominated, oppressive, self-serving society. And we might say, "Well, you know, societies do tend to be self-serving, and people in power do tend to act in their best interests." But a tendency is not an absolute, and that's one of the things that needs to be considered continually.

There are no shortage of flaws in the manner in which we've structured our society, and compared to any hypothetical utopia, it's an absolutely dismal wreck. But compared to the rest of the world and the plight of other societies throughout the history of mankind, we're doing pretty damn well, and we should be happy to be living in the society that we're living in.

So the first thing that you might want to note about post-modernism is that it doesn't have a shred of gratitude. And there's something topologically wrong with the person who does that. It doesn't have any gratitude, especially when they lived in what so far is the best of all possible worlds. And so if you're not grateful, you're driven by resentment. And resentment is both the worst emotion that you can possibly experience, apart from arrogance. Resentment, arrogance, and deceit: there is an evil triad for you.

And if you're bitter about everything that's happening around you, despite the fact that you're bathed in wealth, then there's something absolutely wrong with you. You know, the black community in the United States is the 18th wealthiest community, the 18th wealthiest nation on the planet. Now that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as relative poverty, and relative poverty matters. It's an important political economic issue, and it's very, very difficult to deal with.

But absolute wealth matters too, and Western societies have been absolutely remarkable in their ability to generate and distribute wealth, as you can tell by just looking around and taking a, you know, a brief bit of consideration for the absolute miracle that even a building like this represents. So you have to educate yourself about post-modernism.

Okay, so here's what the post-modernists believe. They don't believe in the individual—that's the logos. The part of Western culture is phallocentric. Logos—that's partly the Christian word, but it's also partly the root word of logic. Okay? They don't believe in logic. They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patricultural institutions of the West continue to dominate and to justify their dominance.

They don't believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is logos again. They don't believe that people of goodwill can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture. So the reason they don't let people who they don't agree with speak on campus is because they don't agree with letting people speak. You see, it's not part of the ethos.

Okay, so what else do they believe and not believe? They believe that you, since you don't have an individual identity, your fundamental identity is group-fostered, and that means that you're basically an exemplar of your race, hence white privilege, or you're an exemplar of your gender or your sex or your ethnicity, or you're an exemplar of however you can be classified, so that you are placed in the position of victim against the oppressor, because that's the game.

And it's a post-Marxist sleight of hand, right? The old Marxist notion was that the world was a battleground between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that failed to have any philosophical or ethical standing—that argument, after the working class actually saw its standard of living massively elevated as a consequence of Western corporate democracy, Western free enterprise democracy, and also as a consequence of the revelations of everything terrible that had happened in every bloody country that ever dared to make equity and the Marxist communist dogma part of their fundamental structure, right? And nothing but murderous, no sanity, depression.

And so by the 1970s it was evident that that game was up. The post-modernist Marxists just basically pulled a sleight of hand and said, "Okay, if it's not the poor against the rich, it's the oppressed against the oppressor." We'll just re-identify the subpopulations in ways that make our bloody philosophy continue in its movement forward. And that's where we're at now.

And so for the post-modernists, the world is a Hobbesian battleground of identity groups. They do not communicate with one another. All there is is a struggle for power. And if you're in the predator group, which means you're an oppressor, then you better look out because you're not exactly welcome—not exactly welcome—and neither are your ideas.

So that's what you're up against. I would say it's time for conservatives to stop apologizing for being conservatives. No, and you don't apologize to these people. That's a big mistake. Apologies—they read apology as an admission of guilt. You don't apologize, and you don't back down.

You young people that are out there who are university students, you need to take over the student unions. You need to take them back because they're absolute snake pits, and they have been since the 1990s. And with regards to the universities, I thought at one point that the best thing to do would be to cut their funding by 25%. Let them fight amongst themselves for the remnants because it would force the universities to decide exactly what's important and what isn't.

So I would say the humanities and much of the social sciences has turned into a post-modern neo-Marxist playground for radicals. The scholarship is terrible. 80% of humanities papers aren't cited once. Once. And so what that means is that they write papers for each other and they sell them to libraries, and that's how the publishers make their money, and no one reads them, but the publishers can print them because the libraries have to buy them, and they're buying them with your tax money.

And so all of you who are sitting here are funding a post-modern radical neo-Marxist agenda that has its roots in the university. And your tax money is going towards that. And if you want proof of that, you just go online and look at the websites, especially of disciplines like women's studies, which is pathological right to the core. But it's not just women's studies; it's all the ethnic studies groups; it's anthropology; it's sociology; it's social work, and most of all, it's education.

