 And basically this is the connection between wokeness, the success of woke culture, the success of cancel culture, and our legal system. Our legal system really since the 1960s and how, according to Hananya, basically woke culture and wokeness as he interpreted it and I'll give you, I'll give you his definition or his descriptions, not really definition. Wokeness is being set up in a sense it's kind of an inevitable consequence. And one of the things he observes right early in the article and again I recommend this is a substack, Richard Hananya spelt like it sounds Hananya. Richard identifies early on he says Republicans right now are primarily motivated, inspired by this idea of cancel culture and woke culture. But what are they suggest doing about it? And he says the end is to that is nothing other than talking about it. But they have no remedy, no political remedy, no remedy if you will in the law to fix it. All they do is talk about it. Indeed what Biden was passing his big stimulus package which basically spent, I don't know, $2 trillion and wasn't really stimulative. It expanded government control and government funding for a bunch of different things that you think Republicans would care about. They spent almost no time discussing it, not on Tucker, not on Fox, and not on the floor of the Senate. Republicans were distracted by Dr. Seuss. They were distracted by wokeness, they were distracted by cancel culture. And yet when you ask them what should we do about it, they harmonize and they talk about we should talk about it, we should discuss it. But they don't have a practical solution to cancel culture rooted in something they could do politically. Other than, by the way, other than we can respect, restrict free speech. That's their solution to woke culture is let's regulate, regulate big media, sorry, big tech. Let's go after Bezos so we can silent the Washington Post. Let's restrict free speech. That is the conservative answer to wokeness. And what Richard Hananya shows is no, there is a legal regulatory political origin to wokeness. And therefore you could start combating this cultural phenomena through the legal system. So as one of the women says, the Republican solution is to cancel the counselors, but that just buys into the cancer into the cancer culture that just legitimizes cancer culture. Hananya suggests that there's something deeper going on here. There's something deeper in the legal system, in the political system, and therefore there are things a Republican president can do that would at least start changing the debate. And as he argues, it's taken 50 years, 50 years, yeah, 50 years to get to the point where we are today from where the initial momentum started, 50 something years, it might take a few decades and do this, but at least you'd get a start. And you have to start again in the legal system. So here, so I think this is an incredibly important article. Now again, it's not philosophical. It doesn't deal with the philosophical roots of, of wokeness and it doesn't deal with the philosophical question about free speech or the philosophical questions around racism and discrimination, the philosophical questions around postmodernism and why critical race theory or critical theory and why any of this could come to the forefront. It deals with the legal political issues. All right. So, why are you here? I mean, this is Anna Amm who is, who comes on and asks inside-objectivism questions to try to antagonize me and to try to try to stir up the pot to create more fury. And she comes on to insult, so here's her insulting question. Like we didn't know you'd cook up an excuse to de-cuse DeSantis or anyone else who fights the left. DeSantis is not fighting the left. DeSantis is fighting free speech. DeSantis is fighting for authoritarian power. DeSantis in his latest bill that basically would penalize social media for, for dumping a politician is basically, basically, you know, declaring politicians special. He has everything that the constitution of the United States is not. He has everything that the founders were not. Yes, he's a, just based on this one bill. He's a bad guy. This is a bad, bad, bad bill. This is not fighting the left. This is buying into the left's premises and accelerating authoritarianism. Have you ever declared any Democrat disqualified for president? Yeah, all of them basically. Have I ever liked a Democrat as president? No. Have I ever endorsed a Democrat for president? No. Have I ever thought a Democrat was qualified to be president? No. But because I was anti-Trump, and because now I guess I'm anti-DeSantis, at least on this one issue, I am a lover of the left, obviously. God get a brain, Ann. All right. So let's go back to, let's go back to Richard Hananya, who's, this is, this is quite, this is quite, again, an excellent article. All right. So he wants the first, he wants the first to find, and you got to give credit to anybody who first wants to describe what it is that he's talking about. He says, what is it that defines or describes Wokeness? So he says he thinks there are three components to Wokeness, three components. The first component is, and I'm quoting the article, I believe that any disparities in outcome favoring whites or males over non-whites, over women are caused by discrimination. So the idea that inequality of outcome is, can only be caused by discrimination. That's point number one in Wokeness, and he acknowledges that he's not here dealing with all the other issues like LGBTQ and so on. He's just sticking to the main ones, race and sex. Number two, so that's one. Any disparities of outcome, any outcome, that there's disparities between races or sexes has to be because of discrimination. Number two, the speech of those who would argue against this number one, the speech that would argue against discrimination is always being the cause, should be restricted, should be banned, in the interest of overcoming the disparities. And of course, we have to, we have to take care of the emotional state of those who might be offended by anything we might say. So the safety and emotional war being of the so-called victimized group, the group that outcomes are less of and therefore must be discriminated against. And number three, we must create bureaucracies that reflect point one and point two. So the bureaucracies that are working through the law, through the legal system or through the private system, we'll see how this affects the private world, to overcome disparities and manage, manages a nice word, manage speech and social relations so that people don't get offended and so that we can keep the workplace such that people can overcome these disparities. They don't have to give in to it. Now, I think this is a great breakdown, right? So the first is all discriminate, all disparities are caused by discrimination. Second is you can't claim otherwise. You