« Verdict with Ted Cruz

Ep. 78 - Speechless


Critical Race Theory. Censorship. Socialism. Second Wave Feminism. Wokeism. This is what you get when Michael Knowles is in the hot seat! Interchanging armchairs for the day, Senator Ted Cruz interviews Michael on the dangerous fruits of political correctness that are springing up throughout our society. Going even deeper, Michael reveals where this cultural rot started and how we might yet be able to counteract it. (Spoiler alert: this story starts all the way back in the 1930s.) Oh yeah, and Michael wrote a book with words in it—yes, really. This is Verdict with Michael Knowles.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Communism, student radicals. Second, wave feminism locus political correctness, critical race theory p, Buddha judge. All of these are interconnected and all of these are explained in a new book by the co host of this podcast. This is verdict with legal norms, and so the tables are turned my friends hawking a book- and actually this spoke it am I right that this book actually has words senator this is backwards in so many ways you opening the show verdict with Michael Knolls and craziest of all a Michael knows book. That actually has words, and it is true- can make that promise right now and the words are pretty scary, like on every page on almost every page,
You you did right some of the words I thank you very much for giving me a very kind blurb I'll, give you all your bride money, afterward, obviously guy all alot, all these blurb monsieur I, I can be bribed in in a liquor into back. I very good: let's go, let's talk about this book. Let's time in the topic of this book, censorship speech, codes, woke culture, political correctness, you start the book by explaining, where all this came from men and an end and any trace it to some nineteen thirty communists. What's up with that? Well, like all aspects of political career, yes, the terms, keep changing. So it's a little bit tricky to trace that's kind of the central feature of pc. Is they change all the words in the ideas? If you can redefine the words, you can redefine reality. So it's it's difficult to look back while I think a lot of people believe that political.
redness began, I dont know in the nineties or the eighty is the kind of battles on campus, or maybe people say it went back a little further to those student radicals in the sixtys, the admin now isn t it to the United States. Some people say goes back to the critical theorists who now really centre stage because of critical race theory, this new academic movement that is really threatening so much at the heart of our country and some people think it goes back even further, and I think it goes back as so many evil things. Due to a statement from Karl Marx, Karl Marx, in a letter to Arnold Rubia, called for the ruthless criticism
of all that exists, no no small feet to criticise everything, but it's a fall in world and so everything's open to criticism and at what the marxist theorists who came about the twenties in the thirties realized citizen limit limit, lemme, slimmer, stop you they're Michael. Why would marks want to criticise all that exists? What will what is to be served by doing more, I wanted a total revolution, a complete reordering of society from from the ground up actually Whittaker chambers of wonderful writer who wrote the grape of witness. He was an x communist. He famously said that communism is not the world's newest ideology. It's actually. The second oldest ideology in the world goes all the way back to the garden of Eden when the serpent says ye shall be as gods and that's the eight. This is nothing less than the total up ending of the world, but the problem with this coral marks dies a failure. The workers of the world
did not unite the revolution did not materialise. It turned out that those poor oppressed workers actually kind of liked their countries. traditions and their way of life ass, she liked it more than the cookie leftist theories and some I'm going to stop you periodically. As we discuss this just to ask well the kind of questions that year, really pestering me with having going asking you, but but let's start with communism right, that's a big scary. Words gets tossed around a lot, but what is communist mean ways it well there. There are these two related terms: socialism and communism. That's a little confusing to figure out what the relationship is, and I pull kangaroo. The political scientist once described to me. He said, Michael Christians go to Heaven and Socialists go to communism, so you ve got this. This takeover of the means of production by the workers. Which really means by the state under socialism, and this is going to lead to a utopia,
of communism. That just always seems a little bit out of reach of you know. Looking back now on the communist movement, it's it's hard to imagine, but but at the time, especially the turn of the twentieth century all the smart people were communists. They really mean this was a major intellectual movement and and people saw had turned out under Stalin. In particular, a lot of them became disillusion. and you saw people trying to consign the ashes of history now Fortunately, all these years later, it's coming back, but there's a big distinction is a big difference. Marks. Viewed man is primarily an economic being reviewed. All of this class struggle in history, history of the world, as one of the economic class,
