 Good afternoon everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for coming. It's great to meet old friends and make new ones. I would like to thank Professor Hopper and Gildsinn for inviting me to this wonderful conference. We can only underestimate the enormous work and dedication that goes into organizing this, I think, and it's because of their kindness and intellectual curiosity and hospitality that we can enjoy each other's company and learn from each other. I'm going to talk about a sensitive topic, discrimination. Is any one of you maybe a snowflake? Maybe easily offended? Well, if you are, good luck. It's not only a sensitive topic. It's only also a hot one because virtually all democratic presidential nominees can't stop talking about it. Joe Biden said, racism has been built into every aspect of our lives. And Bernie Sanders stated, we will go to war against racism in every aspect of our lives. And we all know that politicians are very wise people. So am I a madman to defend prejudice and the right to discriminate? Well, not really. I will argue that prejudice actually serves a very useful social and economic function. And I will also explain why anti-discrimination policies are counterproductive. Nowadays, if you imitate a foreign accent or tell a sexist joke or mention a group difference or refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it seems like it's a capital offense. And it's the prelude to hatred and violence. If you say something discriminatory, even if it was 20 years ago and even if it was a joke or it was in private, you can become toast. No matter how many fluffy white baby seals you might have saved in your life, you can become a non-person. And of course, you try to desperately save your reputation by stating your non-racist credentials like, no, I could never be a racist because I listen to rap music. But you are irredeemable. It's like a modern inquisition. Expressing a discriminatory opinion can result in a fine or a cost to your job. And social media sites can delete your account if you state, for instance, that transgender men are still women. And countries can deny you entry for discriminatory statements. You can even end up in jail like happened in South Africa with a two-year sentence. I'm certain that many of you might have felt guilt about your own discrimination, maybe or your own preconceived idea and your preferences. And maybe you feel silenced because people have called you a racist or a sexist or a homophobe. Well, I hope this talk will boost your confidence. Earlier this year, I published The Discrimination Myth, a book that debunks 14 myths regarding prejudice, exclusion, equality, and segregation. And it's very un-PC, but remarkably, people haven't gotten angry at me. So I think I must be doing something wrong. The English edition is for sale here at the lobby. And I would like to hardly thank Aaron Carlons here present. Where are you, Aaron? Ah, there. For being so kind as to proofread the book. So what actually is discrimination? People associated with everything that is evil, like hate and violence, xenophobia, misogyny, calling people names, etc. The official definition, however, suggests something far less evil. Unjust distinction, or to exclude someone on the basis of group characteristics or irrelevant traits. But that's a bit vague, isn't it? I mean, what seems unjust to me might be perfectly reasonable for you. I want to be clear that by defending the right of individuals and companies to discriminate, I don't defend government discrimination like apartheid or Jim Crow laws. And I neither want to belittle all discrimination. It can be very hurtful and stupid and immoral. And also I acknowledge that some people experience far more discrimination than others. However, for freedom-loving people like ourselves, freedom of association is essential. And to exclude someone should be legal for any reason at any time, at any place. Although it may be morally wrong sometimes. It should not be forbidden. For you don't need a good reason to not associate with someone. Actually, you don't need a reason at all. That is what liberty is about. The anti-discrimination laws in our egalitarian culture have created an increasingly totalitarian and hypersensitive society in which the government interferes in our decisions with whom we want to associate with, who to hire, who to fire, and what salaries we pay, to whom we sell to, what non-stereotyping advertisements are allowed, and to whom we allow access to at our event or venue. It has also limited our freedom of speech and has created an increasingly humorless society, I think. Let me give you some examples. The restaurant chain Hooters is known for its scantily-clad waitresses. And that's why they're also called restaurants. And years back it was sentenced to pay no less than three million dollars for the horrible crime of hiring young women, only hiring young women. And in another case, a Christian dating website was fined because it didn't facilitate gay dating, horrible. A Christian baker was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. And 50 years ago most people would consider this totalitarian, but now it's reality. And recently in Canada, Jessica Yaniv filed no less than 29 discrimination complaints to a human rights tribunal against various waxing parlors. Jessica is a self-identified transgender woman who requested a Brazilian wax and was refused. The thing is that Jessica still has the family jewels dangling and unsurprisingly the ladies refuse to treat his testicles. Well, I prefer his. George Orwell once said, some ideas are so absurd that only intellectuals believe them. And indeed, many progressive intellectuals think that any group disparity in societal outcomes is a sure sign of discrimination and marginalization. For instance, if company CEOs are predominantly male this is because women are discriminated against. And if average black income is lower than whites, this is because whites discriminate against blacks. Same goes for the disparities regarding Oscar winners of Wimbledon prize money, the works of art in museums, everything. However, everyone can easily observe that groups differ in talent and motivation or circumstances. Provided you have two eyes to see and the same number of brain cells. Take talent. Men and women are about equally intelligent on average but men wildly outperform women on IQ tests at the genius level. So that might explain why men dominate in science and mathematics and engineering. Or take motivation and intelligence in science and