 Today's going to be a fun show. So racism, from a fun show to racism. So racism in my mind is evil, despicable ideology in every form that it has. And anybody who advocates for establishing racial identities is deplorable and horrific. So when some of you argue for race realism, that's just racism. That's just an attempt to separate the races, to identify people by their race and by the average of their race, and to stamp them with an IQ on their forehead based on the average IQ of that race. And it's disgusting. It's to starve David on your shirt to identify you as Jewish during Hitler's Germany. It is to treat blacks as subhuman and put them into slavery because you think they're subhuman. It's to treat the Chinese when they first emigrate into this country as subhuman. Any attempt to identify people and separate them out and try to identify their traits based on their color of their skin or based on their genetics is racism and evil. I mean, they group genetics and should be shunned and should be identified for what it is. And I don't care if you happen to be black, white, Hispanic, fill in the blank. I don't know. Asian, whatever. It doesn't matter if you're starting to self identify people and self identify based on your genetic heritage. Then I find that despicable. And I've said why because we should treat people as individuals, your self-made soul, you make yourself, you're not determined by your genes. I can't say much more than that and read Iron Man's Essay on racism. And if you're still advocate for that, then just go away because I have nothing to do with you. Here's one of them. All right. Valuing race is valuing extension of your family, historically distinct and shared bloodline. And why would you value that? There's nothing to value in that. There's no contribution to your life that your bloodline provides to you. I mean, I get that doing a family tree is kind of cool, but if you happen to have an ancestor to achieve something, and you probably do because we all do because if you draw the bloodlines, the family tree back enough, you know, given survival by somebody famous will be in your family tree. What relevance is that to you? He's achieved something, not you. He succeeded, not you. You are still nobody. Even if your great, great father was a great entrepreneur or great innovator, you are nothing until you achieve something. There is no connection, no connection of value between you and your ancestor. It's kind of interesting, but nothing beyond that. And people who just happen to share your color of your skin who achieved something. What the hell? Who are you to claim credit for somebody else because you happen to share an insignificant feature with them? The fact that you are a child of this person and not of that person, I mean, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchild is insignificant. It means nothing objectively. It has no weight. It has no value. It contributes, and this is the important thing about value. It contributes nothing to your life, nothing. My great, great, great, great, great, most famous ancestor I have, according to one family tree, one of my cousins, is one of the rabbis who established the Hasidic movement. The guys who were black in New York and in Israel and who dressed like they did 200 years ago and who are super religious and super barbaric and super primitive. If you watched the movie Orthodox, was it Orthodox? What was that movie that I recommended? The TV series on Netflix I recommended not long ago. Anyway, you'd see what they looked like. So what does that mean to me? Well, nothing. I hate those guys. I have no connection to them. I don't care what I order about them other than I hate their philosophy, I hate their way of life, I hate everything about them. The fact that one of my ancestors did this, started this, means nothing. I feel guilt about it. I should feel guilty because one of my ancestors did this. The movie, this series is called Unorthodox and I highly recommend it, it's very good. So what does it mean, nothing, that you come from a particular bloodline? It's collectivism. It's what you, it's been ingrained in you and I was ingrained in me. I for a long time viewed myself as a member of, you know, very much important to me as a member of the, you know, Jewish tribe, although I never took that too much seriously. I was more of an Israeli tribe. I was a nationalist more than I was a Jewish thing because I remember when I was 12, I told my, my parents that if I fell in love with an Arab Muslim girl, I would marry her and my parents were shocked, right? They were so upset, but I was absolutely, absolutely committed even at the age of 12 to being an individualist. If I met, if I fall in love with somebody, I'm not gonna marry them because of where they come from. That seemed so stupid. So no, you are who you are. You are what you make of yourself. You're not even your parents. Nevermind your ancient grandcesters. Taking pride in your ancestry is technically bullshit. You can only take pride in your achievement. You didn't achieve your ancestry. You cannot be free. You cannot be free of the baggage of collectivism until you really unload from yourself the collectivism. It took me a long time to get rid of my Israeli nationalism because it was so embedded in me, the culture, the songs, the stories, the memories, everything. And this is at the time of war. So it's, it's, it's really big. Thank you Michael. That's really generous. And I think a round number to maybe to round it off to, to US dollars or something. But it took me a long time to get rid of it. I understand the appeal of collectivism, the safety you feel, the emotional warmth