 Today May 40 here I am not proud of what I'm going to share with you but I feel like we've established such a close relationship that I can open up and I can tell you where I fall on short. Like if I fall off the wagon I feel that we have built this container right this is a safe place for both of us to share and if I fall off the wagon I can tell you and I gotta tell you now I've been experiencing so much anxiety about Joe Biden installing fascism in the United States. I was listening to Tucker Carlson last night apparently Joe Biden is just going to crush his opponents and install fascism in the United States that there's going to be a Department of Truth at Homeland Security. We're no longer going to have the First Amendment. I mean Tucker Carlson has got me so worked up. I'm feeling so much anxiety and insecurity and fear like everything that I held sacred is just tumbling down all around me. And so I spent the whole day acting out on Tinder not proud of this whatsoever. I mean I met a wonderful 18 year old girl very mature for her age just just lives a mile away and I feel like today we went through like all the storm and drag and intensity of a like a 30 year relationship but we just packed it into one day and I gotta admit I was a little bit compulsive. I wasn't always the the courtly Victorian gentleman that you've come to expect. And after the ups and downs of this relationship I've come to a conclusion and it's a conclusion that I feel like I can best express to you not through interpretive dance. I know you're saying oh 40 he's about to erupt into an interpretive dance to express fascism in the United States but no not through interpretive dance it's a unique musical composition that I have composed right for the didgeridoo and it's called loving you isn't the right thing to do. So this is comes from a very vulnerable part of myself. Thank you for receiving this offering that I'm presenting to you in the spirit in which it's intended. Okay here we go loving you isn't the right thing to do. Oh and then I met my friend's wife on Tinder today and that was awkward. And so the only way that I really know how to deal with my feelings about that awkwardness is to write them out in musical form. So this is a special composition for the didgeridoo it's called loving you really isn't the right thing to do. Wow and then there was that that that young woman who I don't believe that she's even legally allowed to be on Tinder like something's wrong there and I mean I didn't I didn't break the law God forbid I didn't break God's law natural law or the law of the state but when I think back on it and if these messages come to light then the only way that I really have to express my feelings about this awkward situation is to express them in a silly little love song so I've called this loving you really really isn't the right thing to do. I hope you appreciate it. Oh man I feel so much better now I just I just had to get that off my chest because I've just been freaking out and acting out on Tinder and frankly it's all Tucker Carlson's fault man and this video is titled and I think he's absolutely right this is the point where we have to draw the line. Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight when Elon Musk first announced that he was buying Twitter it was pretty obvious the Democratic Party would soon become unhinged not just angry or annoyed in the way you're very used to but instead legitimately terrified and hysterical imagine how you'd feel if an armed intruder broke into your home at three in the morning you couldn't exactly know where things were going but you'd be dead certain that everything was at stake that's how Democrats feel right now because in fact everything is at stake. Joe Biden cannot continue to control this country. Wow you can see why I'm so anxious guys this is why I've been acting out on Tinder I mean everything is at stake. Did you get that? Everything is at stake. Tree if you have free access to information it's that simple. Biden certainly is not improving your life he's not even trying to improve your life so the best he can do is lie to you and demand that you believe it but to do that he needs to make certain that nobody else can talk because if you were to hear the truth you might not obey. How is Biden going to pull that off it's not easy. Well one option would be to get men with guns to tell you to shut up. Most Americans probably haven't thought of that because this isn't Africa or Eastern Europe this is America and we don't do things like that here and never have. More precisely we haven't until now but now Joe Biden is president and everything is different so today to herald the coming of the new soviet america the administration's everything this will be called the disinformation governance board laugh if you want but just to show you they're not kidding around here this board is not part of the state department or any other agency focused on foreign threats from abroad no the disinformation governance board is part of the department of homeland security dhs is a law enforcement agency designed to police the united states and that by the way has a famously large stockpile of ammunition so it's not a joke at all here's dhs secretary alahandra mayorkas we have just established a missing disinformation governance board in the department of homeland security to more effectively combat this threat not only to election security but to our homeland security oh see i've been freaking out guys our homeland security is at risk i mean no wonder that i've been acting out so one of america's top law enforcement officers just announced to the congress that actually were going to be policing what you say and everyone in the room kind of nods oh yeah it's totally normal but here's what he didn't say so america's told us that disinformation is a threat to homeland security now he's the head of the department of homeland security so presumably he would know since assessing threats to homeland security is his job but what he didn't tell us is how he's defining disinformation so here you have this new and terrifying thing that the by the administration is so concerned about that it's created a new agency to fight it but mayorkas never said or even hinted as to what it might be so the man in charge of the disinformation governing board never defined disinformation oh no it's almost unbelievable when you think about it would you declare war on a country you couldn't name would you send someone to death for a crime you couldn't well see you wouldn't you wouldn't get this kind of perspective anywhere else but on talker call submit everything is at stake here describe of course you wouldn't not if you were saying a decent person because you can't have justice without precise definitions no justice no peace no justice no peace that's why we have very large books of law that define what is allowed and what is not but they're not defining the core concept at the heart of what is effectively a new law enforcement agency that's because mayorkas doesn't want justice and neither is the president he serves they want power and to get power they plan to control what you think watch oh no we have so many different efforts underway