 And one of the great tragedies of this is the way this is now being taken out by what's called the American Medical Association, American Medical Association, right? You are touting something that a guy said was the head of the Tokyo Medical Association. Well, here is the authority of the American Medical Association. They have recently published an official 54-page document instructing all doctors on proper language. How to deal with patients, how to talk to them. This is the official opinion of a scientific professional society, a scientific professional society that represents, I forget, I think 25% of all doctors in the United States. I have this somewhere. Let me just find that. Yes, represents 270,000 doctors, roughly a quarter of all the doctors in the United States. The American Medical Association was founded in 1847 and both physicians and medical students. Now it's interesting that, of course, maybe this association feels like it has something to atone for, because many of its chapters at the beginning of the century and lead until the mid, until the 60s, well into the 60s. Many of the chapters block black physicians from membership. The Association of American Medical Colleges, which signed on to this document, which I'll read to you in a minute, which I'll read sections of. It was founded in 1876. Its membership includes 172 medical schools and more than 400 teaching hospitals, many of which have their own shameful histories of white supremacist racism. So here's some of the tables that they have presented in terms of what you should say. Actually, let me see if I can share this. I think that'll be easier for you guys to follow if I share this. Let's see. There it is. All right, okay. All right, there you go. I think you can see that, guys. All right, cool. Okay. Don't say vulnerable groups. Don't say groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. Don't say marginalized communities. Groups that have been historically marginalized are made vulnerable, historically marginalized. Hard to reach communities, groups that have struggling against economic marginalization. Underprivileged communities, no, no, no. Groups experiencing disadvantages because of, give the reason. High burden groups, no. Groups with higher risk of, now, why? Why the change in language? Note that the words on the left are already pretty politically correct. Vulnerable groups, why are they vulnerable? Marginalized communities, why are they marginal? We don't want to say why. We certainly don't want to say poor. We don't want to say, I don't know, unskilled. We don't want to say, we don't want to attribute any cause to the individuals within the group. They're just a vulnerable group. Now that's already pretty politically correct, but that's not good enough. What we need to drill home is the reason they're vulnerable is that they have been marginalized by others, that they are victims. That is, we want to make sure that nobody can interpret this as meaning they might have done something that resulted in their own marginalization. The one thing that all of wokeness wants to do is divorce individual circumstances from individual agency. You are not responsible for you. You are the outcome, the outcome of some discrimination against you, some marginalization against you. You're the victim, victim, you're always victim of capitalism, of racism, of elitism, of something outside of your control. Not forbid. We attribute any agency to any human action. If some outcome is negative in your life, it's not your fault. Now, unless you're white and male and what is it, cisgender, is that the technical term for liking women if you're a male, then it must be your fault because you're responsible for all the evil in the world. This is anti-free will taken to a degree. This is not your standard anti-free will of a Sam Harris. This is the anti-free will that now places you in a position where there really aren't any choices, even the kind of pseudo-free will choices of a Sam Harris, where you are completely a consequence, not even of your genes now, you're completely the consequence of other people's oppressive behavior against you. This is all intersectionality. You are, A, not an individual. There are no such things as individuals. We'll get to that in a minute. You are just a member of a group. As a member of a group, your group, if your group has a problem, if it's marginalized, if it's vulnerable, if it's hard to reach, if it's underserved, if it's underprivileged, if it's disadvantaged, if it's high risk, then somebody caused that. Somebody victimized you. It couldn't be, I don't know. It couldn't be that you didn't take your education seriously. It couldn't be that you're lazy. It couldn't be that you have low levels of intelligence or low level of productive ability. It couldn't be anything that might be associated with who you are. Every case of inequality is a consequence of some group oppressing another group. That's why groups that have been economically, socially marginalized. What does that mean? That means capitalism. Now look at these. For example, this is, to get an article, this is some old, right? Workers who do not use PP&E. People with limited access to specific resources. That is, it's not that they chose not to use PP&E. Maybe. I mean, maybe some people don't have access, but what you've done here is eliminated the possibility that people have chosen not to do it. People who do not seek healthcare are workers under resourced, right? They don't have