What the later marxists understood. People like rom sheep, like the critical theorists Mercosur, that the people who were now all talking about is that it has much more to do with culture and if you can get a hold of the common. sense. If you can get a hold of the institutions, you want a much easier time effecting a revolution through what Grom Sheet the war of position? Take the positions of influence in all of the institutions, and then Hemingway describes going Bankrupt, as it happens gradually, then suddenly, so it happened grab lay from the twenties to say the nineties or two thousands now, I think we're in the suddenly face such solemnly backing,
a little bit. You know. The way I think about socialism and communism is, is that socialism is a means of structuring the economy, so socialism stands in contrast. Capitalism, capitalism is, is what we have at least in some form in the United States, where you could own capital can start a business. You can own property, you can hire workers, you can build a business and create opportunity in prosperity and jobs. Socialism is inaccurate, mixed system, where the government owns the means of production or distribution in an economy so rather than you starting a business. The government owns the best and and it it reduced its wealth from those who have it to those who doubt now communism is. It is a system of governance, but it is
also a way of looking at the world about how that system of governance comes to pass at socialism is the economic system of communism, so every communist country practice a socialist, but communist countries have with them as well, dictatorship and and Karl Marx. He built on on the works of Hegel and others that that that positive, a dialectic, positive, a conflict and an end they also where economic determinist, and so they believed that economic, horses were at work in the world that couldn't be stopped, then that would naturally and inevitably will result in, though, that the way marched viewed the world is as a never ending conflict between the owners of capital and those who were working. Those who worked for them and an communism, was a revolution of the proletariat a revolution of the working men and women too old throw the owners of capital and a transition into
a socialist economy. Instead, where the government owns the capital- and there are no capitalist anymore, that distinction. You mentioned that there was a time when all the smart people were communists. You know if you got our university faculties that that that still is the case for an awful lot of them. problem with carbon, as one of the many problems is in practice, so it was theorize that it was dictatorship of the proletariat that it was the people that were ruling, but in every communist country we ve had there's always been a brutal dictator, a brutal communist government that any forces its power through torture and murder and persecution, because it is the dominance of the state. If the state owns everything. That means the states in charge of everything, and so we ve seen communism doesn't work, but all of that is background to disable. How is that connected?
The political correctness and cancel culture and woke corporations at critical race theory and an you mentioned a guy grom. She- and he said all of us- are talking about a man I gotta Saturnia. What circling running in the folks how about around with with ground. She didn't get mentioned more than six seven times a day at most of most stunt. Who was this guy Why should anyone care who this guy was? So I think your point is so great senator because one you ve got this aspect of economic determinism. You ve also got historical determinism. That's where you get these phrases like the right side of history. The idea. deeply held by the radicals today, just as it was, then that of history is going to move in that direction, and so you ve got rube conservative reactionaries like you and me, but were worth
Gonna stand in the way. Only for some time, eventually, histories gonna go in their direction. You get a guy like Antonio Grom. She who is this if founder of the Communist Party of ITALY, brilliant more Just a theoreticians he's thrown in jail by Benito Mussolini Mussolini did many terrible things, not the least of which was throwing grom. She in jail, because Grom she didn't deserve it, but because it gave Grom sheen opportunity to write his greatest work, the prison notebooks. They actually set it Grom she's trial in ITALY, that they had to stop this mind from working for twenty years. So what are they they put him in a cell and gave him a pen in paper, not a very good way to stop a mind from working, and he understood and- and I think, a lot of people here- This has something to do with more something to do with communism, something to do with Marxists there This sounds like a kooky conspiracy, theory items. I dont see people marching around with hammers and singles out there you're right, because this is much more subtle grow.