to equip local communities to identify individuals who very well could be descending into violence by reason of ideologies of hate false narratives or other disinformation and misinformation propagated on social media and other platforms well oh did you know that so one of our biggest law enforcement agencies has men with guns around the country doing so many things oh no disinformation and false narratives those aren't even lies they're just deviations from the approved script mayorkas told us why would they leave our free speech alone guys why would they leave the first amendment alone why would they leave our thinking alone guys leave our freedoms alone it's again that men with guns plan to quote identify individuals who could be descending into violence could be descending not people who've committed violence or even been accused of any crime at all dhs is instead using law enforcement powers to identify and punish people who think the wrong things that would be opponents of the by demonstration is this dystopian fiction no it's happening right in front of us that means that joe biden's partisan whoa this is a dystopian fiction guys this is happening right in front of us right joe biden is planning to punish thought crimes how scary is that no wonder in other ways saying sober bloke like me has been acting out on tinder political enemies are now officially enemies of state response how is this happening in america good question but it is happening and biden's new thought cop in chief has been revealed she's a 33 year old highly self-confident young woman called nina jenkovitz whoa how scary is that she's a she's our thought cop in chief man we've got a thought cop whoa just looking at her and i just get so frightened i want to get back on the tinder jenkovitz comes from a place called the wilson center that's a non-profit named for america's other mentally incapacitated war monger bigot president ironically because everything is irony the wilson center is itself a major producer of yes disinformation but of the neocon variety and for that reason is heavily funded by the by demonstration oh no jenkovitz is also because everything is connected a former advisor to the neoliberal government of ukraine the government wow tucker carlson's a mystic he sees how everything is connected man wow we're battling some dark dark forces out there right but but be of good cheer like have courage the world's coming to an end but have courage and be of good cheer as we fight these dark forces of evil we're shipping tens of billions of tax dollars to as our own economy swirls down the drain oh no so you really can't make any of this up it's too grotesque would you believe a novel with this plot no you wouldn't gosh it's happening and that's the bad news the good news is everyone involved in joe biden's new ministry of information is a buffoon oh they may be evil but they're also ridiculous nina jenkovitz is the most ridiculous of all so you read about her appointment in the washington post this morning and you immediately thought of the nkvd because why wouldn't you right even the nkvd even at the height of stalin's purges never did karaoke they were too dignified for that but nina jenkovitz happily does here she is information laundering is really quite ferocious it's when a hoax to take some lies and make some precocious by saying them in congress or a mainstream outlet so disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious it's how you hide a little hide a little lie it's how you hide a little hide a little lie it's how you hide a little hide a little lie when rudy juliani shared that in town from ukraine or when tiktok influences say covid camp has pain they're laundering disinfo and we really should take note and not support their lives with our wallet voice or vote oh wow she's good so we're kidding we're making all of this up it's not really happening in the country you were born in but it is happening that's now a law enforcement official it's also the person you just saw an individual bragging about getting a master's degree from georgetown university in case you were wondering if the entire academic credentialing machine that sustains america's ruling class is in fact a joke spoiler yes it is a joke this is somebody with so few useful skills that she describes herself in the first words of her own bio as a quote internationally recognized expert on disinformation is if that's a job of some sort imagine if one of your kids grew up to be an internationally recognized expert on disinformation the shame you would feel the pain of knowing that truly and unequivocally you had failed as a parent after all those years of advanced education nina jankiewicz became an internationally recognized expert on disinformation and not only that she can't even rhyme very well what nina jankiewicz can do her one skill the purpose for which she was hired is level partisan attacks on the other side with maximum ferocity that is her real job now you may have noticed if you listen carefully to the diddy she just saying that every example of disinformation her karaoke performance came from people who oppose joe biden's policies is that coincidence probably not in fact we know it's not because nina jankiewicz is telling all the disinformation is on the other side of the political wow this is so scary and thank god for senators like josh holly who is speaking out against the the imposition of fascism in america like they told me that fascism would come from the right but that doesn't seem to be true man right the fascism who would have thought it's coming from the left right josh holly released a statement thank god he says this is dangerous and unamerican the disinformation board should be immediately dissolved so jack sheffer's got a good column here in politica the idea that the biden administration would pop the first amendment an instant in an authoritarian regime through its agents that department of homeland security dhs is immediately dismissible if only because it is one of the most ineffectual departments in the president's cabinet had biden given the task to agricultural commerce or another department with a better gpa in governing we should be afraid but dhs couldn't stamp out disinformation or erect an american right we reallocated to it all of the arms we're currently shipping to ukraine it's people by a confederacy of dancers and botch artists and capable of carrying out its current mission for instance dhs shrugged off the january 6 warning signs it failed to share intelligence about the wave of Haitian immigrants who breached the border in 2021 based on their track record dhs will surely miss any treacherous this information the ruskies ship our way the department is so riddled with copycat programs that duplicate duties handled by other federal agencies that probably should be abolished senator barb former senator barbara boxer wrote an op-ed regretting having midwife this department through with her senate vote now who thinks the government should add to its work list the job of determining what is true and what is disinformation and who thinks the government is capable of telling the truth all right our government uh doesn't have necessarily the