resourced. They don't have access. All human agency, all human choices out. This is non-Marxism. This is non-Marxism. Set it over and over again. Indeed, in a minute, I'll give you a Marxist critique of this. This is not Marxism 101. Marx wouldn't recognize this. He wouldn't know what you're talking about. I mean, he was a determinist, but a completely different type of determinist. Certainly not a determinist of this nature. He was a racist, but a different one. You can't use disadvantage under resourced, underserved. You have to use historically and intentionally excluded, disinvested. Disparities are not disparities. They're inequities. Equality. Don't use equality. Use equity. No social problems. There's just issues of justice. Everything is moral. Everything is somebody else's fault. Somebody else's immorality towards you. Underrepresented minorities. No. Historically marginalized minorities. It's other people's fault always. Every problem is an injustice, as in this case, I'm showing you a page by the grumpy economists, so this is John Cochran's website. So here's some, here's some, whoops, let's see if we can, I can do this so you can see it, all right? Native Americans have the highest mortality rates in the United States. Don't say that. You have to make it a political statement. Dispossessed by the government of their land and culture. Native Americans have the highest mortality rates in the United States. Maybe that's even true in this case. I am very, very critical of the way government has behaved towards Native Americans. But even if it's true, these are doctors, they're not political scientists, they're not historians. This is a doozy, particularly for us economists. Low income people have the highest levels of coronary artery disease in the United States. People underpaid and forced into poverty as a result of banking policies. Real estate developers, gentrifying neighborhoods, and corporations weakening the power of labor movements, among others, have the highest level of coronary artery disease in the United States. Really? Everything is political. Everything, everything. Every profession, every field, everything. Now serves a socialist, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-individualist point of view, perspective. Factors such as our race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status should not play a role in our health. No, you can't say that. So injustices, including racism or class exploitation, social exposure, and marginalization should be confronted directly so that they do not influence health outcomes. Now, this one's also another doozy from an economic perspective, right? For too many prospects for good health are limited, but where people live, how much money they make or discrimination they face. For too many people, prospects for good health are limited. By where they people live, how much money they make or discrimination they face. That is just a factual statement. Not good enough. Not good enough. Decisions by landlords and large corporations, increasingly centralizing political and financial power wielded by a few limit prospects for good health and well-being for many groups. So forget about actual facts. You're not making a political statement. You're not achieving your goal. The website is John Cochran's, I'll give you the exact URL, the Grumpy Economist Woke Week, but let me just get out of that screen. It's basically johncochran.blogspot.com. John still blogs rather than substacks. I wish he'd get a substack. It would be easier if he got that. But you can also find this, there was an article in the Atlantic written by Conor Friedersdorf. It's called The Medical Establishment Embraces the Leftist Language. And let me see if I've got some good examples here. Yeah, that's the same example I gave before. They've got a section in this thing attacking, quote, the narrative of individualism, unquote. You know, usually doctors are taught to educate people as individuals, and the guide says you have to shift the narrative from the individual to the structural, to the structural. It's never the individual's fault. In order to more fully understand the cause of health inequities in our society. I mean, it actually encourages doctors to ask political questions like, how can we promote healthy behavior? Don't ask that. You should ask, how can we democratize land use policies through greater public participation to ensure healthy living conditions? This is the American Medical Association. American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon explicitly endorses the new guidelines. Everything is political. Everything must be woke. Everything. I mean, what they'll discover very quickly is that they're overextending. They discovered this in the election a few weeks ago in Virginia and in Minnesota and other places. This is garbage. Everybody can see it's garbage. Everybody can see it's BS. Voters are not going to go for this. Normal people are not going to go for this. Many, many doctors. They might not speak up because they'll be labeled racists. So they might stay quiet, but how many doctors are going to practice this close to zero? It's really the leaderships that are scared and they'd invite these CRT and anti-racist consultants who have now have a whole industry associated with them into their companies and that are preaching this nonsense. Doctors, I'd be curious if anybody encounters a doctor who actually in practice when dealing with patients actually talks like this. I'd