she understood you need to get a hold of the common sense. You need to have what he called cultural hegemony right. The conservatives have the cultural hegemony. It's why we can't get our theories through, but if we begin to dominate the culture that will help, so you have out of that growth of the that was called the Frankfurt school form like all the Institute for Marxism, which develops in the United States and its more of these radical marxist academics, who create something called critical theory and What is critical theory there's a lot of jargon. I've got a whole big book here, uncritical race theory, which is a a derivation, but it by, The theory is simple. The theory is to criticise and what what critical race theory in particular undertakes is nothing less than the total dismantling of the sis they're. Just a couple quotes in here, as I am I know just like nobody wants to talk about Grom she had a dinner party. Nobody wants to work their way through this drivel of critical race theory, but just a couple past.
just to give you a sense of what this thing is I Crenshaw is, is widely credited with popular and I d like critical race theory or intersection, allocate she writes the problem with identical politics is not that it fails to transcend difference as some critics charge, but rather the opposite that it frequently conflates or nor is intergroup differences and ignoring differences within groups, contributes detention among groups other problem of identity, politics, which he sang the problem with identity politics is, it doesn't go far enough. It only talks about say black people and women, but it doesnt work about black women. talks about black women and lesbians, but not about black lesbians talks about this. That goes all the way down to an endless pit of identities that are seen to be positive against one another. To divvy up society, so I gotta say: Michael did it. It strikes me that year, exceptionally poor
at hawking your book, because you actually pulled out another book and read from the other, but not your book, that sitting next to you, but some giant red book that you told us is crappy than you said. I want to read view the really crappy boy. So, let's cut to the hut. Words of thousands of people who have downloaded this podcast or listening to it. Now. Why should I go online right now and by your because we have totally failed to stop this scourge. What do you want to call it? We ve been talking about NEO Marxism, we ve been talking about political correctness, we talk about workers and we talk about critical race. They were all of these terms. We ve utterly failed on the right, and it's not like we have. Been talking about political correctness. We ve been talking about it till her blue in the face for thirty years now, and yet it seems that the more we fight the more ground we lose. Why is that? I think it's because misunderstood what political correctness, as I think that we have not take
he's right or seriously guys like ground Oh you know actually just to give you a sense of Grom. She. You know that the the only guy who has translated Grom she's works for the American Oddy. This is a man named Joseph Buddha Judge, that name sounds familiar it's because he was the father of Presidential can't and now transportation secretary a Joseph up people to judge. Rather so you ve got one of the most moderate out of milk. Toes democratic candidates. Has this radical intellectual pedigree? Just Buddha Judge President other Grom she's society Why won't you eat your saying, mayor peace, sweet inoffensive, Mayor PETE, pretend to be a centrist mayor, PETE that his dad was a radical communist academic who translated the added this italian communist that no one has ever heard of, but is really dangerous. One the most radical academics out there, and I pointed out because it did
it did he like leader, society or anything on. You might call it the internet pilgrim she society. Yes, he was one of the co founders. He was up. president of that society. It it just shows you how far the rot goes, that even in the milk toast mild corners of the liberal establishment, you have this kind of radicalism and I think the problem here. I think the reason that we have lost is because political correctness woke ism or whenever you want to call it. It lays a trap for can Urban Ips it it. It sets out with this purely negative purpose rightly been saying it from the very beginning, and you totally see this in the sixtys it just once tear down society, it just wants to rip it down to the ground and what it does isn't. It calls to different reactions from conservatives the one, what it's, what the swishes do they just go along with the new hundreds frightened, obviously that advances the left purpose because it just gives into them, but there is in
more insidious way, sutler way that bit this purposes advanced and its from the more stalwart conservatives who say: look I'm not gonna go along with the let's new standard. I am going to get rid of standards altogether, only gonna talk about freedom in the abstract. I'm not gonna talk about any practical traditions of freedom, but the irony here, of course, is that either way you cut it the traditional standards that political correctness aims that are destroyed, and you know that I know that we like to I'd ourselves on the right about understanding, free speech and history of America, so much better than the left us. But frankly, these crazy kooky thinkers But I had to read forever so that they didn't have to read it themselves and until the story in here these guys were pretty sharp and they have obviously been very politically effective. So this man maybe a place where I'm more libertarian conservative in them in that, I'm I'm something of a free speech radical at it.
