 And they're very similar to the white supremacists' ideas. And you see this. You see this in what is called, you know, in the way people have treated them. In a 1619 project, which basically says America was founded on slavery, that the defining characteristic of America is slavery. That everything about America is essentially racist. That that is the true American project. That the Declaration of Independence is meaningless. The idea that America is systematically racist. That America is a white supremacist project from the start. You know, this Wesley Lowry, a journalist, wrote in the Atlantic magazine, the justice system, in fact, the entire American experiment was from its inception designed to perpetuate racial inequality. In spite of the words, all men are created equal in the Declaration of Independence. Now, I'm not denying here slavery. I'm not denying the horror of slavery. But the solution is not to throw out, to throw out everything good about America because of a sin in its founding. The solution is to remedy the sin by returning to the principles of equality. Not equality of groups, not equality of races, but equality of individuals. So this whole new view, I'm reading here from an article by Andrew Sullivan, is there still room for debate? He says, it seems America, as in its essence, not about its essence, it's not about freedom but oppression. It argues this idea, this new anti-racism, white fragility, whatever you want to call it, argues in fact that all ideals about individual liberty, religious freedom, limited government, and equality of all human beings were always afforded to cover for the unjustified and entrench the enslavement of human beings under the fiction of race. It wasn't that these values competed with the poison of slavery and eventually overcame it in an epic, bloody civil war whose casualties were overwhelmingly white. It's that the liberal system, liberal here in the positive sense, in the classical liberal sense, is itself a form of white supremacy, which is why racial inequality endures and why liberalism's core values and institutions cannot be reformed and can only be dismantled. This is the dismantling of capitalism, the dismantling of the American system of government, the dismantling of freedom. Now this runs counter to factual reality, counter to the existence today, counter to the fact that, you know, and again, there are racist voices in this country and they're getting more and more powerful, unfortunately, on the racist voices who are white. I mean, we've talked about the racist voices among minorities, but the racist voices on the right. But this country, almost all its immigrants today, 82% of immigrants are non-white. The middle class and upper class among, is growing significantly among minority populations. We had Obama as president for two terms. This racist country voted for black man as president. And you could go on and on and on, mayors, governors, members of Congress, academics, high culture that is defined by African Americans. So the whole, this whole issue is, they're making it up out of nowhere. They're making themselves victims. And yes, some of them are. But they're ignoring everything that goes against their narrative of oppression. In yesterday's, not yesterday's, but June 12th, when was June 12th? Was that yesterday? Yeah. Well, no. Well, I don't know. Recently in the New York Times, let's see, what day was it? Yeah, June 10th, two days ago in the New York Times. There's a whole story about how whites, whites dominate economics. Now I scratch my head because I, you know, I go to economic conferences and stuff like that. And it never occurred to me to look and see what race the people there were. I guess I'm a racist because I don't concern myself with race. I'm denying my own racism. The attack was against, specifically the article attacks at University of Chicago professor, Harold Ulig, who is a German origin, who criticized the Black Lives Matter organization on Twitter and equated its members with flat earthers. It's not a bad description. Over the embrace of calls to defund police departments. And oh my God, the uproar. He is an editor of one of the top economics journals. And there's an uproar. They wanted to get rid of him as editor. And there is a big call for where all the black economists, why don't we have more black economists? Why don't we have more black, why are there no black professors in the economic department at Chicago or they must all be racist there? This is nuts. I don't know why there are no black, there are not a lot, more black economics professors. I don't know what the number is. I don't know what the number is relative to population, relative to college educated blacks. I don't know. Who cares? Is anybody stopping them from getting an education in economics? I very much doubt it. Indeed, affirmative action encourages universities to accept blacks, top universities. Maybe PhD programs oppress. No, again, government programs, all kinds of government penalties are focused on government programs and departmental programs and university programs that increase diversity among PhDs in PhD programs. For some reason, not enough blacks are getting into PhD programs and they're finding jobs in economics. I don't understand it, but I don't really see why anybody should care, unless you could find actual racism. But let me tell you a story, a personal one. So when I finished my PhD in finance, this was in 1993. I was coming out of the University of