be really surprised. Anyway, one of the things that is going on with Wokeness, given the extent to which it is BS, is many people on the left, a lot of Marxists, for example, are pretty upset by all this. They don't like it. They don't agree with it. And they are looking for explanations. And I find it interesting to look at the left and see it fighting among each other and see the kind of explanations that traditional leftists, the more Marxist leftists, have in explaining why Wokeness is so popular. Now, where is Wokeness popular? I wonder if you guys, who do you think is woke? Who is most woke? Who is most woke? Who are the most woke people out there? Well, it's basically not. It's basically not. I just have to comment on this. So the conclusion that Scott comes to, which I think a lot of people come to, and this is what is completely irrational and completely unreasoned. This is illogical. Here's the reasoning. The American Medical Association is woke and irrational. Any recommendations made by the medical establishment therefore must be false. Anything spouted by people who are unconventional outside of the mainstream, non-conventional medicine, they must be true because they at least reject Wokeness. None of that lines up logically. None of that. All right. So I want to talk a little bit about, so who does this appeal to? Anybody know who this appeal to? Professors, obviously professors. Who else does this appeal to? Mostly the wealthy. This is Upper West Side New York. This is Silicon Valley. In some people in Silicon Valley, this is educated. Educated and wealthy people buy into support this kind of woke stuff. The more educated my guess is, the more likely you are to support it. It's popular among PhDs. Again, not all PhDs are probably not in the sciences, but in the humanities partially because that's a reinforcing system. It's popular among people who graduated from degrees in the humanities who still got jobs, often because their parents are fairly well off. So it's interesting, the extent to which of course Wokeness is being captured by the media. Whether that media is the Washington Post and the New York Times or NPR or Vox or whatever. So in trying to explain this, they actually ran some analysis of articles in the media. So according to this one article, this is in Barry Weiss, a substack from Barry Weiss This is a writer by the name of Bacchia, Bacchia, Bacchia, Bacchia, what? What's her name? Her name is somewhere here. Oh, I hate this when they hide the name. Anyway, Bacchia. And you can find it on Barry Weiss, a substack. They did an analysis of words used by the press and she writes, for a long time, this is from the article, for a long time the notion that America is an unrepentant white supremacist state, one that confers power and privilege to white people and systematically denies them to people of color was the province of the far left activists and academics. But over the past decade, it's found its way into the mainstream, largely through liberal media outlets like the New York Times, NPR, MSNBC, the Washington Post, Vox, CNN, New Republic and the Atlantic. The mall panic around race is everywhere, she says. Then she writes, it began around, and she said, yes, Trump exacerbated this because he was the enemy. But it really began a lot before Trump. It began, she says, in 2011, the year the New York Times erected its online paywall. And by the way, New York Times was struggling, which is not today. I mean, the fact is that Donald Trump was the best thing to ever happen to MSNBC, CNN and New York Times. If you look at profitability of MSNBC, CNN and New York Times, pre-Trump and during Trump, their profitability skyrocketed because of the amount of consumption there was for anti-Trump stuff. So they did very well into Trump. They all, I'm sure, missed Trump. She writes, so she says, it all started around 2011, you know, it was then that articles mentioning racism, people of color, slavery, oppression started to appear with exponential frequency at the Times, BuzzFeed, Vox, Washington Post and NPR. I'm not sure exponential frequency is right. It's a term. I'm not sure that makes any sense. Anyway, if you understand what exponential and frequency, I don't know that you can combine those two. I have to think that through. Anyway, a computer scientist by the name of Daniel Rosado, who's in New Zealand, actually created a computer program that trawled the online archives of the Times from 1970 till 2018 to track the frequency with which certain words were used. What he found was that frequency of words like racism, white supremacy, KKK, traumatizing, marginalized, hate speech, intersectionality and activism had absolutely skyrocketed from 1970 to 2018. Zach Goldberg, a PhD candidate in political science at Georgia State University, who found that in 2010, the term white supremacy was used fewer than 75 times in the Washington Post and the New York Times. But in 2020, it was used in those two newspapers over 700 times. So 10x increase. And NPR was used 2,400 times. The word racism appeared in the Washington Post over 4,000 times in 2020. That's the equivalent of using it in 10 articles every single day. Now, what's amazing about all this is that actual racism during this period probably didn't change that much. You could argue declined. You might be able to argue increased a little bit, but not tenfold. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support. Go to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.