OISE, for example, in Ontario, is perhaps, apart from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the most dangerous institution in Canada. It should be defunded. It's as simple as that. They don't do the research they purport to do. They're not interested in it at all in education. They're interested in the indoctrination of people as young as they can. As young as they can get their hands on, so to speak.

Now we need to figure out—our society needs to figure out how to stop shunting public tax money to radical left-wing activists. If we were doing that for radical right-wing activists, there would be an absolute storm. But it's happened incrementally since the 1960s, and it needs to stop. So that's partly what the conservatives, not only conservatives but also liberals, true liberals in the English sense, are up against.

I mean, what's happened is also as a consequence of this post-modern neo-Marxist intellectual invasion is that the centre keeps moving. It's moved way to the right now, so if you're a classic liberal, you've become a conservative. And so for all of you who are interested in pursuing a conservative agenda, there's a lot of classic liberals that you could be talking to.

And then finally, with regards to talking to young people, you finally have something to sell to them. You know, it's not easy to sell conservatism to young people because they want to change things, and that's not what conservatives want to do; they want to maintain things. Well, now you've got something to sell to young people. You can sell them freedom of speech, and you can tell them sell them responsibility.

The left is selling them rights; you can sell them responsibility. And I can tell you, because I received many letters of the sort that Gad was talking about, young people are absolutely starving for someone to provide them with the sense of responsibility and say, "Look, here's something worth living for, man!" You know, you can find meaning in life with freedom, but freedom—freedom is a chaotic sort of meaning, right?

And freedom isn't the sort of thing that makes people happy; it's the sort of thing that makes people troublesome. Because freedom expands your series of choices, and that makes you nervous and uncertain. So—but responsibility is another—not to say that that's a bad thing; it's a good thing, but it requires that you shoulder the responsibility of the freedom. But responsibility per se is what gives your life meaning—genuine meaning in the face of suffering.

And you, and young people, is really—they're starving for that. I've been teaching young people for thirty years, and mostly what I've been teaching them about is responsibility. It's like your heirs to a great tradition. It's not perfect, obviously, but comparatively, there's nothing else like it that's ever been produced. And it represents a tiny minority of human qualities, most of which are run by murderous, antisocial, psychopathic thugs. And that's serious.

And so what kind of alternative is that? We've got this beacon of freedom and wealth in the West that works, although it doesn't work perfectly. And one of the responsibilities of young people is to find out what's at the core of that—the great core of that—the paramount importance of the individual and the divinity of speech, man. Not some to sell. It's what our whole culture is predicated on.

All right, well, I should stop there, so thank you very much for the invitation.

[Applause]

So thank you very much to all of our speakers. Really insightful comments. I'm just going to lead a bit—a 20-minute discussion, 15-minute discussion. And my first question is the direction in which we're going. So there was a poll that was published by The Economist, I think two issues ago, that showed the support among young people for different sets of rights in different countries across the world.

And they found that support for the expansion of rights that are considered rights for historically marginalized groups—so the right for women's equality, right to same-sex marriage, right to abortion, things like that—even in countries where those rights are not enshrined in law have incredible amounts of support among young people. The only exception is the right to free speech, particularly the right to speech that may be perceived as offensive to minority groups in that category, countries like Britain, Germany, and Canada.

The support among young people for that right is under 50%. So right now, we have receipts— we see censorship, self-censorship, and real state censorship by people who actually hold the levers of power in government and in institutions. But when these people, who right now have less than 50% support for the right to free speech, are 15 years from now the ones holding those levers of power, where do you see this going?

Well, the short-term future is very bleak. But I always say you just got to keep on fighting for what is right and exercising courage. And we can't say what the medium term or long term future is. You know, the history is quite unfixable, but the short-term trends are terrible.

I think another thing for people in the audience who are parents is don't get your kids out of the public education system and do homeschooling or private school—make that a priority. You know, even if you can't afford it, figure out a way because this indoctrination into these post-modernist or neo-Marxist type ideas just permeates the whole curriculum, whether it's math, science, social studies, what have you.

So that's something practical. Certainly, the students that are now 18, 19, 20—it's obvious that in high school they've never been taught that if there's an idea that you disagree with, while you come up with reasons why that's wrong, and you try to use facts and logic to engage in discussion. That's—you know, you get these mobs as, "You know, I feel very offended by what you said. I feel that way, and therefore, you shouldn't be allowed to say it." Well, where are they getting that from? I mean, that's coming out of the K to 12 education system.

