Propaganda and Your Kids | Karol Markowicz | EP 355

I would say that the conversation about what to teach kids and at what age is larger than just sex. I don't know why we're teaching climate change fear to small children. Age-appropriateness is such a big part of all of this, and the left really wants to remove the boundaries of age-appropriateness. You could see this with the drag queen shows. It started with drag queen Story Hour where a drag queen would read a book to kids. Where's the last time we saw a book in any of these events? Now it's twerking and dancing. This really inappropriate behavior becomes something that you must not only accept; you must also support. A lot of what we go through in the book as well is how the spectacle of leftism is such a big part of it. It's not just that you need to believe certain things; you need to demonstrate that you believe them. You can't just think black lives matter; you need to put the sign in your window. All of this is very, again, Soviet totalitarian authoritarian, and it's coming here and it's aimed at our kids.

[Music]

Thank you. Hello everyone, today I'm speaking with Carol Markowitz, writer of the new book Stolen Youth and a columnist at the New York Post. We discussed the ideological capture not just of our school systems but of our children, from the pornographic books being peddled into libraries to the authoritarian doctrines letting bad teachers preach, keeping good teachers silent. This interview is vital for parents worried about the state of the K-12 public school system.

So, Carol, you have a book Stolen Youth that’s being published by Daily Wire. Is that out? If not, when is it out? And then, even more importantly, what is it about?

It is out; it came out March 15th. It's about the way the woke are targeting our children for indoctrination and what parents can do about it.

Alright, so let me ask you a specific question about that. I've been trying to think this through, watching the American public school system implode. I want to walk a hypothesis by you, and maybe then you can tell me what you think of it in light of what you've been researching.

So, our whole society decided a couple of decades ago to include gay relationships under the broader umbrella of socially acceptable and/or desirable relationships. That was the gay marriage issue. It started out as a progressive movement, but eventually, the classic liberals and the conservatives came on board. We made a societal decision to expand the definition of conjugal union, let's say. If not on the religious front, at least on the state front, and often on the religious front.

Now that produces a thorny problem, you might say, because what you've done then as a society is to sacralize same-sex sexual activity. Now that brings up the next problem, which is, once you've decided that there's no moral or qualitative distinction between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, and you've already decided that you're also going to educate your children on the sex front, then you have to solve the problem of exactly what you teach children about sex.

You might say the default would be: well, you spend half the time teaching them about heterosexual processes, let's say, and you spend half the time teaching them about homosexual practices. Because since there's no distinction in value, there's no reason to draw a boundary. Then the problem gets even worse after that because if the default rule of thumb now is every proclivity has an equal opportunity to be put forward on the educational front, you have to face the problem of, well, what if all the books that your children are reading feature only heterosexual couples?

Do you now have to transform the entire canon of children's literature so that all other forms of sexual encounter get equal air time?

The content I've created over the past year represents some of my best to date, as I've undertaken additional extensive exploration in today's most challenging topics and experienced a nice increment in production quality courtesy of Daily Wire Plus. We all want you to benefit from the knowledge gained throughout this adventurous Journey. I'm pleased to let you know that for a limited time you're invited to access all my content with a seven-day free trial at Daily Wire Plus.

This will provide you with full access to my new in-depth series on marriage, as well as guidance for creating a life vision and my series exploring the book of Exodus. You'll also find there the complete library of all my podcasts and lectures. I have a plethora of new content in development that will be coming soon exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. Voices of reason and resistance are few and far between these strange days.

Click on the link below if you want to learn more, and thank you for watching and listening. Thank you.

[Music]

It seems to me, number one, that the answer to that is we don't know how to do that. Number two, we're trying to give every proclivity equal air time. Number three, that's destroying the public education system. So, what do you think of that? What's your take on the situation? Why are we in this peculiar position?

It's interesting because one of the things that we cover in the book is how children's books have gotten so inappropriate in so many different ways. A lot of the time, these books are allowed into the classroom or into the children's libraries because they're specifically LGBT. A lot of the pornographic books, for example, that Ron DeSantis in Florida, my Governor, is trying to pull out of elementary school libraries are pornography books, but they're specifically gay pornography.

They use that as cover to say if you don't like these pornographic books in your elementary school library, then perhaps you're anti-gay, perhaps you're homophobic. They use this all as an excuse to kind of get these things in front of children. It's a wider issue of much younger sexualization and just pitching ideas to kids that are completely inappropriate.

But they wouldn't allow this kind of thing to go on if it were straight sex. They wouldn't let a pornographic book with straight couples into libraries. They wouldn't let, let's say, a stripper grind and dance in front of children, but drag queens are okay. If you challenge that, then you're the problem.

Two things come out of that: who do you think is the "they" in question exactly?

It's a wide "they." We try to answer this question in the book because this is a really good question. It's not some vague "they," and in fact, a lot of it is— I don't like the idea of saying it's an ideology that targets children. No, it's people that target children with their ideology. A lot of it does come at the top; you have teachers' unions, teachers' accreditation societies. All of that has been captured by the ideologically woke, and this is being spread throughout the U.S. and I'm sure elsewhere really from the top.

If you look at library associations, I know that sounds crazy. Before we started researching this book, I would have thought, oh, this is a conspiracy theory. Why would the libraries want to push this kind of thing? But they do, and they have these annual meetings where they decide what kind of books are going to be in our libraries, and they specifically say things like, it's okay to not tell the parents what the kids are taking out of the library. That's crazy.

Parents should be the last line of defense for their kids, but they can't be if they don't know what's going on. So your sense is that there are well-targeted groups of activists fundamentally who are pushing this agenda?

That brings up two additional questions, I suppose. One is, why would they do that? The second is, what exactly constitutes pornographic content? I know that's a particularly thorny question.

Let's talk about why first of all. My sense of this, looking at it historically, because there have been pushes for, let's say, liberalization of childhood sexual behavior that have been mounted for decades now. There was a famous petition signed back in the early 70s by a whole coterie of French intellectuals aiming at radically lowering the age of consent, making the claim that children were perfectly capable of consenting to essentially sexual relationships.

Now, you might ask why adults would be interested in doing that. I suppose the positive side is that they're trying to free children from unnecessary constraints by tyrannical adults. But the darker end of that is something more like the entire movement to promote sexual freedom is grounded in a very narrow hedonism.

I would say it's narrow because narrow means willing to sacrifice everything to the pleasures of the moment. You know, there is a psychological literature on the personality attributes of people who engage in short-term mating strategies, so that would be casual sex mating strategies. The tilt towards casual mating strategies rather than long-term relationships, let's say committed relationships, is associated with what's been called the dark tetrad group of personality traits.