greatest track record in this area right our government has consistently produced lies and disinformation at an industrial scale and interfered in other democracies it overclassifies vital information to block its own citizens from becoming any the wiser it pays thousands of press aids to play hide the salami with facts right this is the government lies about winning the war in vietnam about winning the war in iraq they said that watergate was a third rate burglary that fought a secret war in nicroaga lied about a clandestine love affair in the white house that used 40 intelligence to force a war in the middle east barack obama shortchanged the truth of 600 obama statements politifact checked during his administration a quarter of them fell into the scary red zone of being false pants on fire level false so not so long ago 50 intelligence officials right each of them smarter and better informed than any dhs a brainiac assured the nation that the hunter biden laptop story for all the classic e-marks of a russian information operation saline says look did you know that tucker carlson was close with denis hoff no i did not but denis hoff is a patriotic american so how did that work out regarding hunter biden so the idea that coveted could have come from a chinese lab was simply dismissed as disinformation now it's considered a legitimate possibility by the biden administration and we have documented proof from the washington post that even joe biden can't handle simple truths so making the federal government the official custodian of truth is like giving brinks a safe cracker like giving brinks giving a safe cracker a job at driving an armored car so who's going to accept dhs determinations not reporters for accustomed to government lies not the man in the street right if russian disinformation is a major problem in our country it's been so for a century right lawful russian started sending out false fake defectors in the 1930s to spread disinformation in the west after world war two soviet leadership sought to influence american public opinion by covertly funding newspapers and radio stations in america and around the world and establishing fronts to nurture communism afforded documents attempted to plant them incredible publications somehow we survived the soviet onslaught without a disinformation government board to guide us so that every particle of disinformation can be blocked but by installing a truth poly bureau dhs maybe the government should leave the job of policing disinformation to the competitive organs of the youtube live streamer and the news media who compete to obtain the earliest and most correct nation as times of london editor put it in 1852 he was thinking about youtube live streamers so if dhs so badly needs a paperwork project it can address the problem closer to home set up a bureau to study and eradicate us government disinformation we'll divide listen most of the disinformation that we've seen this highly emotionally manipulative content is coming from the right if you look at the top 10 you know most engaged with posts on facebook or twitter on a given day uh they are usually posts that are coming from the right and that's because the right does deal in this highly emotional rhetoric you'd have to live in a self-awareness free vacuum you might even have to go to georgetown university dot or sentence like that the right deals in this highly emotional rhetoric says nina jankiewicz now it's worth noting here because we can't resist that this very same nina jankiewicz once wrote an entire book about how women can't use the internet because it's just too upsetting for them they're too fragile to read words they disagree with he makes them faint here's a direct quote from nina jankiewicz's book quote to be a woman online is an inherently dangerous act keep in mind if you're a lady and you were to wait wait tucker causes laughing but he hasn't seen out of being conducting myself on tinder today i mean being on tinder with body on the hunt you know acting out with all his anxiety about biden imposing fascism very dangerous place for women i don't know order uber eats you're exposing yourself to danger this is the same woman nina jankiewicz telling you that it's the right that uses emotional rhetoric now to be fair nina jankiewicz probably didn't expect a lot of people to read that inner book because no one read her book it has a total of two reviews on amazon but we did read it we'll get in a moment to what we found because it tells you exactly what we can expect from our new ministry of truth under nina jankiewicz but first it's necessary to know a little more about this person that she's not simply a hypocrite she obviously is whether she knows it or not she would be too dim to understand hypocrisy what she really is of course is a heavy for the democratic party and she's done that job flawlessly nina jankiewicz the disinformation hunter once called the hunter biden laptop story which is entirely true a quote trump campaign product in october of 2020 she wrote quote voters deserve the context not a fairytale about a laptop repair shop now did she give us the context or any countervailing facts did she deliver the truth about it story no of course not she just read a bunch of lies somebody handed to her on a card because she's a useful idiot and now she's a law enforcement official nina jankiewicz is repeating a lie that was of course widespread on the eve of the presidential election and when she repeated it made it possible for joe biden to repeat it on the debate stage during a presidential debate in case you've forgotten here he is there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accused me of is a russian plan they have said that this is has all the care four five former heads of the cia both parties say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage nobody believes it except him his and his good friend ruta jolly you mean the laptop is now another russia russia russia hoax that's exactly why this is exactly what this is where okay just to be clear this is a nightmare unfolding in slow motion but this is the point we're just going to have to draw the line no joe biden you can't have a federally funded ministry of truth and no nina jankiewicz can't run it period it's not your country you're not even compass menace and you don't get to do this to a free people oh scary this is this is where we have to draw the line so cven turner my favorite academic these days he's preparing a talk on curation the digital world of manipulated experience and he's going to begin his talk with a quote from barack obama where barack obama went to silicon valley and said it's relevant to our democracy to our citizenship where we're going to have to rebuild within this wild wild west of information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to so i remember when i started blogging every day on the point industry the the establishment meant adult video news it was the trade publication of the pornography industry and adult video news was always decrying the wild wild west of the internet and how the days of the wild wild west of the internet were coming to an end and we need something more responsible we have to crack