Yeah, you know, one of the things that I try to do is to convince both colleagues and students and anybody who's willing to listen to participate in the trench warfare of ideas. Many people feel as though they don't have the necessary platform, the necessary testicular fortitude to actually battle, but then they see gentlemen like Jordan Peterson, if I may include myself and a few others who are on the front lines, and then they feel very invigorated.

So the ship can be turned around as long as people feel sufficiently empowered that they actually have a voice. You could weigh in simply on your Facebook page. You could weigh in at the bar when speaking to someone. Everybody has a voice, and everybody should feel sufficiently invigorated and have the possibility of lending their voice to the debate. And if we can do that, then I don't think we need to be pessimistic. If we can't convince people to do that, then I think it will be an infinite abyss of darkness.

So, you know, one way of conceptualizing yourself is that you're one speck of dust among seven billion. And when you conceptualize yourself that way, you might think, "Well, what difference does it make what I say or do?" And that's actually quite convenient for you because if it doesn't matter what you say or do, then you don't have any responsibility, and you can do whatever you want. The price you pay for that is a bit of nihilism. But if you don't have to shoulder any responsibility, that's a small price to pay; that's if. So if you're going to stand up for something, stand up for your truth.

It'll shape you because people will respond and object and tell you why you're a fool and biased and why you're ignorant. And then if you listen to them, you'll be just that much less like that the next time you say something. If you do that for five years, you'll be so damn tough and articulate and able to communicate and withstand pressure that you won't even recognize yourself. And then you'll be a force to contend with.

And you don't get to wait until—because I get letters like Gad Saad gets all the time from faculty members in particular, and they say, "Well, you know, when I get tenure," it's like, then they think, "Well, when I'm an associate professor," and then they think, "Well, when I'm a full professor." It's like, if you're a professor already, you're like the most protected person in the history of the planet, you know?

Well, okay, but one of the things that that indicates is that it's almost impossible to provide people with enough protection so that they feel safe to speak. Okay, so we'll address that directly: it is not safe to speak, and it never will be. But the other thing you got to keep in mind is that it's even less safe not to speak. Right? It's a balance of risks. It's like you want to pay the price for being who you are and stating your mode of being in the world, or do you want to pay the price for being a bloody serf, a one that's enslaved him or herself?

Well, that's a major price, man. That thing unfolds over decades. And you'll just be a miserable worm at the end of about 20 years of that, right? No self-respect, no power, no ability to voice your opinions, nothing left but resentment because everyone's against you, because of course you've never stood up for yourself. It's like, say what you think carefully, pay attention to your words. The price is a price you want to pay.

If you are willing to believe that truth is the cornerstone of society, and in the most real sense, if you're willing to take that leap, then tell the truth and see what happens. Nothing better could possibly happen to you. You'll be ups and downs, there'll be pushbacks and there'll be controversy and all of that, but it doesn't matter. The truth is what makes the world; the truth is what redeems the world from hell. And that's the truth.

And we saw plenty of Hell for the last hundred years, you know, and we haven't learned a bloody thing from it. It's like, wake up! Tell the truth! Tell the truth, or at least don't lie. If that's a start, and you've got to understand that's a risk.

But I will write one more brief thing to say about that. So, you know, I said what I had to say back in September, and I'm sure that I could have done it better, and many people have told me how I could have done it better, although it didn't mean they would actually do it.

[Applause]

And you know, my job was at risk—serious risk—for about two months, and it destabilized my family. Being very brains about this—so thumbs up to their mandate, they've just stood by. But here’s the optimistic news: the university has left me alone completely. I shook hands with the Dean two weeks ago—we're on friendly terms. They don't want this to go any farther than it has already.

The students were tremendously welcoming when I get back to teach in January. I haven't had a single negative incident at the university, and I've received thousands of letters from people all over the world, all of which have been in support. I've received two negative letters, that's it.

So the people have an inchoate longing to have the sort of thing that we're talking about articulated. And so don't be thinking you're alone. It's just that people can't talk; they're afraid to talk or they don't know what to say. And those are real problems. So if you're reasonably articulate, like start talking and sharpen yourself up.

I mean, the enemy is a cloud. They're a cloud of nips; they're only courageous in groups. They're only courageous in mobs. If you stand your ground and don't apologize and articulate things properly, they'll disperse around you like they're not even there. So most of it's illusion.

There will be fear, but be afraid of the right thing. And the right thing you should be afraid of is not saying what you say because that's the same as not being. And here you are suffering, and away—might as well be at the same time, at least then there's something to you.

