jeremy_subs

    4:47PM Apr 29, 2024

    Speakers:

    Razib Khan

    Jeremy Carl

    Keywords:

    white

    people

    jeremy

    whiteness

    wrote

    racial

    white supremacy

    book

    america

    country

    environmental movement

    christianity

    sierra club

    blm

    live

    military

    anti

    years

    black

    white privilege

    This podcast is brought to you by the Albany public library main branch and the generosity of listeners like you. What is a podcast? God daddy these people talk as much as you do! Razib Khan’s Unsupervised Learning

    Even if you and your partner are healthy, there's still a chance your child can develop a serious genetic disease. This is because every embryo has new changes not present in either parent. Most of the time these are benign but sometimes they can be catastrophic. Orchid’s whole genome embryo reports directly screened the embryo and analyze these de novo genetic mutations. Discuss embryo screening and IVF with a genetics expert.

    Hey everybody, this is Razib with the Unsupervised Learning podcast and today I am here with Jeremy Carl. Jeremy is a friend of mine. I've known him for a while. I think I've known you since 2016 Jeremy,

    Jeremy: Before that. Well before that.

    Okay, yeah. Many years. I don't want to date us. But so Jeremy is here IRL with me, just so you guys know, if there's like a tussle or a conflict over our discussion you understand why. He is a fellow at Claremont Institute right now. And he's got a new book “The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart” Now, before, I know, some of you complain, my intros get a little too long. But I do think I do need to like set the stage here. A title like this, obviously, Jeremy is very provocative. And I think a lot of the listeners, when they hear anti white racism, it's kind of a joke, or, you know, they'll put they'll put quotation marks. And so the premise seems, I think, ludicrous to them on the face of it. You know, I don't personally find it ludicrous. But, you know, some people do, can you? Can you just address that before we talk about the book?

    Sure. And actually, I mean, it's funny that you say that the book title is provocative, and it is, and it was intentional. And it's funny, because the book is in and of itself, I actually tried to be less provocative. But I’d originally wanted to title this book, “It's Okay To Be White” And I actually got the editors to go along with that. And then ultimately, the sales staff killed it, because they're like, we can't sell that book, to Costco and Walmart, which in and of itself was interesting. And for those of your listeners who are more online types, they'll kind of recognize that not just as a statement, but as the kind of thing that was a right wing 4chan meme, that the sort of signs that said that sort of showed up in various places. And it caused outrage. And that was sort of the point because of course, it's okay to be Asian, it's okay to be Black, it's okay to be Hispanic. And it should also be okay to be White. But of course, in the discourse, that's not true at all. And, and so I think that in and of itself was a little bit of a confirmation of my theme. But yeah, for the book, I was trying to not hide the ball, I was trying to talk about some of these issues really, really clearly. And I'd seen a lot of sort of synonyms flying around a lot of times, you'll see wokeness or various euphemisms, and I wanted to be really direct about what I was talking about, and hopefully be able to convince kind of fair minded people, even if they're somewhat skeptical that my thesis was true.

    Yeah, so you know, I guess the issue here is like, anti-white racism, the term itself kind of reflects, the uniqueness of it in so far as racism, when we think of racism, it is from white people to non white people. So you have to say anti white, because racism in the American mind triggers white people doing things to non white people, mostly Native Americans and blacks. But more recently the term ‘people of color’ in general. So, you have to say, anti white racism, or, in the past, people used to say, reverse racism. I'm gonna be honest, I thought that term was retarded, just because racism is racism. So I don't get it. But um, can you talk about your ideas and your thesis in the context of kind of the regnant ideology of white supremacy and white racism in the United States right now? 2024?

    Right. Well that's a good question. I think a couple of things sort of going on there that are worth mentioning. The first is, of course, that as you kind of noted, we have this regnant ideology. There are sort of folks much further to my right, that have a problem even with the term racism, for essentially the reasons that you just said that it's almost a term that's coded against white people, per se, in our current parlance, and so therefore, they prefer anti-white-ism or something like that. I just prefer to call it anti-white racism. Um, but I think you could do one of those, either of those two things. But I think it's understandable that folks, may find that triggering if they're not on it. But but the kind of way I compare it is, it's not a coincidence that the term white privilege, for example, which starts with a Wellesley academic in 1988, is the first person to really coin this happens right at the moment, that I would argue maybe we were kind of at the cusp of getting rid of the last white privilege on net. It's sort of like, if you're complaining about Kim Jong Un's totalitarianism, you probably don't live in North Korea, you probably live somewhere very safely outside. And so I think it's not a coincidence. And in fact, when you kind of do the Google trends on the phrases, white privilege, and white supremacy and all these things, there's been a huge uptick in it in these last few years, whereas times, if you go back 100 years ago, when white supremacy actually rained in large parts of the US, you don't find reference to it. And so I think that is sort of an important thing to keep in mind. And and I should also just kind of add, without, without backing off my thesis at all, in no way in writing this book, am I suggesting, of course, that there aren't other types of racism that are very prevalent in today. I know you've experienced some of that online, we've talked about that. But, and certainly in America's past, right, so this is not an attempt to kind of, you know, kind of rewrite history, or pretend that other things aren't going on. It's simply to say that, particularly in a legal context, anti white racism and anti white prejudice and discrimination are the dominant modes of that today.