down on disinformation about porn stars and pornographers because it's it's a threat to our democracy and it is it is setting the the ground for fascism and authoritarian rule so what the hell is curation so it's basically a former censorship that's what the left wants that's what many people in the center wanted even the center right right it curation has a propaganda intent it is a form of subconscious manipulation at what event's packet in the 1950s called hidden hidden persuasion now it wants to limit information so that we create a common world of fact that is common to most people and and this will create an actual agreement and will reduce polarization right this will save our democracy guys we need we need censorship and propaganda to save our democracy but then call it censorship then call it propaganda call it curation all right so this is going to save our democracy from from polarization which leads to authoritarianism so polarization is when people speak freely and see the world differently and apparently according to our ruling elites this this kind of polarization that leads to authoritarianism to fascism right so polarization is driven by claims that are bigoted right they may be true but they're bigoted by by violations of norms of discourse right if you violate norms of discourse guys that's authoritarian right this is a whole new completely you know untested up proven made up definition of authoritarian right to engage in bigoted or you know uncouth discourse I mean we don't do any of that here right we've got a very strict terms of service so we we try to stay away from being authoritarian here now this curation model is never clearly articulated right Nina that Nina J person and the DHS truth panel they'd never clearly articulate what they're doing but it's taken for granted by by our betters that we can't we can't put out with the wild wild west online where people could just have their say right we need informational inputs right we need we need to actively curate what the kind of opinions that people hear otherwise polarizing disinformation just flourishes and leads to authoritarianism but who decides what is information and what is disinformation right who decides what is a fact I mean much of what is presented in science journals especially medicine does not live up to standards of evidentiary quality pharmaceutical industry funding leads to obvious biases the the regulators for the pharmaceutical industry are often just bought off the whole funding system of science influences the content of science and its consensus journalism's also prone to ideological selectivity and bias so this idea that there will be a neutral agreement on what is disinformation is nonsense at best and sinister at worst so the theory is if we simply eliminate false claims or non facts that everything's going to go much much better so in this speech Obama said 40 years ago if you were a conservative in rural Texas you weren't necessarily offended by what was going on in San Francisco's Castro district because you didn't know what was going on see they want to return to the days where people don't really know what's going on to protect our democracy right is democracy is this notice they're always talking about our democracy right it's kind of an odd formulation our democracy why append the possessive it's because those responsible for our governing consensus are exasperated by an increasingly indecisive and intractable public that will not accept their authority reading from American thinkers so whose democracy is this anywhere and we've got all these extremism experts warning that the capital riots on January 6 proved the most urgent threat to American safety and security isn't coming from foreign terrorists from from our country's own citizens well that seems pretty silly now that we're getting closer and closer to a war with Russia and she's alarmed that the average age of January 6 writers was around 40 that they were representative of the American middle class because governments counter terrorism infrastructure is built to focus on fringe extremists not from those from the mainstream right so we've got mainstream threats to democracy right the people the people are now a threat to our democracy and our meaning the elite interpretation of democracy which is not democracy it is ruled by experts the whatever democracy means for these people is clearly not rule of the people so she thinks that disinformation and this misguided mainstream thinking is a public health threat and american needs to adopt the ambitious holistic approach of other nations who are far ahead of the united states tamping down mainstream extremism so if it's mainstream how can it be extremism so she wants a social control apparatus comprising our security services intelligence services the ministries of education labor health human services youth and family social services culture and the arts with decision-making authority granted to experts in education social work and mental health to build democratic resilience in the mainstream right the mainstream that the extremists that the citizens so that people are more likely to recognize and resist propaganda disinformation and conspiracy theories so threats to public health right we need an authoritarian response to threats to public health to protect our democracy right and we now have all these education experts who believe that parental rights end when children are enrolled in public school we've got experts on school boards conspiring with the department of justice to target parents as domestic terrorists we got reliably left-wing members of the helping professions taking children away from parents who refuse to consent to their child's gender transition treatments or to agree that their daughter is really a boy the dhs is now focusing on domestic threat actors meaning american citizens mainstream american citizens so dhs now has a new bottom line stopping the flow of mdm sounds like a drug mdm stands for miss dis and mal information and what counts as miss dis and mal information misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread electoral fraud and covid-19 so anything harmful to the regime is now mal information so the proximate cause of january sixth capital riot was a vast undercurrent of wrongthink flooding the internet these riots come from disinformation guys real world consequence of americans clicking their way through an theory yet this can't happen and what is this if you want to know what's going to happen look at what just did happen so nina jankiewicz made it possible for a presidential candidate to lie from the debate stage about a story that may have changed the outcome of election our election our presidential election speaking of disinformation she never apologized for that that's because the role has nothing to do with the truth or stopping disinformation her job is to restrict any speech that challenges joe biden or the democratic party now you'd think that would be illegal in this country as a federal employee because we do have a first amendment but nina jankiewicz doesn't believe in the first amendment and she wrote recently quote the free speech versus censorship framing is a false