And I believe in in protecting everybody's right to spew hideous an end and in fact I think free speech matters the more idiotic it is what you're saying in a lot of times. You hear politicians today talk about. We want to have a reasonable speech. You hear college academics talk about we what we want to get rid of unreasonable speech. I want to get rid of hate speech. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect reasonable speech. You don't need it if it's real noble if everyone agrees with their no constraints on it it is only when someone thinks the speeches unreasonable that you end having that speech silenced and end. So you know I do think there is a real difference between left right in in, in that the left. They believe in government, they believe in government power and they believe in government control, you and silencing you. If you disagree from my
and I dont want to silence the people who disagree, Ottawa, silence, Bernie, Sanders Array of sea and, to be honest, people listening yo see a lot more a day. I think she does a great job of convincing and to support the other side, but you know I now that doesn't mean you're a nihilist, and you say because everyone has a right to speak. Every view is equally valid right. I think I also believe and truth and end so. Does that mean the Nazis have a right to speak? Does that mean the clan has a right to speak absolutely and then the Supreme Court, by the way in a very famous case, upheld the Nazis right to protest March in the streets of Skokie Illinois. I agree with that decision. That's them the right decision. Spring court also, in another case, upheld the right of a hippie too, to wear a jacket that had on the back f the draft in it
just its spelled out all about the draft, not just just the one letter. I do think the ability to speak hateful objectionable speech is protected in the constitution, but I also think we have an obligation to explain why it's wrong So when the Nazis March, we all have an obligation explains the Nazis are evil Betty, bigoted, bastard jump when the clan marches. Have an obligation to make that clear, but but- I am very much in the camp. John Stuart Mill liberty. Said said, the best response to bad speeches, more speech and and- and I believe that that's the right way to counter it- is too aggressively. I agree with you. The left is trying to tear down our culture, trying to tear down or institutions, trying to tear down marriage trying to tear down family
I d tear down fatherhood trying to tear down motherhood or I guess it's, not motherhood anymore. It's birthing, put birthing birthing person. I pray, that's a hard thing to say birthing pursing too that's a very different, but all of this is systematically tearing down institutions and by the way, communist countries. You see this fully developed where you know one of our first podcast we interviewed, might my aunt mightier Sonia who talked about life in Communist Cuba, and she described how the communist government there tries to tear down your allegiance to your family. Your parents, to your spouse
ass to your kids to your church. They push atheists m because and then this is right at the heart of communism. If you have no other loyalties, if they can undermine every other loyalty, you have than your only loyal to the state and an and that that is a powerful thing in it. In its goes back to tell what I asked before, why would marks want to tear down our institutions yep because that that they want the state to be the dominant institution of the state? Is ostensibly Lee operating for the people, but but any time you see a revolutionary say the people demand this. You know somehow the Jack mood machine, Gunnar right there and the people just happened. I want that dictators stay in power, do whatever the hell they want for the rest of their lives right and on this point of the institutions, of course, you're right. We love our very broad free speech, tradition, enemy,
and that where there are standards- and there are always standards, every society is gonna have certain taboos. Every society is going certain things that you will be austrian for saying, maybe not by the government but but by society? Broadly in the traditional american context, it is institutions that, with the church, the local community that will enforced this there are some gourd rails from the federal government, even as well things like fraud, for instance Senator laws, and also more at the local level, but some board rails there in a lot of the institutions, as you erode that I think the claim made by the police, the politically correct radicals by and by the b who were claiming the mantle of free speech in the nineteen sixty three, the radical leftist at Berkeley. They were thing we need to get rid of all of these restrictions and then we will have true freedom and you'll be able to say whatever you want, but it was always a trap. It was always a tree because no sooner had they broken down those standards, then they created a whole bunch.