mathematics and engineering. Or take motivation. According to research done by the dating website OKCupid men tend to favor beauty and youth in females whereas women appreciate the income and professional status of men. Nothing new here, I think. There is this not-so-tellent Dutch actress, Tatiana Chimik who still enjoyed her successful movie career and in a recent interview she explained the secret of her success. She said, I would have been a hairdresser and not an actress if it weren't for my big boobs. True to stereotypes, she hooked up with a multimillionaire 15 years her senior and feminists complain that women are often regarded as sex objects but they forget to point out that men are often considered success objects and therefore are more motivated than women to excel and earn a high income. And for women it means that a career enhancement sometimes implies a breast enhancement. Different outcomes might also be the result of differences in circumstances. Did you know that sharks are horribly sexist? Anyone know? Well, according to the international shark attack file, more than 90% of all shark attack victims are male and those horrible sharks are even racist too because 95% of their victims is white. This is definitive proof of blatant sexism and racism. I think the most plausible explanation is, however, that white males swim with the fish more often. So not all differences in outcome are due to discrimination. But discrimination is still rampant. Suppose you approach a dark alley on your way home at night we have all experienced something similarized and you notice a group of strangers standing there and it matters for everyone whether there are four skinheads standing there or four old ladies in floral dresses. Even if your name is Bernie Sanders, you know you're fighting a war against discrimination and you will discriminate on age and sex and appearance. And in the case of skinheads, Bernie will probably take a detour and with the elderly ladies he might run towards them. So why then is it evil when employers use the same logic? So it's inescapable and prudential to discriminate, to have prejudice. If it didn't exist, I would invent it. I would say I have found this wonderful thing and I call it prejudice. And what you do is if you have limited information on someone new and you need to decide whether to engage or not, then you project alleged group characteristics on that individual and your decisions will improve dramatically. You know, it's fantastic. It can be used for advertising and combating crime and hiring personnel and disease prevention. And it's all free. So nowhere else exists such blatant and open discrimination as on dating sites. I don't know if you've ever noticed that. But on their profiles, individuals shamelessly list their demands and wishes regarding age and height and weight and education and appearance. And small men who date are often immediately excluded by many women, even though they may possess very practical skills and maybe great lovers. Traditionally, gays complain about discrimination by heterosexuals. This is a bit ironic because on gay dating websites the men shamelessly express their preferences. No fetties, no feminine types, etc. And with the culinary codes, the men indicated who need not reply. So no rice, that's Asians. Or no spice, Latinos. No curry, that's Indian men. And you can probably guess what no chocolate means. Well, do these men hate these groups? Are they eligible for a Ku Klux Klan membership? I don't think so. Generally discrimination doesn't equate hatred. We all judge and exclude people on their sex and ethnicity and religion. And therefore I think we are in a way all racist and sexist if the term means anything at all. We also like to hang out with people like ourselves. Is that wrong? This is an example. Nobody complains that yoga practitioners generally don't get drunk with Hell's Angels. And you don't see nuns who stage-dive with heart rockers, do we? So even discriminate against groups we are a part of. Since men are far more crime-prone than women I at least discriminate against men to stay safe. But if I would hire a personal guard I would probably discriminate in favor of men. Even the American black civil rights activist Jesse Jackson once said there is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved. It was a confession he might regret. Regarding crime, by the way there are a lot of complaints about ethnic profiling certainly in the Netherlands where I come from. Already age and gender profiling is a very useful tool to combat crime. You know, if the police hunts down a serial killer they don't start off by aggressively interrogating the old ladies at the pensioner's home, do they? So it's very hard not to discriminate or not to use discriminatory speech. Even progressive struggle with it, which is often funny. For instance, right after the Star Wars actress Carrie Fisher died that's not the funny part, that's the sad part. The comedian Steve Martin kindly tweeted when I was a young man Carrie Fisher was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. She turned out to be witty and bright as well. Well, I'm sure you and I can't find anything wrong with that statement. But feminists were outraged. It was sexist because he mentioned her beauty prior to her talent. The horror. So what do you think Martin did? He humbly apologized and deleted the tweet. And for us this can be a source of great joy, I think. All these two gooders who compete on being tolerant and politically correct and still eat their own. It might be the cure for depression. So even giving compliments can get you in trouble. When doing the wrong thing, however, you have to be egalitarian too. Charlie Rose, the famous American television journalist, was accused of sexual harassment in 2017 by female staff members. And the remarkable thing was that he was criticized by a black female staff member because he had only harassed white women, which proved that Charlie was a racist. So my advice to you is, you know, if you plan to harass women, I oppose it. Don't do it. Disclaim it, disclaim it, disclaim it. But please be inclusive about it. Or better, even harass men too. No, not yet animals and plants. Yes. You might think that the left never intentionally discriminates. They would never be hypocrites, would they? Well, progressive media outlets happily engage in racism and sexism. And there are thousands of examples, and I'll give you some highlights. In 2018, the renowned newspaper, The Washington Post, featured an opinion article titled, Why