dichotomy first of all here's a pro tip anyone who uses the term false dichotomy is a moron okay that is one of countless academic phrases designed to prevent thought rather than facilitated false dichotomy means they're never going to have to explain why their position is correct or yours is wrong it is just the term authoritarian is particularly in apt right so this curation strategy is a behavioral intervention it's a way of manipulating the external environment to try to produce change without us consciously consenting or without directly coercing us so the the intervention is a nudge right but the the nudge is precisely brought about by authority so the ordinary bloke who accepts the news is true who accepts the authority of experts the authority of the state in defining reality and the authority of schools right these people already accept authority they don't require an intervention so the whole target of this curation intervention are people who reject or are suspicious of authority and so a vulnerable to disinformation malinformation or non-standard sources of meaning right we need to restrict the available choices in news in experts and in schools so that people operate from a curated sample of information and they don't receive information from unapproved sources so I remember when I was breaking news month after month about hiv cases in the porn industry all these porn stars and pornographers and porn lawyers would stand up and say please please people get your information from trusted sources within the industry right don't get it from bloggers who are just bent on tearing us down now wait till you hear about things from the free speech coalition the pornographers lobbying group so who decides who gets to curate right obama speaks of an agreement but it's not an agreement between polarized sides it's not even explicit argument by which one overcomes polarization by curation his audience is tech executives who share his politics so the kind of control that is envisioned by this crowd it's not the kind that can be codified in law or explicitly justified it depends on constant revision by the enforcers and fuzzy language about what they're doing so this agreement of the new norms pre-exists tacitly right once it's made explicit rather than tacit people will rebel so you need to hide that which triggers polarization like all sorts of inconvenient truths and and we need to hide all that which shows a lack of deference to the correct authorities right but this doesn't work if the manipulation is not opaque but without agreement in a democratic sense of this curation operation the result is a mere imposition by a people other than the people of the united states right it's an imposition by experts as against the people right so algorithms rules laws governing speech online are forced by people exercising political judgments so the best analogy to this is perhaps the soviet union and the soviet union tried to reform the thought processes of tens of millions of people by changing norms of public discourse and the effects were profound and some people adhered fanatically to the new order but not everyone was transformed and overall the propaganda didn't work very much people revert back to personal experience so we did not evolve to be gullible and we did not evolve to just accept arguments that people present to us without critically evaluating them so we did not evolve to think critically about our own positions but we did evolve to think critically about other people so it helps if we go through life with some confidence in ourselves so we don't tend to be particularly good at picking up our own shortcomings in our intellectual life but we tend to be pretty good at picking up the ludicrous arguments of all this dismissed with oh it's a false dichotomy again that's an npr phrase used by low iq people who for some reason run our country all of a sudden false dichotomy here's what's not false at all government censorship is banned by the first amendment the first amendment to the bill of rights this whole country's predicated on that but according to joe biden's new minister of truth the first amendment no longer applies in this country because russia and systemic racism watch it's clear that actors like russia are using those internal fissures things like our systemic racism here in the united states things like economic inequality to amplify these issues and and really make us distrust the system so we reach out to dhs the law enforcement agency now in charge of policing speech about nina jankiewicz and her plans okay so good news right we definitely got a problem but there is a solution out there right richard spencer announces on his sub-stack alex university our new initiative in education so it's an online education program for independent students and scholars starting off modestly two courses in june one taught by edutton one taught by richard spencer going forward alex university will be a central focus of richard spencer's energy so the first of the seminars are on niches political theology which will be taught by richard and the other course will be on evolutionary psychology taught by edward dutton additional courses will be taught by mark brahman courses will take place over zoom the last four to five weeks with two hour sessions on sunday so alex is named after the library of alexandria found in the first or second centuries bc the crown jewel of the ancient world today we live in a sort of digital alexandria which an almost infinite story of information is at hand okay alex university to the rescue right i've been reading a lot from steven turner at these days here is a dense democratic theory expression against one party or another and um if this system of these auxiliary measures are easily seen as an obstacle in real or imagined emergencies so freedom of speech looks like if we're in a war situation uh this is a problem that people are running around saying things that are hostile to the war effort and therefore we have to um get rid of however and and it also needs something like narrow freedom for the enemies of freedom consensus or at least consensus on the rules of the game and what people's rights are and so on this consensus is pretty easy to erode um and um the consensus isn't really neutral it's got some value content but we have to treat it as neutral we have to treat it as non-political and not really subject to um dispute um so that makes all of those things fragile but liberal democracy can be really resilient if a few things happen and my my pet example of this is uh and this is why it's so resilient any arrangement any state arrangement uh creates interest in preserving that arrangement somebody benefits from it and then the political parties cater to that interest even if it's just an accidental consequence of something um and it can also change to cater to new interests or create new interests so it's flexible in creating uh allowing people the politicians and actually incentivizing politicians to um create support for the system okay so i've been reading another book by steven turner this one came out i think in 2018 it's called the politics of expertise so it talks about climate science is the field that is