    Well, so before we go on, you know, you said legal context, and we're gonna talk about civil rights law and those sorts of things. But what are white people. Who is white?

    Yeah, so that's a good question. And it's an interesting question. And, of course, this is something that has been the subject of many, many books by scholars from all over the political spectrum. What I would say is, I'm kind of using the common parlance definition. In 1790, when we pass the Naturalization Act, and they talk about white people, you know, you kind of have to be white to kind of go be a citizen, there was no confusion about what that meant. It meant Jews, it meant Italians, I mean, there obviously weren't that many of either of those groups, it would have meant any group that was kind of seen as at all white. And there was really, as far as I know, no meaningful ambiguity in that statement. Now, of course, throughout history, you can go look, and I write about this in the book, I mean, you can find the No Irish Need Apply, or anti semitism, or certainly hierarchies within whiteness, okay. But I'm just using the very commonly accepted definition. You know, I walk out on the street, and somebody's gonna see me as a white guy. If I apply for a job, I'm going to check the white box, and everything that flows from that.

    Yeah, let me just clarify here to what Jeremy is saying, there, there's this idea that Irish became white. Well, you know, as Jeremy just implied here, there was never a debate whether they could be naturalized. So in 1790, there was a law that limited naturalization to white people. And the Irish were white, by that definition, even if they were treated as second class citizens or persecuted all those things. That's true. And they were not seen as maybe white in the same way, maybe not fully white culturally, socially. But legally, it was understood that the Irish were white because they were naturalized. And a lot of this was also done via lower courts. And so there were some ambiguous cases, mostly in that zone between the Eastern Mediterranean and northern India. So Syrians fell just on the correct side of the line of white where the courts would begrudgingly accept them as white but just barely. So Arabs, you know, Levantine, those sorts of people, barely white. You know, during this period, they're mostly Syrian Christians, from what became Lebanon and Syria, Maronite Catholics and whatnot. North Indians, you know, there's a famous case of I forget the name like, but there's a famous case of a guy from Punjab, a blue eyed Punjabi guy. And, you know, he tried to say like, look, I'm an Aryan, and I am like a Caucasian person. And the court basically said, Look, you're right about all that. But like, it is not the commonly defined way to say white and so therefore, we're going to remove your naturalization because he was naturalized by a lower court.

    Yeah, absolutely. And I'm glad you mentioned this case, because I talked about in my book, and I'm just blanking on the guy's name as well. I actually think he was a Parsi. So even sort of more interestingly, on the side of the line, and I've lived in India, so I kind of have context for that. But just so your readers who are not familiar, this is basically an Indian of largely Persian descent. Okay, so it's kind of even more On that ambiguous line, and I think, again, it's illustrative of what actual white supremacy looked like, these people were desperately trying in the early 20th century to claim whiteness. Legally for the advantage. What I documented in the book, and in many other places of course, is you see the exact opposite now you see a flight from whiteness in a massive way. So you have 10x, the number of Native Americans now than you had 50 years ago in the census. And this is not because of some Native American birth boom, it's because of the advantages formal and informal of being identified as Native American. And you're seeing a collapse in Hispanics who are identifying as as white even though it's still a lot of them do. And similarly, and similarly, people want to get out of that identity in general. And there's lots of there's lots of documentation of this, including by left wing scholars. I mean, this is not primarily right wingers who have kind of dominated this type of discourse. And so I think the onus is on the people who kind of talk about white privilege to say, well, if it's such a privilege to be white, in the current environment, why is everybody especially at least in the legal sense, running away from whiteness in such a eager way?

    So this is relevant right now in terms of the definition of whiteness because it is legally now shrinking. They are now removing Middle Eastern people from the White category, which means socially, they were not white, but legally they were white, which, which did cause some weird. So there are people from Egypt who can pass as African American. But legally, they're white.

    There are also people like Casey Kasem, even he, I mean, he didn't have such light skin. But he coded so culturally as white, he was Christian. And he was sort of, you know, a mid century Lebanese, kind of guy who just coded as like an All American guy. So I think there obviously, were these sorts of ambiguous cases. But you're right, that they're even further carving out in the census, new groups that are kind of not going to be white. And this, of course, will spill over into job and hiring preferences, and everything else.

    Jeremy, I want you to talk about the 1960s Civil Rights Act, white flight, I mean, all that stuff is in your book. And like how that kind of created the world we're in right now, the historical context.