That's narcissistic, manipulative or Machiavellian, psychopathic, that's parasitic and predatory, and because that wasn't enough, sadistic. What you have is a group of people, and arguably there is a small minority of people who are extremely oriented towards maximizing short-term pleasure, their own short-term pleasure, and perfectly willing to sacrifice everything to that. Also, perfectly capable of demonizing and destroying reputations in that pursuit.

I think what's happening is that they're attempting in every desperate way possible to ensure that their hedonism moves forward in an untrammeled manner. But also that they can make a moral claim that any objection to their hedonistic behavior is nothing but prejudice.

The radical leftists are extremely good at maneuvering and manipulating on that front. That seems to be associated with the why. In your investigations, you talk about the "they" that are pushing this agenda, for example, in library groups and among teacher groups and so forth. What's your sense of the underlying motivation?

I think it's a cultural revolution. I think we've seen it before in so many countries. We opened the book with a history chapter. I was born in the Soviet Union. I came to the U.S. as a small child. So many things that I heard throughout my life, I feel like are happening right now in our country. I don't know that I ever felt like this before throughout my life.

People have said, "Oh, doesn't this feel Soviet to you? Like the 1990s, the early 2000s. Like, isn't this Soviet feeling?" I would always say no. But now I see it. I see that we're moving in the direction of an authoritarian system where neighbors inform on each other and people are afraid to speak.

So much of this to me began undercover but has really accelerated. They've managed to force this cultural revolution on all of us, and they're starting with the kids, just like all the revolutions before them. The only difference is that in places like the U.S., you know, it’s happening. My Soviet ancestors could probably say that they didn't know what was happening; they didn't have the internet, they didn't have much news.

In other countries too, in China and Cambodia, these places could say, "We didn't know. We didn't know what the leaders were doing. We didn't know what people in charge were doing." I don't think people in America can say that. For us, part of the reason for writing this book is to make sure that they can't say that.

The overt sexualization of children—let me add another wrinkle to this just to make things further complicated. A long while back, five years ago, I interviewed Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo was quite an interesting person, extraordinarily extroverted, dramatic, charismatic. He made quite a splash on university campuses for a couple of years as a right-wing provocateur, you might say, but coming from the LGBT side of the community spectrum.

I talked to him a little bit about his early sexual experiences. He was inducted, you might say, into homosexual activity when he was about 14, something like that, at the hands, as it turned out, of someone who was a member of the religious community who was about 29 or so. He said that that was consensual and that it was welcome on his part and also that he was capable of making that decision even though he was 14. That was his retrospective memory, but I had my doubts about that when I talked to him listening as a clinician.

First of all, because I don't care how smart you are; when you're 14, you're still only 14. Just because you thought you were competent at that point to make decisions like that doesn't mean that that was an accurate memory to carry forward, let's say, into your adult years. Milo didn't seem to harbor any malice or resentment towards the person he had been involved with, but later on, his star plummeted, let's say, and things got pretty twisted and bent for Milo. He ended up converting to a rather radical form of Christian evangelism and issuing his homosexual lifestyle.

I'm not saying he saw the light or anything like that; I'm saying that all of that was evidence of an extraordinarily deep-seated existential confusion. But one of the things Milo did say, and this is a very thorny issue, was that that practice of having young gay men inducted into active homosexual activity by older men is an extremely common part of the subculture.

Now, nobody talks about that outside of the subculture, let's say. Part of the reason for that is that if you even bring it up, I understand that this is also common in organizations like, well, there isn't any evidence that I know of that shows that the rate of child abuse among Roman Catholic clergy is any higher than it is among other groups of people that have access to children, let's say.

But I have heard through the grapevine, and as a consequence of my investigations, that this practice of older men inducting younger men into active homosexual practice is, what would you say, it's a subcultural given. That complicates the situation very much as well.

You know, there's a proclivity among the gay male community to be attracted to youth. Now, it's not really different than heterosexual male attraction to heterosexual females because there's a proclivity for men to like younger women. This is an extension of that, but it certainly makes the discussion of all of this much more complicated, especially when you're also talking about the motives.

I think part of the question we're dealing with is, you know, is it possible to develop a society that manifests tolerance of or even depreciation for committed homosexual relationships that doesn't run aground on the problem of what to teach children about sex?

I would say that first of all, everything that Milo says should be taken with a grain of salt. I think that when he said that it's one of the many controversial, splashy things that he says to get into our news, which I've met him. He is very personable, he's very magnetic. I get it. But, you know, I think that there was a level of disgust when he said that and also a pushback from a lot of gay people, and not just on the left. The idea that they're predators, obviously, I think that that's something that they argued very strongly against.

So Milo isn't the best to me example, but your question is right: how do we protect children in any case from anyone? I think that a lot of what we address in the book is that you have to have sort of open conversations with your kids about what happens out in the world and how to protect them.

To lay a foundation at home and to make sure that there is this open line of communication. I think a lot of the work that you do, for example, is to help adults be resilient. Well, what if we didn't mess up kids in the first place? What if we didn’t have to have unresilient adults that needed fixing or help? What if we treated childhood as a time to teach them how to be in the world instead of to indoctrinate them with far-left ideas in their schools and libraries and doctors’ offices and media companies and every other avenue?

President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-A-Lago home, quote: "Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world's standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years. There are three reasons why the central banks are dumping the US dollar: inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt. The fact is there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, and political and economic upheaval dating back to Biblical times: gold. And you can own it in a tax-sheltered retirement account with the help of Birch Gold."

That's right, Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401(k)–maybe from a previous employer–into an IRA in gold. The best part? You don't pay a penny out of pocket—just text Jordan to 989898 for your free info kit. They'll hold your hand through the whole process. Think about this: when currencies fail, gold is a safe haven.

How much more time does the dollar have? Protect your savings with gold. Birch Gold has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. Text Jordan to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold. Again, text Jordan to 989898.

What do you think? Where do you think the line is crossed in relation to children's literature, let's say, on the sex education versus pornography front? I mean, it's famously difficult to define pornography. I think there is a famous Supreme Court decision at one point where the Justice involved in deciding whether a particular—I believe it was a magazine— transgressed against community standards said something approximating, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

That's not a completely unreasonable answer because there are lots of things we know when we see that we can't define or make explicit. When push comes to shove, which is what's happening in the schools right now, it's no easy matter to clearly define the line between what constitutes pornography and what constitutes open and frank discussion about sexuality.

And of course what's happening in Florida is that the more radical types, the more progressive types, and also, by the way, some people who are concerned with censorship, is that the attempt to regulate what's being shown to children can easily degenerate into a form of heavy-handed state censorship. And so for you personally, you've been researching this book for a long time, thinking about these matters.