the most visible example today of a policy oriented science field that is tightly coupled with funding so there was a spencer wort 2003 who wrote a history of climate science and it's essentially a defense of the scientific credentials of the field and its legitimacy as a science so he describes the slow development of climate science starting out as loosely coupled science so there was money to pursue key ideas such as the study of the accumulation of co2 in the atmosphere that money was scarce interested scientists were able to do research on these topics only more or less by accident there was generous military funding of science in the 1950s and geophysical research is usually platform science it requires big platforms big instruments it should turn require extensive lobbying by researchers to acquire so only when the public spheres are aroused and the conservation movement picks up on the great pressing problem of global warming because the money begin to flow freely now is the money going to keep flowing freely if you say oh that's such a big deal guys climate change is not really a big deal no you're only going to get money if you can package climate change as alarming so climate modeling is at the core of the study of global warming and the materials that go into climate models come from a wide variety of scientific fields but the climate prediction outputs of these models are sensitive to what assumptions parameters variations inputs all right so there's a long history of failure to make even plausible predictions there were models that predicted that a doubling of co2 would produce a rising global temperatures of 10 degrees centigrade or higher there was the fiasco that predicted new ice age so these early models were wildly wrong but at the time they presented a serious policy predictions by scientists such as Steven Schneider who's still active and still aggressively promoting the policy relevance of their current views so Spencer Watt has a wiggish theory of history that things are getting better and better and that these science models all right they're just like other scientific models they begin with flawed theories which prompt people to make better ones so he treats the fact that a civil calculation could produce catastrophic outcomes as a disturbing discovery so aggregating climate knowledge was a problem that was not matched by the controlling social structure of the discipline as was the case with normal science climate science operates under a different structure so climate is a staggeringly intricate complex of interactions of feedbacks among many global forces even relatively simple phenomena such as the doldrums in the tropical seas defy explanation so Spencer Watt concedes the field does not operate as a normal scientific discipline social structure is not cohesive community in one specialty cannot check the work of researchers in another specialty they must accept their word for what is valid study of climate change is an extreme example researchers cannot isolate meteorology from solar physics pollution studies from computer science oceanography from glacier ice chemistry and so forth the range of journals they cite is remarkably broad the sprawl is inevitable but the complexity imposes difficulty on those who try to reach solid conclusions about climate change so these climate change models rely on ad hawk devices ad hawk means essentially made up they fit the actual climate roughly only because they've been laboriously tuned to match it by adjusting a wide variety of arbitrary parameters and what keeps the field going is generating money right that is entwined with politics or throughout so you've got self-interest emotional commitment desire to feel important and the political cause of promoting action on the problem just happened to coincide with all of this so you've got these abnormalities to the classical model for science but they're justifiable according to spent word on the grounds of time right we're running out of time guys in the case of climate waiting for a sure answer would mean waiting forever when we're faced with a new disease or an armed invasion we do not put off decisions until more research is done we act using the best guidelines available right so this is the language of the climate big climate climate commissions right we don't have ordinary disciplinary control so come on guys we must accept the claims of climate science on other grounds rather than science so what's the correctness the dominant views in climate science science well they rest on spent of words feelings for where scientific claims are reliable where they are shaky his belief that the fewer can test the facts are either ignorant or so committed to their viewpoints they'll seize on any excuse to deny the danger and he closes the book with his own policy recommendations is the final sentence the spirit of fact gathering rational discourse tolerance of dissent a negotiation of an evolving consensus which is characterized the climate science community can serve well as a model did you know that these are the features of the climate science community that we should be replicating in the domain of policy and they provide an alternative ground for trust in climate sciences conclusions now this characterization of the climate science community has been shown to be forced in every respect the result of the 20 is a 2011 police of emails from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit an institution that spends a work praised so the facts were mishandled and suppressed data was withheld and last peer review was manipulated major effort was made to discredit those who question the consensus right so in 2011 academic Evelyn Fox Keller asked what are climate scientists to do so her concern is that people are skeptical about the claim that climate scientists present as authoritative science so she says come on guys the expertise is strong the expert consensus is strong that opponents of what we're doing are paid off they're acting on behalf of special interests the policy makers and politicians should just accept the science and act accordingly problem is they are not doing so so what should the strategy of climate scientists be in the face of reluctance to accept the results of science so this goes to the heart of the question of the role of expertise in a democratic society particularly in a liberal democratic society where public discussion matters but we're not allowed to publicly discuss climate science in any skeptical way you get removed from the public square if you do that the recent year scientists and activists have been operating from this perspective politicians should defer to the scientific experts we got to remove climate change from the realm of politics and put it into the realm of neutralization and give dominion over these matters to experts outside of political accountability so come on guys scientific consensus is either truth or the best approximation to truth that is available so politicians and the public just are in no position to assess the validity of the claims made in the consensus and therefore should not do so so politicians do not accept the consensus they are endangering the earth the whole