and satisfaction it can provide. But it's fake and it's destructive. And it leads you down a road that is only gonna destroy you, only gonna destroy you. So forget it. Forget about your family tree. You shouldn't care. Nobody cares. You are what matters. But that means that blaze, enormous responsibility on you. If you can't take the achievements of the group, if you can't take the achievements of the past, if you can't take the achievements of your heritage, where do you get achievement from? You have to achieve. You have to do it. You have to make it possible. All right. Somebody, let me get to that question later. You can say race isn't important, but it does exist. It doesn't. Races have different facial features. Sure. But the variation, you know, people have different facial features. All people have different features. And it's true. Some people for some areas have more common facial features than others. So what? Why are facial features? Why does that make a difference? Why is that a category worth creating? What is the practical use of that category? The fact that people have different hair. The fact that generally Scandinavians have blonde hair. Does that make them a different race, a race of blonde-haired people? Let's say then, I don't know, Scandinavians who don't have blonde hair. Some Jews have particular sized noses. Other Jews don't. But yeah, you can sometimes tell if somebody comes from a Jewish heritage. You can usually tell if somebody comes from Scandinavian heritage. Who cares? Why is that race? Right? They come from Scandinavian heritage. So what? And often you can't tell. I am usually confused for what? Before I had this amazing gray hair, I had brown hair with blonde streaks. Brown hair, but I have the bone structure of what? What would you say my bone structure is if you had a ... I could be a good German. I could be a good Scandinavian. I could be a good Aryan. What the f- I'm getting angry, I have to control myself. So no, race does not exist. I'm not Aryan. I'm not Scandinavian. And for the purpose of this discussion, I'm not Jewish. I'm Iran. Who happens to have facial features that come from generally Northern Europe, from a small community in Northern Europe in a little village that was probably, whose women were probably raped repeatedly by Cossacks and Aryans and all kinds of things. And I have their genes in me and that's how I got this bone structure. Who cares? What differences make? What scientific knowledge, what human technology, what human achievement is going to be moved forward based on that knowledge of anybody's facial features and hair color or hair texture and what that means? Race is a meaningless concept. Even if you could somehow draw the lines and put us all in boxes, it doesn't advance human beings anywhere. Race is meaningless. Somebody else had a question like this. If race is merely a social construct, then aren't dog breeds just social constructs by saying, no, because dog breeds are very different? And the very fact, again, that you would compare dogs to human beings. Somebody showed me a video, so I was doing a, this is good, this is a good question. So I was doing a talk for a group in Israel by Zoom yesterday or the day before yesterday. And at the end of my talk, I did a talk on inequality, at the end of the talk, the guy said, I want to show a video and then I want to talk about the video. And he shows a video of two monkeys. And the monkey is in cages and they're giving treats. And when one monkey is not given a treat and the treat is given to the other monkey, the one monkey gets all upset and really mad and jealous. And the guy at the end stops and he says, well, doesn't this prove that jealousy is ingrained in us? And I said, no, it proves nothing, absolutely nothing. Because you cannot learn anything by studying about human beings. Anything important about human beings by studying monkeys. Yeah, dogs have different breeds because they've been designed genetically to be completely different. But dogs are deterministic animals. They are nothing but their genes. You are not a deterministic animal. You are much more than your genes. You, I repeat myself, make who you are. You create your soul or you don't. And then you're nothing, which unfortunately many people, that's what happens to them. So yeah, people have different genes. But first, the differences between human beings are not the same as the differences between dog breeds, get a life. And then dog breeds are deterministic and human beings are not. So you are not your genes. Can you not acknowledge that race is real and treat people as individuals? Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe they don't have to be, but since race is not real, why should we acknowledge its reality? So ideal in facts. And I don't multiply concepts when they're not needed. There is no need for the concepts of racial identity. There is no need for the concepts of racial identity. There's a need for describing people, like he's black, he's white, you know, the guy who just dropped his wallet is black, I'll go find him so I can give him the wallet. It's a description. He was blonde, she's got green eyes, he's got blue, whatever. Beyond descriptive, there is no purpose, no value, nothing achieved by identifying people as race. So it's true. Theoretically, you could create a world in which race is real and you still treat people as individuals. But it's not just about racism. It's about, you know, you don't create, you don't, there's no reason to have a concept if the concept is not useful. The difference of race can be medically relevant, though. Yeah, the concept of genetic makeup is relevant. The concept