    Absolutely. And before I do that, there was just something I want to mention. I think, you know, Eric Kaufman, right, is he? Yeah, so Eric Kaufman is a mutual friend of ours has actually written and it's a book I referenced a lot in my own book. So in addition to sort of showing for my book, for folks who are interested in this issue, I definitely recommend Eric Kaufman's book “White Shift” He's a Canadian scholar. He's at the University of Buckingham now in the UK. And he's kind of written he's himself multiracial, but kind of maybe phenotypically white or white ish. And he kind of talked about the sort of birth of this multiracial whiteness almost as maybe kind of a way out of some of this. But to go kind of go back and address your issue of the Civil Rights Act. So Dick Hananiah, Chris Caldwell, Chris is a Claremont colleague of mine, Richard's a friend of mine, and I think yours as well, even though I have a lot of disagreements with him. But they've both written about this, and others have kind of the importance of civil rights laws in terms of getting us where we were today, particularly starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Chris Caldwell calls kind of America's second constitution. And he insists, there's a lot of fundamental tensions between this and our original Constitution. Now, Chris has a wonderful talent for sort of writing opaquely and evasively enough in certain respects, that he can still write for the New York Times while having some pretty edgy opinions on things. I've tried to be a little bit more direct in his book. I mean, his book is terrific. And he's really interesting thinker. I don't think I don't think it's useful either strategically or intellectually, to kind of re litigate the 1964 Act. I think it was responding to some real problems of anti minority discrimination that were going on in the country at the time, it was a blunt instrument, it was largely effective at accomplishing those short term goals. But I do think it's fair to say that it also sowed the seeds for a lot of this reversal that happened later. And that many of the things, the problems, we're dealing with now are kind of eventually spun out of that. I think it just useful to say we're as far away in time from that as they were from the Wright brothers. So there's a lot of a lot of water that's gone into the bridge since then. Another interesting thing is beyond the Act itself. It was all the subsequent Acts, it was the way that the deep state / administrative state interpreted the act and put in all sorts of things and it's actually fascinating when you read the congressional debates around the Act, there's all sorts of things in the debate where skeptics of the Act are saying, well, you know, I'm worried that this, and this, and this, are going to happen if we pass this Act. And the proponents are really clear that no, absolutely, we won't do these things. And in fact, they ended up doing them when the administrative state got a hold, and then there are the courts. And you get these things like disparate impact, and other things. So I think you can't solve this issue without fundamentally addressing civil rights law again after a 60 year timeframe between when we got the original Civil Rights Act at the same time, and this is maybe an area where I differ a little bit from Caldwell and Hananiah. I think if you eliminated every single civil rights law in this country, it would not solve this problem of anti white discrimination. I think some of this is baked into the cake at this point, and is almost more of a cultural thing than a legal matter.

    I mean, that's fair. And there's these arguments about whether politics is downstream of culture, or vice versa, the interaction effects, but the reality is, it's kind of a symbiosis. It's hard to tease them apart. Just say it's like one or the other. The social dynamics are not like simple physical systems. So that point is well taken. So I want to like you were talking about the Civil Rights Movement, one thing that you know, people, I think in America today, younger people, there are young people who do listen to this podcast. In fact, I know that of the people that, you know, check out Unsupervised Learning, the oldsters read the essays, and the young people listen to the podcast, but the America of the 1960s, before 1965, was a very different America racially and culturally. It was a black and a white America. I remember some of that. Me and Jeremy remember some of that, because we're both Gen X. I remember the 1980s and the 1980s. Yeah, there were Latinx and various Asian groups, but really, we were on the outside. We were not American, American American was black people and white people. And they had their issues that there was going on over the last like, you know, I guess it's 30 years now, more than 30 years, 40 years, since 1980, 44 years. But a lot of that's changed. We live in a very different America. And we still have the legal superstructure of the old America. And I think that causes massive problems with a flight from white to Jeremy's talking about, okay. Very few black Americans, you know, could pass as white, black and white, we're very clear categories then. Today we have Latinx people who look like Jeremy. You know, these are like, I call them Conquistador Americans, right? And like they are people of color. In fact, some of them get many more privileges than someone like me with brown skin, because I'm Asian. And that's white adjacent. So to a non American, it starts to feel like really Byzantine. And so I can you just like speak a little bit to that, in relation to the anti white sentiments in our law in our culture.