Texas, a good program. Typically, in a typical year, there are many more jobs in those days. There were many more jobs than there were positions, so it was easy to get a job, except 1993. In 1993, it was just coming out of a recession and there were major cuts at universities. And there were very, very few jobs that year available for graduating PhDs in finance. Now, I was the only one out of the University of Texas that year to get a job. So I had very few interviews that year, you know, the way you get a job in academia is you interview at conferences and then you get invited to the university to give a talk in front of the department that's going to hire you. And then they either offer you the job or not. I don't think I've ever told this story publicly. Anyway, so I went and I had very few interviews. But the one interview I had, I really liked, it was with Santa Clara University, was in California. I wanted to go to California. California was one of the top places I wanted to land up in. And the interview went really well. The professor interviewed me, happened to be Israeli, and he liked me, I liked him. And then they invited me to the campus to give a talk. Oh, great sign. I'm on the shortlist because not a lot of people are invited to come and give a talk. I go give a talk and that goes well. I've never been so nervous in my life. I literally did not sleep the entire night before. I remember I'm a student. I have no money. I have two little kids. If I don't get a job, I go back to Israel or something. I don't know what I do. So here I am. I do the presentation. I do well. And on the way to the airport, the guy says, look, we've actually got two positions this year. We're having two people. And you're definitely one of the two people we want to hire. There's no question. There's just one guy we want to hire ahead of you. He's got better credentials and we liked him better. Right? And once we hire him and he accepts, you're next. But you know what? He says to me, I don't think he's going to accept because he comes from a really good program and he had a really good advisor and he's probably going to get lots of offers. Now, it was such a crummy year that year that this guy, his name is, let's call him Robert, accepted, accepted the offer. And it was the best offer he got. And he also, I think, wanted to be in California and he accepted. Robert's become one of my best friends. We have a business together, my hedge fund. He is my partner in the hedge fund, but he got the job. He headed me. And then I got a call and they said, yeah, you're going to be next. Just wait. Be patient. You're going to be next. So I don't hear. I hear Robert's got the job. And I don't hear for two weeks. Nothing. And you know, again, I'm sitting there with two little kids. My wife can't work because we're in student visas. Some minimal income. And this is my only job offer. My only job opportunity is this one university, Santa Clara University. And they call me as I call them. I say, what's up? You know, this is terrible. And he says, chairman of the department says to me, look, there's this black woman. There's this black woman on the market. You know, it's not like we really want her. We want you more. But she's a black woman. And these initiatives for diversity, and we can't not offer the job. I mean, that would be, I mean, the university would fire all of us. I mean, they'd be really upset. So we have to, we have to offer the job first. But he said, don't worry. Everybody's going to offer her the job. Every university out there is going to compete for her. We're not going to get her. So just hold tight. So I said, okay, you know, I get it. So I wait and I wait and I wait. And then I hear that she got a job at Ohio State University. I think it was Ohio State. She said, okay, this is, they will wait. She, you know, she wouldn't take the job. Again, I'm sitting on pins and needles here. But they're still not calling me. So I call them back and he says, look, we love you. But the dean or the chancellor who was a Jesuit priest, they didn't feel like you levitated. You weren't passionate enough. You weren't excited enough. And there's this other guy that you like more. And we have to offer him the job. Guy out of North Carolina. So now I think, okay, I've lost this job. And I start looking for the work, which does not go well. Anyway, this guy gets two offers. One from Santa Clara and one from Iowa State. And I go, well, I lost the job because nobody in his right mind would go to Iowa State. But no, he accepts the job in Iowa State and does not go to Santa Clara. So now it's like, it's my turn, right? Like everybody, they've gone through everybody. So I call him up. I say, what's going on? He says, yeah, I mean, we've always wanted you, Yvonne. And this is not May. This has been going on. This is May. This has been going on from, I went to campus on January. This is four months, four and a half months. And I don't know what I'm going to do, right? I'm literally thinking about going back to Israel. So they say, you're it. You'll probably get a call tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. And I don't get a call. I don't get a call. So I call him up and I say, what's up? And he says, well, they don't believe you can teach. They don't think you can teach. You're not going to be a good teacher. So, you know, if you've got any evidence that you can teach, send it. And then he says, but Yvonne, that's not the real reason they don't want you. I said, what's