I mean, do you regard yourself—like are you a conservative on the sexual morality front? Is that embedded in your own concerns about purity and propriety? How do you think that we can draw a line between what constitutes appropriate sexually informative material and what constitutes pornography? These books that you've been objecting to, that DeSantis has been objecting to, what line is it that they're crossing as far as you're concerned?

Yeah, so DeSantis has been asked this, and he held a press conference and he said, "I'm going to show you the books." The news agencies had to pull away from his press conference because they couldn't show what was in the books on the news. I think that's a fairly good standard: if you can't show it on the news to adults, then you can't show it to my kindergartner.

That's not a crazy thing to say. I’m generally very permissive about, you know, written material—not to kids. I don't think it should be, immediately, because something's okay to be published means that it should be acceptable for children. Not everything is made for kids, and I don't just mean books. A lot of things in the world are not appropriate for children.

In these books, it’s not simply sex acts. There are things like sexting in the books. Again, this is in the library for elementary school, so until fifth grade, which in the U.S. is like 11, 12 years old, these books are accessible to really small children and it’s drawing.

It looks almost cartoony, and librarians suggested to kids. There are graphic sex acts—there’s, I don't know how much I'm allowed to say here, but you know, there are oral sex, say exactly what you have to say. There’s language like, [] so to speak, you know, [], butt plugs, etc. in these books that are available to small children.

Now, should they be available to high school children, to teenagers even? That I’m iffy on. Why should it be available in their school library, which is smaller children? I don't even think it's a question. I don't understand why we're having this debate because it's so clear that if we can't read it on the news, we shouldn't have it in their library.

Right, so that's a practical demonstration of the violation of community standards. Well, okay; this brings up another issue. You might say that there's a certain minimum degree of sex education that should be provided as part of the public education system and that children who are properly educated in sexual matters, for example, might be less likely to end up pregnant as teenagers.

Now, I would say the empirical evidence for the utility of sexual education in public schools as a preventative measure for teenage pregnancy is damn dismal. There’s no real evidence that providing "just the facts, ma’am," so to speak, to kids had any effect whatsoever on the remediation of childhood teenage pregnancy, let’s say.

And I would also say that kids can get so much information about sex on the net now—not that that's a particularly good way of going about it—but it's certainly available that the additional value of having teachers teach sexual education seems debatable at best.

But then you could perhaps say that there's a place in the schools for discussion of the biology of reproduction, maybe in a biology class. Because, obviously, reproduction is a major element of biology, but then that brings up another thorny issue, which is: is it possible or desirable to offer value-free sex education? Or is that a contradiction in terms?

Because if you describe the process merely in terms of its mechanics, you’re making the case implicitly that, what would you say, that sex can be viewed purely through the lens of objectivity. It isn't obvious at all that that's the case. It seems to me, and this is my socially conservative prejudice you might say, that it's actually unethical to teach kids about sex outside the context of simultaneously teaching them about the necessity of long-term, committed, loving, mutually reciprocal relationships—right, marriages for all intents and purposes—and that if you divorce one from the other, you’re already halfway down the slippery slope to the kind of predicament that we're facing now.

Well, then, you might say, well, the simplest solution on that front would just be to pull the schools out of the sex education business altogether. So what do you think about that? And you’ve been talking to political figures; you’re somewhat involved with the DeSantis people. What’s the solution from the conservative side to this conundrum?

Well, there, I think, is a range of solutions. One thing I would say is a number of years ago there was this show called Teen Mom on MTV, and there was a study that showed that this show actually did more to reduce teen pregnancies than all of these sex education classes because they showed, they saw what it was like for a teenager to be a mother, and they thought, "God, I don’t want this."

For all the conversations in sex education class about how not to get pregnant or why not to get pregnant, you know, the image of it really did solidify for kids, "I don't want this." The other thing I would say is that the biology classes are running into a different problem at this point because we can’t be honest about a lot of biology. We have a chapter in the book on transgenderism.

How do they address transgenderism in biology or sex education classes? They don't address it with any facts; it's all very feelings-based and what people think and feel as opposed to what things actually are.

I would love to see a straight discussion in biology class about the way the human body works, but we're moving further and further away from that, and it’s being filled in with a bunch of woke nonsense that our kids aren't going to be able to process at the age that they're at and carry forward into being these resilient, you know, capable adults.

I would say that the conversation about what to teach kids and at what age is larger than just sex either. I don't know why we're teaching climate change fear to small children. There's a lot of evidence that anxiety among teenagers and young people is very high because of stuff like this. What are these kids going to do to fight climate change? What are they going to do other than lay in their bed at night and be afraid that the world is going to end?

For us, and what we say a lot in Stolen Youth, is that age-appropriateness is such a big part of all of this. The left really wants to remove the boundaries of age-appropriateness. You could see this with the drag queen shows. It started with drag queen Story Hour where a drag queen would read a book to kids. Where's the last time we saw a book in any of these events? Now it's twerking and dancing, and they would never stand for it if it were a straight woman stripping and doing the same thing.

But because it’s, again, they’ve used the LGBT shield, this really inappropriate behavior becomes something that you must not only accept; you must also support. A lot of what we go through in the book as well is how the spectacle of leftism is such a big part of it. It's not just that you need to believe certain things; you need to demonstrate that you believe them. You can't just think black lives matter, which is a, you know, idea as controversial as the Earth is round.

You need to put the sign in your window. So all of this is very, again, Soviet totalitarian authoritarian, and it's coming here and it's aimed at our kids.

Are you aware that your browsing data is constantly being tracked and monitored? Have you ever stopped to think about who has access to this information and what they might be doing with it? If you're like most people, you probably haven't given this much thought. But the truth is, your browsing data can reveal a lot about you: your interests, habits, location, and even your identity.

Every time you visit a website, click on a link, or make a purchase online, you're leaving a digital trail that can be monetized by advertisers and data brokers. They use this information to target you with ads and promotions that are tailored specifically to your browsing habits. The more data they have, the more accurately they can target you.

That's why we trust ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN encrypts your internet traffic and hides your browsing data from prying eyes. This makes it much more difficult for anyone to intercept your data or track your online activity. ExpressVPN is easy to use: just fire up the app and click one button.

Plus, it works on all your devices: your phone, laptop, and even your Wi-Fi router. With lightning-fast speeds, unlimited bandwidth, and easy-to-use software, ExpressVPN is the perfect choice for anyone looking to protect their online privacy and security.

Stop letting strangers invade your online privacy by visiting expressvpn.com/Jordan. That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com/Jordan and get three extra months free. ExpressVPN.com/Jordan.

[Music]

So let me make some suggestions about the inadequacy of the conservative response to all of this. So, 30 years ago, in the 1990s, I was beginning investigations into predictors of long-term success in life. The basic measurable predictors are General cognitive ability, and formally that's measured as IQ—often that's age-corrected, General cognitive ability—and trait conscientiousness, at least for many occupations.