cannot claim otherwise. Speech that claims otherwise, arguments that claim otherwise, should be banned. And three, we need to establish bureaucracies in the public and private sector in order to make sure the disparities don't exist anymore and that we cannot speak about them to the extent that they do exist. Or we cannot speak about them or assign causes to them that are not about discrimination to the extent that they continue to exist. And I know that all of this is how the world culture works, right? There's a difference in, I don't know, we talked about education and walkness. There's a difference in test results between black kids and white kids. It must be discrimination. But maybe it has something to do with what? With the quality of the schools. Oh, you can't say that. That's insulting to the schools. And even if it is the quality of the schools, the quality of the schools are determined by discrimination. And if you don't believe that, because science doesn't show that, then we don't want to hear you, you're obviously a racist, be quiet, and we're going to silence you. Walkness in healthcare, different outcomes in healthcare, different achieving different things in healthcare, that must be because of discrimination between men, women, doctors, maybe of different races. That must be discrimination. We must silence and we must build bureaucracies to stop this. Now, this sounds new and you could, walkness seems to be people want to date walkness to around 2010. It seems like the people who look into this kind of the history of walkness attribute the rise of walkness to the internet and to social media. The speed at which it happens, the easy silencing, the cancer culture can happen over social media. Maybe that's true. But the fact is that all of these attributes, the discrimination, the silencing, the bureaucracy, all can be traced back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on race and gender. And Congress, at that time, basically thought, well, this will basically remove explicit discrimination, intended discrimination, and it'll be easy and we'll get over it. And that's it. Courts and regulators since 1964 have basically expanded the concept of non-discrimination to mean almost anything that advantages one group over another. So, well before cancer culture, well before white fragility and white guilt, the idea that discrimination could apply to any advantaged group or disadvantaged group was already starting to be instituted into law. In a watershed case, it's called Griggs versus Duke Power in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that intelligent tests, because they were not shown to be directly related to job performance, could not be used in hiring since blacks go lower on them. And it did not matter whether there was any intent to discriminate. So from 1971 on, it doesn't matter in your hiring practice whether you intend to discriminate. The only thing that matters is is the outcome unbalanced. This is called the doctrine, the doctrine of disparate impact. That is, if a particular rule, a particular test, a particular activity, results in disparate impact. That is, this results in different outcomes. It is by definition discriminatory and must be banned. So, for example, criminal background checks, it turns out, disproportionately prevent blacks from being hired because they tend to have more criminal offenses, more crime sheets. This is a case that the Trump administration settled with dollar generals for six million dollars. So even the Trump administration basically litigated this. The Obama administration went after scores for disciplining black and white students at different rates. It didn't turn out very well. Police departments, fire departments, other institutions use gender norm tests, you know, gender norm tests, tests that both men and women can pass, so that the test cannot be accused of discriminating. I'm sure the criminals, the criminals can be relied on, you know, Richard Wright to go easy on female cops on account of their sex. So the idea is that the law, the law that we live with, the law that we've been living with for 50 years, basically says that if a test you give results in disparate outcomes, you are then guilty of discrimination and you can be sued in courts and in the court as the lawsuit of the Trump administration, again, dollar against dollar general shows. And there is a financial cost to this. Now, once this was in place, this of course started to expand beyond government into the private sector. Initially it was just, it kind of applied to government, but it started expanding into the private sector. Executive order, 11246. I didn't even know this was an executive order, but this is an executive order, 11246. Signed by President Johnson, right? So 1967, eight. It required all government contractors and subcontractors who did over $10,000 in government business to quote and notice the language, take affirmative action. This is where the concept of affirmative action comes from. Take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex was actually added later in 1969, Richard Nixon, a Republican, signed executive order 11478, which forced affirmative action onto the federal government itself. So from 1969, affirmative action applies to the government and to basically all of government contractors. Now, what does, what is discriminating, right? What does it mean that employees be treated during employment without regard to their race? How do we tell? Well, again, we look at outcomes. We look at outcomes. Affirmative action assumed that but for discrimination, statistical parity among racial and ethnic groups would be the norm. So if you take out discrimination, if they're 40% blacks in the population in a particular city and 40% whites and 20% Hispanics, then that would be, that would be their distribution in every job in that community. And if it's not, then the cause must be discrimination. Affirmative action says, if the burden is on you, the employer, to show that you made every effort to match that demographic. So here you see the government instituting into the legal system and therefore into the culture and into behaviors of businesses. The idea that outcome is what matters, not your intent, not whether you actually discriminated or not, but what matters is outcome. And if the outcome isn't even on matching the population, then you have discriminated and you are liable. 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, wins 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 roads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who like it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes, but if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show you support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on when they're on. You'll get notified. So yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.