of where you come from in the world is relevant. That's not a race issue. For example, Ashkenazi Jews, Jews, particular genetic makeup, who come from, particular genetic heritage, who come from, and Jews are not a race, by the way. I don't know what they are. It's an ethnic group. I don't know what it is. Who come from Western Europe happen to have certain diseases that others don't, including by the way, Sephardic Jews, who are also Jews, but who don't have these particular medical issues? Fine. There's no problem in identifying that by asking people what their bloodline is, where they come from, what their history is, without having a concept of race, which means nothing anyway, because you can't draw the lines. What if I'm half Ashkenazi and half Sephardi, or half black and half white, or a quarter Irish and a quarter Scandinavian and a quarter something else, and a quarter nothing, I guess. I missed a quarter. So no, there are other ways, and particularly given the evil history of racism, given the evil history of identifying people based on their race and what it has done to people. Why would you even go there? Let's find a different way to communicate the same information. The information that's useful for medical reasons. If we're so smart, why are these all people white? I don't know what all people are. I don't know what that means, Derek. Sorry. I don't know if they're white. I don't know what they are, and I don't care. If you really intellectual care about this topic, why not debate a race realist or national? Because I view this topic as so despicable, and so beneath contempt, and so irrelevant to the world, I'm all I'm trying to do is to arm the rest of you with some information so when you encounter racists, I hope I contribute to how you think about them. But no, I would never get on a stage with a race realist. There are certain ideas that are so disgusting, that are so low, that are so anti-life. Because Ayn Rand said, racism is the most primitive form of collectivism, and now the other collectivist I won't get on stage with, I won't get on stage with a communist. And to me it's so obvious communism is bad, why would I want to? I won't get on stage with a communist, and I won't get on stage with a racist. I won't get on stage with Noam Chomsky. I won't give those ideas the credence of debating them. I'll rile against them, but I won't debate them as if there's an alternative position that's legit that we can debate. We can debate, and as we'll see, we can debate IQ and what it means. We can debate immigration. We can debate racism. Race realism is not a legitimate point of view in any way, shape, or form. And therefore I will not debate. Now whether I debate a nationalist, absolutely. I've offered to debate Yoam Hazoni who wrote the book, The Virtue of Nationalism, which is a big, he is the organizer of the whole national conservative movement, the National Conservative Conference. He's a big shot in the American nationalist movement. I've offered to debate him. If he's a, you know, I don't think he's a racist, although there's elements of, you know, maybe the elements there I don't know. So I have no problem debating nationalism because I think nationalism is a real idea. It's there's something to be discussed. I think it's a bad idea, but it's a real idea. Racism is so low that it's not worthy of discussion. Not worthy of debate. So it's worthy of discussion because you have to, you have to arm yourself against the evil, but not worthy of debate. Has a sense of weakness in one's independent reasoning skills lead wanting to predict human behavior buries? Yeah. And I think it's, it's again, it's, it's you wanting to belong. You wanting to belong. It's you wanting, you're afraid of standing alone. This is why the bloodline is so important. The whole issue of bloodline is so important. You need a group to support your standing in this world. It's a lack of self-esteem. It's a lack of weakness of independent thought. It's a lack of ability to think for yourself, which requires you to, you know, get a group together. That's, that's I think the, the psychological source. It's, it's, it's just a, it's weakness. It's, it's, it's emotionalist. It's a lack of respect for your own reason and a lack of belief in your own ability to think for yourself. Some will acknowledge that being colorblind is ideal, but you have to temporarily put on hold to address problems specific to black people first. But once you put that on hold and you address problems specific to black people, you are going to engage in racism, racism against non-black people or racism against black people themselves. You're going to create resentment. The only way to address specific problems that relate to black people is to be colorblind. And then look at specific issues relating to specific individuals in specific contexts. Yeah, somebody writes, thank you for being a voice for what should be obvious in these times. Yes. Not just these times. A long time ago. It saddens me to see racism become so popular. It's terrible. And it's left and right. I mean, as I, as I've done my shows on racism on the left, it's left and right. It's everybody. And those of us, and then the, some people who say I want to be colorblind, then they're accused of being racist for claiming to be colorblind. We should abandon race completely. I am not white in any significant sense. Yeah, my color skin is white, but I'm not a white person. I'm not defined by being white. I define racism at the beginning. It's treating people not based on who they are as individuals, but based on their membership in a group. That is racism. All right. The left complains about differences