Those are measurable, and they're pretty good predictors of long-term outcome. While I was investigating all of that, purely for practical reasons, by the way, I was trying to figure out how to help people select better employees and how to select better students—those who had a better chance of succeeding, let's say.

I started investigating alternative theories of human ability, and that led me into research that was being conducted primarily at education schools. Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg were big names in those days. Gardner invented the theory of multiple intelligences, and Sternberg proposed that there was a kind of practical intelligence that was different and could be what would you call promoted independent of General cognitive ability.

I looked into that research in great detail and concluded along with my colleagues that it was absolute 100 percent nonsense and rubbish. All that Gardner had done with his theory of multiple intelligences was repackage the idea of talent and call it intelligence, and all Sternberg had done was hand wave about a form of cognitive ability that he couldn't measure nor demonstrate.

But it was politically, um, what would you say, welcome because it challenged the idea that General cognitive ability is a unitary phenomena, which it is, by the way. That led me to take a look at what education schools were doing in more detail, and what I learned—and I certainly have learned more of this as the years have progressed—is that there isn’t any research done on the social science front than the research that's done in faculties of Education.

They're responsible for more pathological educational fads than any other single academic source, which is really saying something because they have to compete with Departments of English and fields like faculties of social work and all the, what do they call those grievance study disciplines. You have to work pretty hard to be the worst of that bunch, but the faculties of Education have truly managed it.

Now they’re the people who are training our teachers, but it’s worse than that because the students that enroll in faculties of Education are not exactly the cream of the crop. Generally speaking, they’re often kids who haven’t figured out, who go into education as a kind of default because they don’t know what else to do. They're not stringently selected for their academic prowess and they're often people who are interested in a rather permanent career with a pretty decent shot of holidays.

So we're not getting the cream of the crop as students, and we certainly don't have the cream of the crop as researchers in the faculties of education. However, the faculties of Education have a hammer lock on teacher certification. That means that they're the woke enterprise that enters the general population because of the faculties of Education's hammerlock control of teacher certification.

So my question is, why in the world are the Republicans daft enough—and have been for like 50 years—not only to allow this insane monopoly to exist but to continue, especially given also that in many states in the U.S. there's actually a teacher shortage? Given also that there's no evidence whatsoever that faculties of Education have ever produced to show that their attempts to train teachers actually make teachers better.

So you know, we can complain about the radical leftists pushing their idiot agenda, and there's no shortage of useful complaining to do on that front. But I would say, well, if the bloody conservatives are going to roll over like dimwits and allow the monopoly of the leftists to continue on the teacher certification front, they get exactly what they deserve.

So we're talking about ideology here, and we're talking about the sway of these ideas and even the sway of these radical individuals. But the fundamental problem technically is that there's a monopoly on teacher certification that's been granted to the faculties of Education and their woke nightmares.

So like how in the world can the Republicans and the conservatives in general be so blind?

If I had a dollar for every time I wondered how could Republicans be so daft, I would be a gazillionaire. You're absolutely right; they're not doing anything. I think in places like Florida I have a lot of faith in Governor Ron DeSantis, but obviously there's only so much he can do. Our family moved from New York to Florida about a year ago because we saw saner policies.

But you're right, and so much of what you're saying is right. It's not even just political stuff like the discussion happening right now in America about the way that we've been teaching children to read. Now, I have three kids: 13, 10, and 7. About a year and a half ago, I realized that my youngest kid does not know how to read, despite everybody around him thinking that he does.

The thing was he had managed, because he's a smart kid, he had managed to memorize enough words to make it seem like he knows how to read. So I would have these conversations with his teachers, and they would say, oh no, you're wrong, he knows how to read, he's really smart. I'd say, I know he's really smart; he's managed to convince you he knows how to read, and he doesn't, because the way that we've taught reading in America for the last decade plus has been, "memorize these words!"

It's all very whole word reading, yeah. It's not reading!

It's no sounding out. So my older two managed to still read the right way, but my younger one took the lesson, memorized all these words — a lot of words — and went through life pretending to read.

Now we're having the conversation of, wow, that was a really dumb thing to do for a while in our schools. But why did it happen in the first place?

Why are we throwing random—I can tell you, I can tell you why that happened. I looked into that because that's one of the preposterously stupid theories put forward by faculties of education.

So here's how it happened. So if you analyze, imagine that you might start by thinking that if you wanted to teach children how to do something, you'd look at how experts do it and teach them the way the experts do it. Okay, well that's not a bad theory.

It's not necessarily true because experts and beginners might use different strategies, but as far as theories go, it could be stupider. So let's start with that. So now let's analyze the behavior of expert readers.

Well, expert readers read words at a glance. They don't sound them out. And not only that, expert readers, if they're really experts, can probably read a whole phrase at a glance with one eye movement.

So the theory was, well, experts read at the whole word level, so perhaps we should teach children to do that. Now there's other evidence supporting that idea—so for example, if I showed you a paragraph made up of English words where each word had the first letter and the last letter in the right place but all the intermediary letters were scrambled, you could still read that almost as fast.

By the time you're an expert reader, you do recognize whole words as units. So the theory was, well, why don’t we just teach children to recognize whole words?

Now the problem with that is, just because that's how experts do it, doesn’t mean that's how they learn to do it, so that's one problem. The second problem is that basically converts English into a form of Chinese now. Chinese words exactly is that each character becomes something like an image instead of a sequence of letters. The whole point of the bloody alphabet is to have an alphabetic language!

And the whole point of that is to allow for phonetic learning, to break down the sounds into their units, to allow children to piece together the units and then to memorize the words.

Now, so what happens when you learn phonetically is that you first of all master the 40 sounds or so that are associated with the alphabet. Then you learn how to chunk them into say, two letter, three letter combinations. Then you learn how to put them together in words and as you do that, you build up the neural circuitry that enables you to identify the words at a glance, but you do it from the bottom up.

Well, the idiot research—it just seems like we're receiving kids, you know, using a philosophy that we haven't thought through. I don't know very much about education; I haven't thought it through at all. But I know that that was crazy.

It was research that was shoddy in the utter extreme. This isn't new! The whole word reading dispute goes back at least 40 years, and it’s absolutely 100 percent self-evident in the literature that if you take a school system—this happened in California—that used a phonetic approach to reading and you transform that into a school system that uses a whole word approach to reading, that you decimate the ability of the education system to teach children how to read.

We’ve known that for 40 years, and the faculties of Education are still debating whether or not this is true, and that's only one of the many unbelievably foolish things they managed to do. And here's some more: they're the originators of the self-esteem movement. Because of their cockeyed version of what constituted self-esteem, they ended up teaching children to be narcissistic instead of to be confident.