new standards in their place that the way I think of it sometimes is specially coming from Hollywood having fleet my from new selenium failed state is there was a black list in the nineteen fifty's some cases? It was kind of ugly. There was Smith ACT in the nineteen fifty where, if you were working for the Communist Party of you working for a foreign state, you can be prosecuted actually getting back to Whittaker chambers? That's what happened when there were actually work ominous than the government guys like Alger his in the nineteen fifties, you would be cancelled for being a communist. Today, you can be cancelled for not being a communist kinda gathered for the opposite reason. It seems that that standard has totally shifted, and so what we, what I would like to do at least is preserved. This wonderful american free speech, Were you really can speak your mind review really? Can it maintain your way of life without handing over to the left the keys to create a radical new
leadership of speech, which we have now seen, notably through big tack. You know it might not through the government, but big Tec is now controlling the way that that we communicate around our publics, where soaked explain something for me, which is, we were talking about the communists. You talk about the critical thinkers, there's a school of the critical thinkers that when in law, schools that were there were called critical legal theory and then the hotbed of that was was mile. Mater was Harvard LAW School and when I was there. There were bunch, creates that's what's what they were called one of the more prominent grits drove a green brand new Jaguar, making how communists always seem to have a whole lot of wealth and comfort and life tenure can't be fired, and thus they have no need to worry about the means of production in society, but the credits were relatively obscure. They took the ideas of Marxism and they applied it to the legal system and what they said was the class conflict that marks
It is at the end, at the base of everything in society that the class conflict is also reflected in our legal system and in the credits attacked that there is anything like fairer, objective law that it is possible to apply the law that it is possible to understand the law that any judge can ever follow the text of the law. Instead, they said, the entire legal system in America exist as a means of perpetuating the class oppression and perpetuating the oppression of the owners of capital over the proletariat and then so be it combined the two notions you said before, tearing down institutions with the ongoing class conflict and any it mapped that on to the legal system- and I say there crypts now that a proliferated at at law schools all over the country up
It was at the law, schools. It was by the way they had to have this weird habit of speaking in, like twelve syllable, words writing the most impenitent prose, I'm an era when I was on the lot of you had this one article submitted by by this, this crate academic. That was completely unreadable. I mean it, it had words, I'm sorry, I think I've got a decent vocabulary and any it was so thick that that I and I remember, like other kind of lefty losses like oh, this is really deep in profound. I think a law student doesn't want to admit it understand something it and want to be seen as DOM. So if its, if you can't understand it, well that it must be really deepen, found em. Like look I'm sorry, this is not written in the english language. I have no idea what the hell, the guy's saying in the region, he's using so many big words, because his ideas are stupid figures if he uses big words that everyone,
be afraid to call out the emperor for having no clothes right, but the credits were in law. Schools. There relatively benign and then suddenly critical legal theory took a leap in the critical race theory. Now, how did it change? What's the difference between in critical theory, critical legal theory and now the new thing critical race three. What is the ito were hearing a lot about that and I think, a lot just today walking down the halls of the capitol reporter walked out to me and said: hey what is critical race theory, and I think it was supposed to be a got. Your question like like you know, let's show that against critical race theory that I know what it is, and and he was a little startled that I had actually an answer. But but let me ask. that was what is critical race. There was someone listening you here, term a lot, but a lot of people are sure what it means, I'm so glad you brought this up because you're gonna start hearing a lot of these gotcha questions. Maybe
reporters. If you're a. U S, senator and maybe just from your liberal friends down there really wants to get you cause. You don't know what what critical theory is critical raced, the recording illegal theory this an analytic lens through which to you society, that's why it's not just one discipline. It has infected virtually all of the disciplines in the union. Frankly, including our sights, is an and mathematics in some cases, to your point on on property. To your point on this that the legal aspect, there is a very important text in quickly race theory whiteness as property listened to her radical. This is the origins of property rights in the United States are rooted in short domination, even in the early years of the country, it was not the concept of race alone that operated to oppress, say, blacks and Indians, rather was the interaction between can