going on? He said, look, the department wants you. There's no question. We love you. We don't want you. It's the administration. It's the people higher up in the university. It's the Jesuits. They said, why don't they want me? And he says, because you're a Jew. I said, what are you talking about? He said, there are too many Jews in the department. He said, we've got two Jews in the department. The department at the time I think was 506. We've got two Jews in the department. We've got a Korean. We've got an Indian. And now we just hired Robert who's white. And they don't want another Jew. That would make three Jews in the department, two Israelis. He said, if you don't get this job, you should sue them. But in the meantime, get all the documents proving you're a good teacher that you can teach and we'll see what you can do. I'm going to buy one teaching awards, a number of teaching awards at the university once I got there. Anyway, I put it all together. I sent it over a week later. They offered me the job. I took the job because it was all I had. I was ready to tell them to go to hell. But I liked the people in the department. They were all good people. It was the administration, the evil Jesuits. Who, by the way, in the interview, in my interview, job interview, the Jesuits who were rabid leftists, asked me what I thought about the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a job interview for finance position. So I've seen this. I've seen this. And yes, I almost didn't get a job because everybody is so eager to get a black woman, in particular, but black generally, into finance and into economics, that they don't go by quality, by preference. They go by color, of the skin. Given the advantages that blacks have in economics, or in finance, or in academia, why they're not more black economists, I don't know. I don't really care. As Mr. Erling writes, they forced him to write an apology. He says, discrimination and racism is wrong. Good for him. I would love to have more black economists and then he puts in parenthesis. Or is it Afro-American economists? Good, because I don't know how you're supposed to say that. Among our undergraduate students, PhD students and faculty, it is my impression that the good ones are highly sought after. Yes, they are. We also have very few American Indians, among our colleagues. We need to find good ways to change these numbers. What are good ways? What are good ways? And then the article, the New York Times, then the article says, economics has a history of discrimination and in some cases outright racism. And they call George Stigler, a noble lotterate and an early leader of the American Economics Association, also, I think, a Chicago professor, who criticized the civil rights movement in 1962 and wrote that African-Americans' disadvantages in the labor market stemmed in part from their inferiority as a worker. Now, he's an economist. Maybe they were. He says lacking education, for example. And then he says they write in this article, a few scholars today would use such language. But the ideas persist. Economic journals are still filled with papers that emphasize differences. Think of this. The absurdity in economics journals to emphasize differences when looking at labor markets in education, upbringing, or even IQ, rather than discrimination of structural barriers. Maybe because it is differences in education, upbringing, or even IQ that matter for individuals, in particular jobs. How is education not relevant in jobs? How is upbringing not relevant in jobs? How is intelligence, put aside IQ as a measure, intelligence not relevant in jobs? But these are signs of racism. If you dare to say that some people, because they don't have a good education, don't have good jobs, that's racism. What you should be looking at is looking for discrimination and structural problems. It is... I've already gone 52 minutes on this topic. Oh, my God. Anyway, it's absurd and it is ridiculous and it is time to rise up against these racists of the left. It's time to declare ourselves as the anti-racist. To declare collectivism as evil and disgusting. To treat people as members of groups, negating the individuality is disgusting. To negate for the leftist racist, to ally themselves with the white supremacists by placing race and by placing the group, the collective as primary is disgusting. So it's a time to put both the racist of the left and the racist of the right into one category. It's called racism. They are all racists. You should not identify as being whites or brown or black or yellow or green. You should not identify as being Tom or Harry or George or Amal or Iran or whatever. You treat people as individuals with a mind. A mind that's been shaped by their own will. By their own choices, by their own values, by their own free will. Not by their genes and their race and their environment. Show. I don't know how you show it because it's so ridiculous on its face, but a ridiculousness of white fragility and anti-the new anti-racist and all of this garbage which just institutionalizes racism into everything. What we need is individualism and capitalism. And what's happening today is that all this white fragility and anti-racism are all used to destroy free speech, the ability to express ourselves by guilting us into not talking, by silencing us, by getting us off of the pages of the New York Times. 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. 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.