in racial outcome, how do you address them without analyzing group stats by race saying nothing about individuals? Well, the fact that the left complains about differences in racial outcome doesn't mean that you should address racial outcomes. You can address them through culture. You can address them through neighborhoods. You can address them. And this is how I would address them as yes, by emphasizing race left, and I'm talking to the left now, by emphasizing race, you have isolated the members of your people who happen to have black skin, have created a culture that is unhealthy and a culture that has embraced victimhood and a culture that does not allow you to write as individuals to rise up above it. And not identifying race doesn't mean you don't identify racism. So you can say, and part of the consequences are people with black skin not being successful or one of the causes of that is, let's say, a history of racism in this country. That doesn't accept race other than to identify that some people accept race and the fact that they accept race has caused people who happen to have black skin problems throughout history or throughout the last 200, 300 years. Yeah, I like this. Racism is the notion of ascribing value to a person or this value to a person based on body chemistry rather than who they are. That's from Ayn Rand. I encourage you to read her essay on racism. Thank you, Benji, Benji. So there are plenty of ways to acknowledge the fact that people have black skin, you know, have certain, there are certain issues and then address those issues without assuming that the fact that they have black skin leads them to whatever. It's the black skin led them to. It's not. But other people treat them so, you know, I don't consider myself, I often say I don't consider myself a Jew, except in the, and Ayn Rand said this, I'm stealing this from Ayn Rand, except in the face of anti-Semitism. If you're going to be an anti-Semitism, suddenly you become very Jewish. But I don't recognize the idea that Jewish means anything as a positive or as a negative. It means something only in combating your bigotry. Okay, let's see. Would you elaborate on what you mean when you say race doesn't exist? I think I have. There are physical differences, e.g. skin color. Yes, there are people with different skin color. Great. So what? Of course, it's morally irrelevant. But it's more than morally relevant. It's almost irrelevant to anything. It's medically relevant. How dark your skin is medically relevant and the gradations of dark skin and different cultures, by the way, different places define the black race differently. So for example, in America, if you have a little bit of black in you, heritage of somebody with black skin, you are considered part of the black race. In Brazil, if you have a little bit of white in you, you are considered to be part of the white race. It's completely arbitrary. It's completely arbitrary. How many white ancestors do you have to be white? How many black ancestors do you need to have to be black? Is the fact that so many slave owners had raped their slaves and had children with them? Does that make the children less black, more white, half-race this, half-race that? Or does the black dominate? Because many, I don't know if most, but many blacks in America are a result of a black slave being raped by a white slave owner. What is that? What does that constitute? How do you define them? Not in America. We define them as black. Why? Because we've been racists. Because they tend to have darker skin, but not as dark as others. By the way, even in primitive cultures, in other cultures, in Asia, in Africa, they discriminate there. Other cultures can be racist, too, in not claiming it's not a Western invention. Like in Thailand, the darker your skin, the worse people treat you. They're ties. They're all ties. They're basically the same genes, but some have darker skin, some have lighter skin. Darker skin means you're poor. You're from the North. You're probably less educated, and therefore we treat you like shit. Yes, what I mentioned about racists being the most, not mediocre people. I think it's worse than mediocre, it's the most apparent now, yes. You're denying, denial of influence of genetics is mystical and scientific. That's not true. You are the mystic. You're the mystic of material, the mystic of muscle, as I ran to find it. You are not a product of your genes. Genes influence you, sure they do. They influence your matters, they influence your intelligence, we'll get to that. They influence your capacities, but they don't influence who you are. And the fact that your genetics do that don't mean your race does that. Again, what does race have anything to do with it? And how do you define the races and who are the races? And again, how many grandparents do you have to have if they're mixed races? Which one counts? Which one is more powerful? Which one means more? I mean, just think these things through. And you don't have an answer to them. You don't have an answer to them because you guys are racists. What you need is the pseudo-self-esteem given to you by thinking, oh, I'm white, I've got a higher IQ than black people. Ooh, hey, I've got all these pals over here. They're all the same color as me, isn't that cool? Yeah, we have different skin tones. We have different hair texture. We have different eye shapes. So what? And how much of an eye shape, how much of a skin tone, how much of a color does it take to become a member of a race? It's just a meaningless, stupid concept. Enough. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time, so I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...