Narcissists pretend to be confident. That's how they mimic it. When you do explicit self-esteem training, you train narcissism, not confidence. We have social emotional learning; we have learning styles. We have all these idiot educational fads that don't—as far as I can tell—do anything but harm.

This can all be put at the foot of the faculties of education, but they're entirely enabled by idiot Republicans, for example, who aren't smart enough to notice that they're losing the cultural war because they've handed over the entire educational enterprise to social justice warriors.

It doesn’t take that much thinking to figure that out!

Yeah, I mean, one of the other discoveries that we made in researching Stolen Youth, and again, this is something that I would have thought was a conspiracy theory before we started writing this book, but in teachers' colleges, they use Marxist books to teach the teachers. So the teachers themselves get indoctrinated, and then they spread out throughout the country and they indoctrinate the kids. They don’t even know what's happening.

They think that they've learned something good. I think a lot of this, like, I don't know why Republicans don't spend all their time talking about it. The reason I would have thought it was a conspiracy theory is because how can it be in America that the teachers' colleges are using Marxist books? And they're coming up with concepts like two plus two is not always four, and it's not front-page news every day.

It's not the main thing that all of our politicians talk about all the time. How could that be? That's really, again, part of the reason that we needed this book to be published, because we felt like for a long time you could say, "I didn’t know. I don’t know." These politicians can say, "I don’t know." Well again, read our book, and there's no way to say, "I didn’t know."

Yeah, well, you know, I see this happening in Canada. There’s a conservative government in Ontario, and there’s a conservative minister of Education in Ontario, and nonetheless, the school system there is as woke as hell and what happens consistently is that these bloody Marxist doctrines are put forward under the rubric of anti-racism, let’s say, and idiot politicians who don’t do their homework or who are afraid of being pilloried see the word anti-racist and they think, because the leftists are very sneaky in this regard, they think, "Oh, well, if it's anti-racist we have to be for it."

They don’t look at all to see what is being transmitted, what ideas are being transmitted in the guise of this so-called anti-racism. And they are a strange hybrid of post-modernism, you know. The postmodernists dispute the existence of any uniting narratives whatsoever, and the Marxists, well, I suppose they trump that by claiming that there’s nothing else but power.

The conservatives are so damn blind that this goes on under their noses constantly. They often facilitate its movement forward. It’s because they’re either ignorant; that’s part of the problem, or they’re afraid on the moral front. Neither of those are excusable, especially when hypothetically they’re concerned about losing the cultural war, which they are definitely losing.

Well, look at the abuse and pushback that Governor DeSantis gets, even from other Republicans. You know, people that are in the public eye, the Chris Christies of the world and such. They say things like, "DeSantis sparks culture wars." Well, culture wars are really important. Because a war for the culture matters. Culture matters, so yes, we should be fighting these wars.

I think so much of what we talk about is dismissed by the left, and we let them dismiss it. We let them say, "Oh, this doesn’t matter." But it does matter, and we should be talking about it all the time. I think that the schools and the fight for our schools is so important.

So another thing the Republicans are doing right now—look, I love the idea of school choice—which is, you know, supplying vouchers to parents so that they could pull their kids out of failing public schools and go to parochial schools or private schools—but that’s nowhere near enough. Most people still send their kids to the local public school.

So the idea that Republicans have like, "Oh I passed a school voucher bill; I'm done," is ridiculous. We have to fight for the schools, we have to fight for the curriculums, we could fight for the kids who go to those schools. We can't just give up on them and say like, "Oh we'll hand out vouchers." That’s just simply not enough.

Well, if all your voucher choice is between one woke school or another, it's not helpful in the least, and well, that's part of the reason too why I think it's necessary to go to the source of the problem, the faculties of Education, which I think should just be abolished. Their monopoly on teacher certification should be revoked like tomorrow and permanently. There's no excuse for it whatsoever.

The other thing that's so bloody idiotic about this that it's almost a kind of miracle of stupidity is that if you look at the teachers’ unions, for example, and you look at where they donate all of their monetary support, I think it's 99 percent Democrat. So what you have is this strange spectacle where not only do the Republicans hand over children and the future to the woke mobs via the vehicle of the faculties of Education, but they actually facilitate the development of these immense organizations, the teachers’ unions and so forth that do nothing but fundraise for their opponents 100 percent of the time.

I mean, it's no bloody wonder that the conservatives are being rolled over. And it’s not even that the leftists are what would you say, pushing the conservatives. Or circumventing the conservatives. The conservatives are so damn blind that they help the leftists do this.

Don't you buy—and I see this very, very clearly in Canada, for example, right? I think I saw this very clearly during the pandemic, where places like Maryland that had a Republican governor nevertheless had schools closed one of the longest in the country, because the Republican governor was so cowered by the teachers’ unions. He didn’t want to be criticized as wanting teachers to die; which is again, you know, what Ron DeSantis was getting, what the governor of Texas was getting.

He didn’t want to have a parade of caskets outside of his office like what's happening in places that were trying to open schools. You have these weak Republicans who don’t stand up to their political enemies. Nobody is even saying, you know, "Fight the people on your own side," which is a lot of times necessary, at least fight the people that hate you.

Such an easy kind of decision to make, but even they can’t even do that. We'll be right back.

First, we wanted to give you a sneak peek at Jordan's new documentary, Logos and Literacy. I was very much struck by how the translation of the biblical writings jump-started the development of literacy across the entire world. Illiteracy was the norm. The pastor's home was the first school and every morning it would begin with singing.

The Christian faith is a singing religion; probably 80 percent of scripture memorization today exists only because of what is sung. This is amazing! Here we have a Gutenberg Bible printed on the press of Johann Gutenberg. Science and religion are opposing forces in the world, but technically, that has not been the case.

Now the book is available to everyone from Shakespeare to modern education and medicine, and science to civilization itself. It is the most influential book in all history, and hopefully, people can walk away with at least a sense of that.

There's another issue here that's interesting too. I've been playing with this notion which I think is true on a very deep level, which is that any civic responsibility that you abdicate will be taken up by tyrants and used against you.

What we see in Canada is that the local school boards have a fair bit of sway over how the schools conduct themselves, and many of the positions on the school boards are elected. Those are low-level positions, and they're not well paid, and they require a fair bit of work.

We could say they don’t necessarily attract the best candidates, or we could even say they often attract people who for whom that avenue to some power is the only avenue they have, and who have the same kind of pathology that idiot radicals in universities who take over the students' unions have because they're the same sort of people—resentful and power-mad and devious and narcissistic.

They end up on the school boards, but we could say, “Well, that’s a terrible thing that the school boards have been taken over by the woke radicals.” But by the same token, the same people—so let's say the centrist conservative and liberal types—are not putting their names forward to occupy these low-level political positions.