options of race and property, which played a critical role in establishing maintaining racial end and economic subordination. The idea being you think that look slavery very. Forms of racial discrimination. Very bad, ok, we're in a fix that problem and were fixed. No, they say it's. It's the whole thing. It's capitalism, it's private property. Its everything you ve got to tell this down to do. There is simply no end to this, and the fact is, of course senator when you are law school, this was the vanguard of the craziness of of critical theory. Now, has spread into the mainstream it's at every school. It's in your high school, it's in your middle school, and I think this is what a lot of concern Kids are asking right now because For years and years we ve embraced this language of academic freedom. You know told total free speech in the classroom now now love, academic freedom in the sense that we want to be able to pursue our own ideas and think for ourselves. But does academic freedom mean
You have the right as a radical leftist teacher to indoctrinate your stew. whatever you want, regardless of what the School Board says, what it, regardless of whether what the parents say, even if it will harm students, education. Going back to that great. servant, WM, F, Buckley Junior, whose kicks off the postwar conservative movement with with his book God and man at Yale, the the subtitle of that, but was the superstitions of academic. In that book. He calls academic freedom as we use it. He calls it a hoax, he says adjust it just doesn't really happen that way that actually you do have a right as apparent you do have a right as a taxpayer to to know what's being taught your classroom in your classroom? They're going to teach certain facts are going to say two plus two equals four. Well, that's what they used to teach these days, they're going to teach you two plus two equals five and they're going to teach these the sort of radicalism, Anti historical, untrue, really bad stuff, and I think it is up to us to summon the courage to say,
Oh, you know what the credits, the critical race theory, the legal theory, the political correctness in all its forms we just can't take it- is so destructive to us Nobody wants to throw you in prison for saying something, but we're not gonna subsidized. This in our schools were Michael Islamists. A couple of things in response to that one, Look to someone have a right to try to indoctrinate kids or everybody else. Yes, you have a right to try what you don't have a right to do is employed at Ecology University. That isn't business of educating kids that you too have an entitlement to that job and for, College University there not performing their function if they are allowing their professors to indoctrinate anything. Look I'd ice for several years taught taught at Universal Texas LAW School. I'm a conservative! I didn't try to indoctrinate my students to be conservatives. I wanted to be a good team
so. I tried to present them a guy taught a seminar on Supreme Court litigation, and so I would teach them what the views of the different justices were. I teach them what Justice Scalia believe that teach them one Ruth better Ginsburg believe I would in the course of its say what I thought, but, but actually that that very much took a back seat to trying to get them to understand and the range of views and come to their own conclusions, and and- and I would have- the Students- argue actual cases that were pending before the court. So was a fun class. It was a small class and, and the students would argue, typically seven cases that were actually being argued before the Supreme Court term and every student would brief and argue two cases. And on the remaining cases they would set as justices and they were actual justices. So one week you might be chief Justice Roberts the next week you might be Scalia the next week. You might be Briar and
the first hour of the class was the oral argument were the students would present the argument. The second, our the class, the justices retired conference and debated case and voted, and they had to vote in the shoes of the justice who they were playing, And then they had to write an opinion on a dead end. It was designed some of the most. Some of the best teaching moments were when you had people arguing, contrary to their ideological disposition, so yeah. I remember there was one very liberal woman who was arguing on behalf of some pro life protesters, and I think that was a valuable teaching moment for her to present those arguments, there was another fellow, is a west point, grad very conservative student who was
arguing on behalf of a get mo terrorists, and- and I think that also was valuable. But but let me let me stepped back for a second and go back to the question. We are talking about a minute ago, which is what is critical race theory I'll, tell you what I told the rapporteur as we were walking down the hall of the Kapital. I said: listen, critical, rice theory, traces, its origins to Karl Marx and the marxist marks posited than all of society can be explained by a fundamental conflict. between the socio economic classes, between the owners of capital in the workers, critical race theory uses that same lands, except instead of socio economic status. It uses race, so critical, race theory expect explains. Everything in America and everything in the world through the lens of racial oppression.