So one of the other things I wanted to ask your opinion about is what role do provocateurs play in the debate over free speech? So the example of the dais is obviously Milo Yiannopoulos. Are these champions of free speech, or do they undermine public support for the right? Or are they simply self-interested people who are hijacking a right in order to promote themselves and their own interests?

And obviously, is this a new phenomenon, or is it something that is age-old?

They're all of those. Milo is a classic example. He's an amazing person. I mean, he's a contradiction. He's a walking contradiction; you can't pin that guy down, right? Like what is he—half Jewish, half English, gay, a temple provocateur, Catholic, who's really—who loves black guys and who appeals to American Republicans? It's like what are you going to say about something like that?

It's like he's a trickster figure, archetypally speaking, you know? And he's a provocateur and a comedian. And the funny thing about comedians— they’re like jesters in the king’s court. The jester was the only person who could tell the truth because he was beneath contempt.

And that's the role that comedians and provocateurs play. They're poking, they're poking and laughing and making fun. And you know, Milo, Christ, even dresses like a, what do you call those? A Harlequin? You know, he's a trickster. And trickster figures emerge in times of crisis, and they point out what no one wants to see.

And they say things that no one will say. And you can say all the terrible things about him—he is a provocateur, he’s an egomaniac, he’s a—I don’t think he’s narcissistic, but because he has the real capacity for self-reflection. But, and he’s brave as can be. I mean, he’s unstoppable on his feet.

He just amazes me. I've never seen anyone ever—I don’t think, and I’ve met some pretty damn smart people. I’ve never seen anyone who can take on an onslaught of criticism and reverse it like he can. It’s bloody amazing.

But he has all those things he described, but you know, the times call for these speakers and we called forth Milo. And yes, yeah, well, in that tells you what our farmers are.

So, Milo's been on my show, and he's supposed to come again soon. He said he's exactly the things that Jordan said, at times he has an ability to depart from truth. He was speaking right, so for example, when he says things like, "There is no such thing as lesbians." Well, I appreciate his provocative nature, but then it'd be nice to stay closer to the truth.

But to the extent that he is getting a lot of young people engaged, probably more than Jordan and I could, you know, in our lifetimes, a lot of people are associating to him. And so his central message is really important, so even if once in a while he makes a departure from truth, I’ll grant him that because his greater good is quite important.

So I certainly support him. I just add that it’s the so-called extreme speech that pushes the envelope and that ends up in the long run being fundamentally transformative.

Once the top question asked always is, "Is it true?" or "To what extent is it true?" or "Why is it not true?" Truth is always the thing to think about. We should never be concerned with whether something is quote extreme or not because that changes from year to year, from decade to decade.

I mean you think—you know, in 1969 it would have been extreme to advocate for gay marriage; that would have been an extreme position with less than 1% support. And today, in many quarters, it’s considered extreme to say that gay marriage is a bad thing. So extremism changes from year to year, decade to decade, month to month. It should never be a criteria for your speed.

Is it extreme or not? That's not the right question. The question is, is it true or false? Is it right or wrong? Those are the questions to ask.

Okay, really quickly, one final question. Part of the debate that we have when we talk about free speech is: is a university a public institution, or is it an institution of higher learning?

No one would dispute that the Manning Center is free to invite, disinvite, or not invite anyone they want to come to this conference to learn and to train. But because universities are recipients of large amounts of tax dollars, are they more a public institution that is required to provide a bigger forum for sweet free speech? And where do you draw that line when organizations that receive large amounts of charitable tax benefits are freer to disinvite or not invite or not host?

You don't have to give a platform to some of whose speech you disagree with, but when you're the recipient of public money?

I think in the current context, with the universities receiving thirteen billion dollars a year from taxpayers—in that particular context, I think that they don't have the right to behave as a private institution, like Trinity Western University which gets no government funding. That's very different.

If Trinity Western University said, "We're going to ban the expression of atheism or Islam on campus," say well, it's a private institution, as long as they're upfront about that, that when you go there, you know that pro-Islamic or pro-atheist speech is outlawed, and you still choose to go to that university.

But ironically, what I've heard from people currently and in the past that are attending Trinity, they do have Muslims and atheists and gay people there, and it is a healthy, vigorous intellectual climate. But in response to the question, if you're a private institution, you can invite or not invite, you can do whatever you want.

But for the universities, because they're holding themselves out as supposedly in favor of academic inquiry and free expression, they should be required to honor that commitment that they've made to taxpayers.