It's the same within political parties, you know. The woke mob can't take over the political landscape unless normal sane people abdicate their responsibility, and that certainly has happened.

So in your book, for example, you talk about what parents can and should do. One of the things they can and should do is get involved with their child's education in some manner. So what sort of things do you see as low-hanging fruit on the parental front?

In the U.S., in the last three years, what you're describing has been changing. For a long time, it was only people on the left running for school boards. The majority of the school boards throughout the country were run by committed leftists. What happened in the last three years—and COVID sparked so much of this, it was COVID plus the George Floyd riots—those two things combined to open a lot of eyes.

So parents saw, wow, my school board does not represent my values at all. It isn't fighting for my kids at all. It isn't trying to get my schools open. It isn’t trying to get the masks off the kids while 80-year-olds were living freely. The curriculum's ridiculous. They saw it over their kids' shoulders while the kids were studying from home.

They suddenly realized that math is racist and reading isn't taught correctly at all, and so much is filled in with this woke nonsense—a lot of critical race theory and gender theory at a very young age. So there has been a parental revolution across the U.S. where more moderate or right-of-center parents have been running for school board.

But again, the left has like a 20-year head start on this. It’s not going to be an overnight thing. It'd be great if Republican politicians instead of talking about the presidential election would talk about, "Run for your school board, push people to do it! Say this is how we fight back, this is how we win the culture!"

And if you don’t step up and do it, the left will! So many leftists who run for school boards don’t even have kids! They’re just there to influence the culture, and the right doesn’t seem to have the same verb to do the same.

Now you're a die-hard New Yorker and you lived in a liberal neighborhood. New York has its attractions; it’s an incredibly exciting city. And it tends to evoke a substantial amount of what patriotic identification among its inhabitants—you know, there’s no place in the world like New York, and that’s particularly what New Yorkers think, and they have some reason for that.

But you moved to Florida, which was a major move. You said that you've experienced being in Florida as a relief. So, exactly why is that? You're not worried; you said you’re not worried about your kids in school now, but what else did you see that changed for you when you got out of that liberal hothouse atmosphere of New York?

And how do you think that was affecting you now when you look at it in retrospect?

I was a New York supremacist. I thought New York was not just the best but the only place to live. I couldn't even imagine a life outside of it.

Getting to Florida, every time I fly back to Florida and landing in Florida, I just feel this sense of freedom that I've never felt before—the freedom to say what you want, to raise your kids how you want to, to say things that people know to be true but have to pretend that they’re not true in New York. I don't have to do that in Florida.

We don’t have to pretend. Everybody that I've met, even people who are politically on the left, can be themselves and don’t have to worry about their neighbors coming for them, which actually was happening in New York City.

I think that the New York of my childhood and the New York of my dreams really got crushed during COVID. We had been through so many tough times before: the post-9/11 period, the blackout of 2003, various hurricanes in New York that did a lot of damage.

But we always came out of it stronger. This was the first time that I really felt like New York came out of it weaker. Just the pandemic exposed that the New Yorkers that I had always loved—the independent, strong, unique New Yorkers—were going to be sheep going forward.

They felt the pressure to conform, and they became this conformist blob that I could no longer defend and appreciate. Florida is just—it's a beacon of freedom, and it's been for the last three years. I think it’s really become something unique where if you want to be free, if you want to be bold, if you want to say what you want to say, Florida is the place to do it.

Yeah, well, you know, there’s an interesting parallel between your parents leaving the Soviet Union and you leaving New York. And I don't want to make a lot of that, but here’s the parallel.

You know, I spent quite a lot of time working with Democrats over the last decade, and one of the things that I found very difficult was that I was trying to help the people that I was consulting with, let’s say, pull the party to the center away from the grip of the woke radicals.

I wouldn’t say I had a lot of success on that front. I had some success, for better or for worse, but I got very tired of having to watch every bloody thing I said.

You know? Because I would rather be around people where I can just say what I think, and sometimes that's a joke, and sometimes it's harsh, and sometimes it’s real harsh—but I can do it and they can do it, and that’s just fine.

This sense of walking on eggs constantly gets extraordinarily wearing because, you know, people think that when you’re in a totalitarian state, the reason that the state is totalitarian is because everyone is the victim of top-down pressure from tyrants.

That's completely; that’s not how it works at all. A state becomes totalitarian when every single person is lying about absolutely everything all the time. You said that you started to experience that in New York because you had to pretend all the time. You had to watch your language; you had to couch what you say.

You did because you were afraid of how other people would react. That is the totalitarian ethos. When that’s distributed across the population in general, you still have tyrants who are in control, but they're just mouthpieces of that more generalized lie.

You know, I've traveled a lot in the last three or four years, and I've been in places that were very woke, especially on the lockdown front. I'd say Toronto was first and foremost among them—worse than New York, worse than San Francisco, worse than LA, worse than Washington.

A sense of real oppression descended on me arriving, say, back in Toronto airports, and a sense of real freedom emerged going to places like, well, Tennessee, Texas, Florida. Where I could say what the hell I wanted and everyone wasn't half insane with mask frenzies and the associated COVID authoritarianism.

You know, I'm more and more convinced that there was no damn pandemic at all. I'm convinced on that front, not least in part because there's not a lot of data showing excess mortality in Sweden, for example, during the pandemic years.

What we had instead, and conservatives should probably stop talking about the pandemic as such, was an outbreak of two years of totalitarian governance, and that was the bloody pandemic. It was a lot worse than the virus, by any stretch of the imagination.

There were some places that managed to stay relatively free of that. You know, Tennessee is a good example, but so is Florida. You can go there, and there’s a sense of lightness there that’s, I think, palpable on landing.

Maybe it’s because the airports aren’t quite as authoritarian as they are in the more lockdown-oriented states and provinces. It’s true. I remember landing in New York on various trips during that time, and there would be National Guard there, you know, asking you where you’re going.

The idea that that would be happening in America is wild, and you're right; it is so—

I mean, look, I don't want to discount—I, when I say it’s similar to my parents leaving the Soviet Union, it’s similar because I’m moving toward freedom just like they were.

Maybe we didn’t come from the same terrible totalitarian system, but we both felt the social pressure to conform, and I didn’t want to conform anymore. I wanted to be free. I cannot tell you how many well-known, famous people were in my direct messages during that time saying, "I agree with you, but I can't say anything."

How many news people in the media were like, "Yeah, I think schools should be open," but I'm afraid to say anything. Well, in the beginning, I felt sorry for them. And I would respond like, "I get it. You know, I understand you can't speak out."

But after a while, I came to really hate them and think, "Like you can't speak out about really basic things that you know are affecting your children and other children, and you can’t speak out because what, you're going to get a nasty comment on Facebook?"