and through the fundamental lands that all of history all of America's explained by racial oppression and what is critical race theory teach it teaches that all white people, one hundred percent, a white people- are racist. If your wife you are racist. It is inherent in being. You can never change, it teaches that you can never change it. There's nothing! You can do if you say, you want to change your being races that then, that it is, it is just like the capitalist in Marx's world can never cease to be a capital. Unless you no longer has any capital, so As you are no longer why'd, you could never cease to be a race, as is the same. Absolute determinism. Critical race theory also teaches that America is inherently racist. The system is raises you hear this were phrase. Systemic racism and people don't quite know what it
means and end. If you get someone who says well, no, I don't believe in systemic racism. People go whoa hold on hold on a second, you saying: there's no racism in the world. That's crazy, of course, they're bigots, Sis. MC racism is not saying. There's racism in the world there there have always been bigots. They're, probably always will be bigots. Systemic racist is saying. The entire system is inherently racist. The criminal justice system, the legal system, the political system, every thing that assistant. America is inherently racist, the New York Times and body this with the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project where they tried to rewrite american history. to say that America wasn't found in one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, it wasn't found in one thousand, seven hundred and eighty seven. It was founded in sick. Nineteen, when they say the first slaves arrived on on the american soil and they go on
say the entire history of Amerika is understood as a history of fighting to preserve slavery, into continue white supremacy that all of this is complete and utter garbage, and what's terrifying about critical race theory is its infiltrated our schools. If you have great school kids at a lot of schools in Amerika, there being taught this nonsense, but I think understanding the lies that are at the heart of it, and then this is Marxism. This is Marxism, combined with in tents, racial bigotry. If you put marxism and racial bigotry and a blunder, you get critical race theory, and this is, what's being taught to kids and what I think is helpful about your book is is for folks that are trying to understand this. Your book does a good job of tracing the history of at an end and and making it. So you can understand what really is will this is such a good point that you're making about the classroom, which is, if you sometimes
really understand your own views. It helps to make the argument from at her side and so what it when I try to do in speechless As I go, all the way back, I dont any loose ends. I want to make sure I'm really making there were the right connections here. We have the right intellectual pedigree of what this with this phenomenon is and to say: ok, you're, the best arguments that the guys or make here is the absolute strongest argument here is why its bunk, here why it is evil here is why it's gonna destroy the country. If we let it continue to go on even more so than it already has, and I think frankly, if I, if I had to pitch it too, you senator that the best thing about this book speechless is you get to learn what these hoop crazy, just terrible dreary, Polly, syllabic awful writers say without having the slug through ten thousand pages of their impenetrable, terrible prose. Michael. I do want to clarify one thing: if, if someone,
Those on Amazon say right now in and ordered your book priorities your book. I guess it's come another twenty second, they could also bundle, let's say with my book, one vote away and they could, by one vote away and speechless I can understand the theoretical origins of censorship and cancel culture, they could understand the legal protections we have and you can get em both ship to you, probably even inside buck. Probably in the same day, even senator, you know a man with brilliant ideas, a man who has excellent taste in books. I have to observe, as I read this blurbs here. Well, I'm a capitalist, you're, a capitalist and a man. What a great book himself. Yes, I really appreciate. I tell you senator I can This is so it's so backwards to me to have the book with words and to be interviewed by you that I now I'm, I have to take over again make sure that when you all go out there, Pritchett you going out an in depth reordering speechless, make sure to bundle it with one vote away. Senator think! That's all the time we ve got next week. Things might be back to normal I'll, be writing blank books again
You will be answering all the important questions there. A lot a lot of things going on right now, but will have told it until then. Thank you for reading the book. I thank you to all you out there, hopefully all read the book as well. I Michael knows this is verdict with headquarters.
Transcript generated on 2021-08-08.