Can't We Hate Men? And this was not satire. It was not even a clickbait. And Time Magazine published an article like, Why Women Are Better at Everything? Hmm, I didn't know that. And the popular online magazine Buzzfeed tops that. In 2014, visitors could read about 29 things white people ruined. In 2018, that number rose to 37 things white people need to stop ruining. And I wonder what the number is this year. And the black actor Jamie Foxx once joked, I killed all the white people in the movie. How great is that? I think it's an okay joke, but no public outrage. However, if the colors were reversed, Jamie Foxx would instantly have even fewer job opportunities. than a student of the liberal arts. A few hundred meters from my home is a ladies-only fitness club, but they never get sued. If they would substitute ladies only with men only, or whites only, it would cause an international outrage. And did feminists ever protest against the injustice of the draft, which enslaves millions of men to be cannon fodder? They like to complain about too few women in higher positions, but fail to argue for gender parity, for garbage collectors, sewage workers, homeless people, etc. And suppose we could turn this hypocrisy into food. There would be no hunger left in this world, I think. What few people realize is that anti-discrimination laws are actually counterproductive. Take the following case. A Muslim woman, Samantha Isla from Oklahoma, had a job interview with the fashion company Abercrombie & Fitch. And she was passed over for the job because she wore a hat scarf. And the fashion company employs strict dress codes for its sales representatives. And Samantha filed a lawsuit for religious discrimination and was awarded no less than $20,000 for economic and emotional damages. However, these rulings have unintended consequences. Companies will probably respond to this by avoiding candidates with Arabic-sounding names. And if people are prohibited to discriminate on a specific characteristic, they will discriminate more broadly. So because of anti-discrimination laws, Muslims like Samantha are now considered walking lawsuits. They might gain the right to demand halal food in the canteen, or prayer breaks, or not serving alcohol, etc. But by the way, I don't want to pick on Muslims, of course, certainly not here in Turkey. It's just a good example. So due to anti-discrimination laws, white, heterosexual, non-religious males have become the most appreciated job candidates for companies. Coincidentally, that's something like me. Well, you run less risk of discrimination complaints and lawsuits, and of course, no company will admit this. They will publicly pay lip service to the whole community of diversity and inclusivity and equality. If I would sue for discrimination, I would become a laughing stock. I'm the embodiment of an oppressor. People would say, you're a sissy, you grow some pair. If the government was serious, however, about reducing discrimination, it would embrace individual liberty and the free market. First, it would abolish all anti-discrimination legislation, because, like I explained, it's counterproductive. Secondly, all affirmative action laws should be abolished, and this needs no further explanation here, I think. In the Netherlands, it's called positive discrimination. But for me, it doesn't feel so positive. And thirdly, abolish all laws that indirectly foster discrimination. I'll give a few examples. The minimum wage forces company to exclude the low-skilled and inexperienced, often minorities. Employers are mandated to pay sick leave, and this forces them to discriminate against sickly, disabled, older or obese people. And landlords must accommodate for the religious customs of their tenants. The Canadian landlord had to pay no less than $12,000 because he didn't take his shoes off when entering the tenant's room. So landlords will tend to exclude certain religious groups, like Muslims. There are many more of these laws, and therefore you could argue that the state causes more discrimination than all the angry white men combined. Well, I'm not really angry, I'm just disappointed. So in conclusion, prejudice and generalizations are indispensable and can serve a useful social and economic function. In essence, it's about avoiding people, optimizing choices, not about violence. It's not necessarily about hate, either. Anti-discrimination legislation is an insult to liberty and it's incompatible with a free society. It's totalitarian. It ruins company and it creates a polarized society, divided into oppressed and oppressor classes, a society where people compete in the oppression Olympics. No, I'm more oppressed than you, and you have no right to speak. No, no, you both shut up, for I am black and gay and female. So the anti-discrimination movement is interested in equality and not so much in quality. For them, people need to be selected on the basis of their characteristics, not their achievements or capabilities. And their ideology is neither about equality before the law, but about equal outcomes. And they talk about tolerance, but they do not mean our idea of tolerance, namely to live and let live, but forced association and government coercion, the obligation to associate with someone, even when that other person considers herself a cat, like the Norwegian woman Nano. I don't know if you know her. She doesn't really exist. Suppose you run a cat grooming service and Nano comes in, gonna have some service. So we cannot improve society, I think, by forcing people to associate with each other. In fact, the best medicine against hate and social conflict is the freedom to avoid each other. And I hope that you will no longer be intimidated and muzzled by accusations of racism and sexism and homophobia. I think our opponents have newly defined and stretched these terms to use it as a weapon to shut everyone up who doesn't agree with their egalitarian ideology. And their political power is, therefore, far greater than their numbers justify. You don't have to feel guilty if you have preferences and prejudices and you don't have to apologize for it. You can still be polite and kind to people. And I suggest we oppose the anti-discrimination activists with the inconsistency of their arguments and their opportunistic hypocrisy and their selective outrage, their willful ignorance, their shameless virtue signaling, let's fight for our birthright to free association, to decide for ourselves who we deal and trade with, to live in peace with whoever we like to on the basis of mutual agreement. Thank you.