It’s just, I came to lose so much respect for people who were conforming even when they didn’t have to.

Yeah, well, I felt the same thing with regard to the professoriate and the influx of the woke administrators. It’s like, look, you guys. You have tenure. You are the most protected people in the world. Be brave!

You have this privileged position. Well, it’s your uphold your bloody ethical responsibility—the price you pay for your tenured privilege is the requirement that you speak your mind at whatever risk that poses to you.

Now the culture has done everything it possibly could to ameliorate that risk for you—everything it can—and yet you don’t have enough courage to oppose, you know the HR person who's pushing forward a diversity, inclusivity, and equity proposal.

It's like, "Well we—we can't say anything about that, we have to go along with what the administration wants." You know what happened in the universities; it’s so interesting to watch!

And I watched this over a 30-year period. The first thing that happened was the administration took over the universities, and that's well documented. All you have to do is look at the statistics that show how much the administration increased in terms of sheer numbers compared to how much the professoriate or the student body increased.

And you see a massive increase in administrators and a slight increase in students, and almost no increase whatsoever in faculty.

The reason that happened was because the administrators pushed, and they could see a good thing when they had one and they figured out how to pick the future pockets of their students in a parasitical manner.

But that’s on the administrators. The faculty allowed it to happen, just like the bloody Republicans have allowed the woke mob to take over the education system.

Exactly the same thing! So it's on the faculty as far as I'm concerned. Cowards, cowards; thousand micro retreats or ten thousand micro retreats!

But then what happened—and this was so bloody interesting—is that once the administrators had taken over the university, the woke mob used the same tactics to take over the administration.

It probably took 30 years for the administrators to take over the university—it took like four years for the woke mob to take over the administration. That’s where we are now.

That's for me, that's 100 percent on the faculty because it was their job to not allow this to happen. And so these people that you're talking about, I can understand why people are afraid of being singled out and mobbed.

You know, but if you're a journalist or an academic or a politician, you know, you’re someone on the front lines of the culture war, it’s your bloody ethical responsibility to put yourself at some risk to say what you believe to be the truth.

So, you know, I might get mobbed. Well, that's a reason, but it's not an excuse.

Yeah, I just, my thinking on them was, what is the point of you? What is the point of you doing this job? What is the point of any of this if you're not able to speak really basic truths?

And it's going to get harder! It's like, it wasn't that hard to say schools should be open; I think it gets a lot harder when they have to say, "Look, there are actually only two sexes. There are only two genders, and there is no such thing as gender non-binary."

All of this becomes really difficult to say when you've already laid the foundation where you don’t say anything controversial at all.

It’s just, it’s the lack of bravery; it was scary to me—not only among famous journalists, etc., but among parents. The fact that they weren't fighting for their own kids and they were expecting somebody else to do it I think is a really bad path to go down.

If you're expecting the culture, or the school, or somebody else to teach your kids values, you're gonna find that they're going to learn values that are not aligned with yours. That’s what happens all the time.

Well, it’s so interesting, eh, to think—you know, you were talking about the fact now that it’s risky to make the case for a sexual binary. It’s like, it’s so interesting, eh, because people backtracked as a consequence of the onslaught of the reputation-savaging woke mob.

They made little compromises along the way, so to speak—little compromises of which weren’t little at all but appeared that way. Within a very short number of years, probably the last six years, we've gone to the point where stating the most what you could argue is the most self-evident fact is enough to put your reputation on the line.

Like, I think cognitively speaking, it isn’t obvious to me at all that there is a distinction that is more real than the distinction between male and female because organisms that can’t make that distinction don’t propagate, right?

It’s—and sex is extremely old. It’s hundreds of millions of years old; it’s older than nervous systems by a large margin, it’s way older than trees. I think it’s probably older than the distinction between up and down.

I don’t think there is any piece of differentiated perception that’s more fundamental to the integrity of our psyches and to the integrity of our social systems than agreement on the distinction between male and female.

The fact that we’ve gone from cowardly, you know, what would you say, cowardly adherence to the woke mob routine to the point where we can’t even claim that there’s a difference between men and women just shows you exactly how dangerous the totalitarian slippery slope precisely is.

So, I mean, Matt Walsh is getting pilloried like mad. Didn’t they just throw him off YouTube because he dares to do such a thing as stand up to Dylan Mulvaney, who's like the most preposterous human being that's ever existed?

Narcissistic, right to the bloody core, as is obvious to anyone who has the eyes to see, playing this idiot game that’s dementing the culture for not—for no other purpose than his own self-aggrandizement.

The consequences? Someone who points out the completely obvious, well, god! I mean when I first saw Dylan Mulvaney, I actually thought he was pretty damn funny—his little routines running through the forest where he's pretending to be female. That’s high comedy, man!

Unless you're taking it seriously, in which case it’s just an absolutely dismal parody, and I can never make up my mind with Mulvaney whether or not he’s a comedic troll, and he’s just playing this for the laughs, or whether he’s tied up in his own pathology and believes it's a serious endeavor.

I think it’s half and half, and I think that contradiction will eventually tear him apart because there’s no way someone can sustain that sort of thing over any reasonable amount of time.

But the notion that he’s some kind of cultural hero—that he was welcomed to the White House, that Kamala Harris sent him a note of commendation—it’s like he just can’t make.

And that Matt Walsh is being canceled for objecting to this absolutely absurd narcissistic parody? You can't make this up!

It’s so interesting to see that that silence, you know, that all the right thinkers who are afraid of being mobbed allied themselves with has led us to a place where you’re confusing children regularly about whether or not they’re boys or girls, and that’s moral. You know, God!

It’s something to behold, man.

Yeah, I was gonna say, the cancellation factor is affecting not just, you know, moderate or left culture. We had a hard time getting this book published. Daily Wire took a chance on us.

We are two fairly well-known writers in the conservative space; we have fairly large followings. Publishers were very interested in our books. We had meetings with all the conservative publishers. They openly said to us, "We want this, but hey, can you tone down the fighting a little bit?"

Then other publishers said to us, "The transgender chapter—we're afraid Amazon's not going to sell this. We—you know, it was during the time when Abigail Schreier's book was in danger of being pulled down off Amazon, Ryan Anderson's book had been pulled down. They were afraid."

So when Daily Wire offered us this deal, it really was taking a chance, and they knew that they were taking a chance on us. That should be scary to everybody. Where do we live that even the conservative publishers are afraid to publish books?

Yeah, absolutely. So now your book is available on Amazon?

It is, yes, for now at least.

Okay, so that’s good. So if people want to pick up your book, is that the best place to do it? Where else can they find it?

Yes, on Daily Wire books; it’s selling it Amazon. It’s a bestseller.

Well congratulations on that front! So it shows, well, so that’s optimistic.