system of liberal democracy that allows them to do so needs to be abolished or radically reformed you need to create new power suppressing speech that is contrary to the scientific consensus come on guys you need to defer to the climate consensus all right we can't have each person deciding or assessing the credibility of the scientists and of science at a claim about science as a collectivity or as a regime that's what produces a consensus so what's the justification for this why must climate science be treated with this kind of deference does climate science have features that make it less deserving of this kind of deference just asking questions folks just asking questions okay let me get back to more of the stimulating my pet example of this is freedom of speech so who was the great defender of freedom of speech nowadays well how are you leading up pornography industry where are my viewers robust defenses freedom of speech because they're the ones that provide the lawyers for all of those cases that come up and so why so one set of judicial decisions created all the industry and that industry as its interest and its political impact and it preserves the system even though you would never think of pornography as a support of liberalism but there it is okay so and then it also depends on not having totalizing parties this is kind of schmitty if parties have ideal interests or some sort of vision that's different and also material interest wow thank god they deliver some goods for their supporters but are not either one exclusively you can have kinds of compromises and political discussion man normally by this time the show i'd have like 10 viewers but it's a friday evening i'm just down to five but but each viewer is its own universe right so i'm still speaking to the universe and i'm not just speaking to the person watching now i am speaking to history right these words are going to echo down in history on to page 287 of this terrific steven turner book the politics of expertise and just like one one one bennard brightson in the chat is worth you know 1000 high school dropout skinheads to me the competence that's the question so let's talk about the dismissal of robert oppenheimer and the decision to build the h bomb an idea promoted by edwin teller so this story involves gathering information aggregating information processing information and applying information robert oppenheimer was the father of the a bomb he was a revered physicist he was a master scientific manager and the most authoritative voice on weapons questions anywhere so after the use of the atomic bomb in 1945 he was concerned about the aftermath and he promoted the autonomy of science he stressed the craft character of science the distinction between science and technology and the need for atomic science to proceed in an open academic setting he backed proposals for the internationalization of control over nuclear energy and he represented the scientific community to decision makers so what led to his fall it was a central event in the developing relation of science to the state in 1953 robert oppenheimer was accused of being an all probability an agent of the soviet union by the recently resigned executive director of the joint congressional committee on atomic energy william borden and so oppenheimer's security clearance was stripped oppenheimer tried to clear his name he appealed to the atomic energy commission's personal personnel security board the board heard and examined allegations that oppenheimer had obstructed the development of the h bomb the evidence was scant and in the end oppenheimer had been persuaded in most respects oppenheimer seemed to have merely done what scientists normally do to resist novel approaches and imply informed skepticism to tell us ideas but what fatally undermined robert oppenheimer was the admission that he had lied in past security interviews so this raised questions about his integrity now integrity is not a particularly important concern for normal science but in the new regime integrity was an issue scientists were caught up on not merely to accept or reject new ideas as individuals but to exercise direct authority over the development of ideas and in this context skepticism and resistance rather than being meritorious would well undermine the testing mechanism and the use of rivalry as a counterbalance to group things so edward teller the father of the h bomb was a classic example of scientists being prone to having hobby horses so teller was obsessed with the idea of thermonuclear energy since 1940 he honed his ideas through the manhattan project but oppenheimer and teller were acutely aware of the problems in continuing to get the benefits of the old regime under the bureaucratic conditions of the new regime so robert oppenheimer was a master at the use of committees and in scientific discussions he was persuasive sharp authoritative and respected edward teller emphasized the need for rivalry promoted the idea of second laboratory preferably located in the university but within the system of national laboratories to enable them to compete overcome the risk having research in an area governed by the set ideas one lab and its bureaucracy so the issue with oppenheimer that underlay the accusations against him was that it was clear that many scientists objected to the development of the h bomb on moral grounds non-political grounds so scientists moral scruples led them to make technical objections and to obstruct the development of the h bomb their motivations were political and moral and technically 40 so the separation of the technical and the moral and the scientific became an important firewall decision makers decision making processes depended on the ability of decision makers to rely on the technical advice to rely on the experts that they would be unbiased and disinterested and that did not happen it's characteristic of uh liberal democracy but if you don't have that if you have totalizing parties the system is going to break down and because it's so fragile in the first place okay so this is why liberalism and these is in a way anti-democratic if democracy is ruled in accordance with the will of the people but in this abstract sense that goes beyond the formal legal will that the kelson was interested in um these auxiliaries these rights and procedures and so forth get in the way of the people ruling in this sovereign sense that uh okay so what the heck is happening in ohio right let's talk about the decline of ohio and the rise of jd vance excellent essay here by christopher cordwell in the new york times that christ of cordwell's probably one of the top three most important conservative thinkers today and he publishes regularly in the new york times and he starts off we're gonna have to break up the big tech companies you have to do it jd vance hollers that are rally for donald trump in ohio last weekend cannot have a real country if a bunch of corrupt scumbags take their marching orders from the communist chinese tell us what we're allowed to say and how we're allowed to say it all right this is jd vance sounding a lot like donald trump what the heck is going on here so jd vance is 37 he's a memoirist he's a venture capitalist he's running in the republican senate primary in ohio he's new to politics but he's recently fortified by donald trump's endorsement so jd vance assailed j biden is a crazy fake president who'll buy energy from putin the scumbags of venezuela but went by it from middle class ohians who live in a top fracking state so scumbag is a word that seems to have entered mr vance's public vocabulary only recently did not appear in his memoir hillbilly elegy that tender 2016 autobiography that was made into a movie so early on in 2016 jd vance described donald trump as reprehensible and an idiot and didn't vote for him but in 2020 jd vance backed donald trump now donald trump is backing jd vance calling him a fearless maga fighter and a great buckeye and his jd vance is calling mr trump the best president of my lifetime so what the heck is going on in ohio what's going on by with the hillbilly elegy author so it's not so much that jd vance has changed it's that the situation in ohio has changed ohio has produced seven presidents and has been in electoral bellwether jd vance is running against josh mandel a jewish republican who's pretty maga himself he said i think illegal immigrants should be deported meaning every single illegal now jd vance's successful route to donald trump's favor was subtle to him the core of the trumpian project wasn't intrapoddy power struggles or demagogy it was reconnecting politics to ordinary people so jd vance calls for breaking up the nation's cozy political system so he says what does it mean the sixth of the highest income zip code is in the united states from metropolitan washington how do legislators get so rich on the relatively modest salaries they make so jd vance grasps as donald trump grasps the deep discontent with political correctness and the hunger for someone unafraid to stand up to it so if there was a moment in jd vance's campaign when his fortune seemed to turn it was his release of a tv ad that began are you a racist do you hate mexicans the media causes racist wanting to build trump's wall there's a sense among ohayans they are being cast as bad people for wanting to limit immigration and that jd vance is willing to crack a joke about the term racist shows that he's relatively fearless so donald trump jr campaign where jd vance in the week donald endorse him drew a sharp contrast between jd vance and other republicans who crumble the moment the media falsely accuses them of being rapist racist rapist and racist rapist what's a racist rapist someone who who only rapes non-black women so in contrast to the supply side limited government free trade agenda in contrast to the chamber of commerce agenda in contrast to the china agenda so jd vance's aides core josh mandel's backers the club for chinese growth the jd vance said problem that a lot of other guys make is they think america first is a slogan or a talking point but there is a substantial agenda behind it that means trade policy drug policy securing the mexican border is steering clear of unnecessary foreign wars and many republicans are unaware of how seriously donald trump takes those things so the heart of this agenda is resistance to globalization so if you want a one word answer to why mr trump is so rocked ohio politics it would be nafta north american free trade agreement of 1993 a symbol of institutional adjustments that have turned the united states from a manufacturing economy into a service economy so free trade is not being particularly good for many ohians so for a while as democrats alone who voiced misgivings about globalization now it's more often to be trumpets republicans so before donald trump's arrival on the scene jd vance's hillbillies didn't really fit into the prevailing political framework for helping the downtrodden so jd vance speaking on the campaign trail about his mother's been cleaned for seven years elder fentanyl on today's streets might have killed her had she still been using he denounces the non-stop violence sex trafficking and drugs at the mexican border false to the building of donald trump's wall so it can be difficult even disorienting to think of donald trump it's having provided certain americans with recognition a second chance and a possibility of renewal but he has so politics that was unavailable has been made available so yes something has changed since jd vance's memoir came out in 2016 but that something isn't jd vance it is the united states of america uh dairy guy is talking about um and when you're when we um critique these these sort of what i'm calling the soxiliaries um and a democratic theory has a kind of circularity to it where um it says well those procedures were never truly democratic in the first place so they aren't really uh democratic now they were they were they were put put in place by slaveholders and white males and therefore the constitution isn't really uh doesn't really have any democratic uh credentials um so this notion of truly democratic or the idea that there's some sort of imminent sense that we can derive through democratic theory has some role in this critique but the real point is that uh these critiques are are anti-democratic in the in the literal sense uh by design because the um if if the goal is any particular vision of true democracy then all of these devices rights and whatnot um are obstacles to the realization of whatever uh true democracy is they're conservative uh these auxiliaries because they get in the way of any kind of transformational change by way of something like a collective effort of essence so this is going to come back to this because this turns out to be a really important part of the recent french political thinking um and in any case they preserved this sort of corrupt looking politics of interest bargaining and minor okay enough with grubby politics and distasteful news let's unite around an inspiring story of a guy turning his life around john hinkley he is studying his own record label yeah he shot ronald reagan in 1981 but apparently he's rehabilitated and he's writing songs he's performing songs and he's studying his own record label i mean how beautiful is that hello everybody hope you're doing great i just posted my latest single the song is called the places i have been and it's available on spotify and itunes and the other streaming sites and that makes 26 songs of mine that i have on the streaming site so check them out when you have a chance this is one of those 26 songs i'm going to play for you right now you're in my dreams most every night you're still looking for a pedestal i'm so glad you're mine life here on earth is black and white the sun's not out today i will wait until the night to wash my blues away it's so quiet in my room peace is in the air there's no place here for gloom i'm without a care i will sleep for a chance to dream of only me and you there's another day to show my love so true i do believe in true love ways they always comfort me say goodbye to yesterday you and i are free i do believe in true love ways they always comfort me say goodbye to yesterday you and i are you're in my dreams most every night you're still looking fine i have a pedestal i'm so glad you're mine wow that's great right guys good shabbos