Okay, because you did write this book, you did get it published; it isn’t being canceled. And you know, I think there has been a shift in the tide in recent months, especially after the closing of the Tavistock clinic in the UK, which was a major blow to the woke gender transition mob, and that hasn’t fully unfolded yet on the culture front, but will over the next few years.

You know, I suspect that in 10 years you won’t be able to find a person who will admit to having ever supported the idea that children should be medically transitioned. That’ll be as taboo as lobotomies, you know? It’ll be as taboo as, well, nobody, everybody now says they didn’t support lockdowns, right?

Right, exactly.

Exactly.

We’re going to see a spate of historical revisionism, the likes of which we’ve never seen. So, with any luck, your book, along with Schreier’s book, there are a number of them that have come out recently that have been decimating the arguments made on the gender transition front, especially for minors.

There’s not a bloody shred of evidence that that so-called gender-affirming care does one iota of good, and it's preposterous to assume that it does. But there’s certainly no evidence that it does, and so it’s very nice to see that there is some well-documented journalistic work like Schreier's, for example, and yours that is making a strong case for the elimination of this particular brand of unforgivable and malevolent stupidity.

Virtue signaling stupidity, the fact that we're willing to sacrifice children in the name of this perverse woke propaganda is, I think, it’s beyond criminal. You know, and it’s funny because The Telegraph really supported me; you know, I wrote one vicious article about childhood surgery, the most vicious article I could produce. I was actually afraid of it, you know?

I was calling the counselors who enabled this and the surgeons liars and the surgeons who perform the processes butchers—which I think they are—and calling outright for their imprisonment and criminal prosecution, which is exactly what I think should happen.

And The Telegraph published both of those articles, which was extremely brave of them. It was so weird to launch them into the public sphere, because 99 percent of the comments were positive.

It’s not like people think this is a good idea, but a very loud minority of very nasty creatures think it’s a good idea, and they’re perfectly willing to do everything they can to ruin your life if you dare to object.

Their teeth are being pulled, though; they’re a very loud minority. They implement what they want through force, and they try to force conformity, and that’s how they get it done.

But, yeah, they're a tiny minority. I bet that number for woke is even lower. But they certainly will grow if we let them.

Yeah, well, you know what that really highlights, I would say, and maybe we can close with this before we move over to the Daily Wire Plus side of things. You know, if you look at the course of revolutions throughout human history, especially the more pathological revolutions like the Russian Revolution, it was a tiny minority of people who fomented the revolution.

It doesn’t take that many people. This is the thing that everyone has to realize. You might think, well, it’s a tiny minority of people who are pushing this; it’s like, yeah, well, it’s always a tiny minority of people that upset the apple cart.

And the thing is, they can—especially when they get organized. I mean, Andy Ngo told me—Andy’s studied Antifa probably more than anyone else in the world, and I had a bunch of Democrats at one point tell me that Antifa didn’t exist, and these were smart people, and I thought, what the hell do you mean?

They said, well, you know, they have no formal organization. There’s no hierarchy; they’re not a charitable institution. No, they’re not a recognized organization. I thought, well, fair enough; that’s a point.

So I asked Andy about Antifa. I asked him how many cells he thought there were, and he thought about something approximating 40. I said, well, how many full-time employee equivalents do these cells have? He figured 20 per cell, and that’s 800 people.

And there’s 320 million people in the U.S., so that’s one person in 400,000. And so that’s kind of statistically indistinguishable from zero people. Right? In the city of a million, you’d have two people.

But the terrifying aspect of that is that’s actually enough! Like 800 well-organized people, especially given electronic resources, they can wreak a lawful Lord of havoc.

So, minority or not, we’re still in the position of how can this be regulated so that, you know, they don’t bring the whole bloody thing crashing to a halt, which is certainly their aim.

So, alright, well I would recommend to everyone who's listening that you check out Carol's book Stolen Youth. Apparently, you can get it where books are sold, online and otherwise.

And so that’s good. If you haven’t been canceled, and, in fact, your book is a bestseller, so kudos to Daily Wire and also to you.

How have there been any critical reviews?

There have been. I think in Slate or Salon, one of those, where they call us names like, you know, gender folds or... I don’t know, I don’t even know what they’re saying at this point.

But nothing that—oh, it was at the Daily Beast. Yeah, it didn’t make any sense.

Oh, yeah? Well that—yeah, well the Daily Beast specializes in things that don’t make sense. So, but any thoughtful, critical reviews?

No, I—you know, I would love to do adversarial interviews about the book, but we—you know, I haven’t been offered any, and I would love for them to argue with somebody about the concepts that we talk about in the book.

I would love for CNN, MSNBC to invite me on and have a recent debate, even if it's, you know, the five-minute cable news clip where they mostly yell at me.

Let's do it! Like, let's get the conversation going, but they'll never do it, because you're not allowed to have—

Have you reached out to, you know, people?

Well, of course not! Of course not! Evil people like you!

That’s right!

Have you reached out to Anna Kasparian and the Young Turks? Maybe they would have you on! You know, Anna seems to have...

Yeah, she’s going through everything that the bloody woke left thinks, isn’t she?

Sure is!

And so is—I don't remember how to say his name—Uygur, how do you say?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, both of them seem to be—

Well, it’s so interesting to watch them because they’re claiming that, you know, the woke mob is just a tiny proportion of progressives. You know, it’s like, yeah, like Kamala Harris, for example, who pushes equity non-stop!

So they’re hand-waving about how this is just a right-wing fantasy, this progressive nightmare, but it is interesting to see both of them, you know, take stock again and realize that indeed the left can and has gone too far.

So, yeah, fun to see you on The Young Turks, but, you know, that probability—that strikes me as pretty much zero.

Anyways, everyone who’s watching and listening, you can pick up this book Stolen Youth and you know, especially if you’re a parent or maybe an interested teenager, it might be a book you want to pick up.

And thanks, Carol, very much for agreeing to talk to me today and good luck with the promotion of your book and your further work.

And thank you to Daily Wire Plus for making this conversation possible, facilitating this studio here in Portugal. I’m in Porto, Portugal today, which is beautiful old town.

To everybody watching and listening, thank you for your time and attention!

And also, I'm going to talk to Carol for another half an hour on the Daily Wire Plus platform. We’ll do more autobiographical interviewing, talking about the matter in which her career path made itself obvious and accessible to her.

If you're interested in that, please consider subscribing to Daily Wire Plus. They could use your support.

Anyways, because they’re one of the few organizations brave enough, for example, to publicize Matt Walsh’s documentary, What is a Woman? and to publish your book.

That kind of courage arguably could use some support, if we want to facilitate and reward its existence.

Anyways, Carol, thanks a lot for talking to me today.

Hello everyone! I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com.