    Absolutely Razib and you you brought up like 15 different interesting threads there. So I'll try to grab a few of them. I just kind of point out I mean, a you're completely right about how we used to kind of be black and white. And it was a different dynamic. And you grew up in that particular you growing up in Eastern Oregon a lot. It was kind of even I'm sure more extreme. And like they didn't even know how to categorize you, right. There's a little bit of the like Nikki Haley in the black and white prom story. But I'd say it was sort of interesting. And that actually, when I began just as an aside, to think about this issue really a lot more seriously was 20 years ago, my wife and I were living in India. And I was observing a lot of the caste politics in India. And at that time, I read Thomas Sowell’s book “Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study” And it really got me thinking about how a lot of what I was observing there, including a lot of the justifications they were using for quotas and discrimination. Were exactly parallel to what I was seeing in the United States. We just had different groups. So I think you have that going on. Secondly, you have this huge diversification going on. And again, you touched on this and, and this just didn't appear magically. So in addition to the ‘64 Civil Rights Act, we have something that is just as important in 1965, we passed the Hart-Celler immigration bill. And that is after the highest period of immigration restriction that we've ever had, the Johnson-Reed Act, starting in 1924 that really didn't completely shut the border but it was the strictest that it had ever been. Hart-Celler is a political reaction to that. John F. Kennedy kind of creates this term, a nation of immigrants, which hadn't existed before, although it's now kind of like mother's milk to most people to describe where he wants to go and what he claims America's history is. And so you get all of these different groups, you get, you know, 20x the number of Asians. I think again almost 20x number of Hispanics that you have. It's interesting you get African Immigrants. So in other words, not folks who were ADOS, American Descendants of Slaves, but voluntary African immigrants in 1960. That's a group that's too small to even measure on a chart. And today, it's like 15% of African Americans, Barack Obama and sort of indirectly, Kamala Harris, of course, coming from those communities. So you have this much more veriegated groups of racial taxonomy, cultural taxonomy, ethnic taxonomy. And our laws and our customs haven't really caught up to that.

    Yeah, so I think one of the - I shouldn't laugh, but, you know, those of us listening, unless you are listening from the past somehow into the future, just like covering all the bases, you guys have gone through BLM and 2020 of the racial reckoning. And, you know, I think it's to me, it's quite clear that BLM was kind of the last gasp of like, the explicitly old Civil Rights Movement that centered blackness, and made non blackness it’s polar opposite, like implicitly white, but really, you know, your Latinx people and an Asian people were kind of pushed to the margins. You know, and I've said this before, I feel like, I was kind of like a stranger in America for like, the first half of my life, then it wasn't a big deal, you know, by like, the 2000s and into the teens. And then all of a sudden, a lot of us people who are, you know, not part of black and white America, we're kind of deleted from the narrative for a little while, or actually, just since the awokening, which has in a weird way, it's kind of a left wing form of the old black white polarity. What do you think about that?

    Absolutely. I mean, it's interesting that you say - I mean, I think you're absolutely accurate to describe that non black minorities in the Black Lives Matter context get pushed aside from the narrative, right? Is that the last gasp? I don't know. I mean, I think it's a really fascinating question as to, to what extent kind of the Democrats and the left sort of become the fundamentally like black interests party, if you will, and sort of ignore the rest of their Rainbow Coalition to use Jesse Jackson's phrase and assume that that coalition kind of glued together by maybe discomfort with whiteness sticks together, I'm not maybe as optimistic or pessimistic. I'm not sure which way you'd be on that. But I definitely agree. That's what happened in 2020. These other groups really were shunted aside and kind of left out of the story. So interesting to see whether that happens. One of the things I was trying to do again, in this book, a lot of this is black/white, because that's a lot of the history. I also think it's still the most salient point of cleavage. But I talk about a lot of other areas in which kind of leftist whites who are their own problem that I'm happy to talk about maybe will provoke some of your listeners and the leadership of other minority communities who are not African American have played a sort of very negative role in occasionally even blood libeling whites in areas that I have written about in this book.

    Well, I was just thinking, ‘this is MAGA country’ Jussie Smollett. So there were a lot of incidences, you know, this is sensitive, I know for some listeners, I'm just gonna go there. It's like stop Asian - AAPI hate and all that stuff. You know, they were trying to depict this as a white supremacist. Look, there's not that many white supremacists in Oakland California, guys. You know, this was minority, odd minority. This was mostly young black males on vulnerable Asians, like, that's what most of the video showed. And our current cultural hegemony could not compute that, right?

    Absolutely. And this was not intentional, but you literally led me into what would be one of the most stark examples of that, that I do write about in the book, which is the stop Asian hate movement, okay? Which every single way that we're able to statistically document these hate crimes against Asians that were happening, and they were increasing during this time. It was not because Donald Trump said Kung flu, or the China virus or anything like that. But you have this happening pretty clearly and statistically among overwhelmingly African American has assailants in blue areas. So for example, when you look at the anti Asian hate crimes, they rose a lot in Oakland, and not nearly as much in Texas. So you know, any sort of white supremacy narrative you had on it. But it wasn't just that all the activist groups among the Asian Americans kind of participated in creating that narrative, and that itself would have been bad. But you can point to major Wall Street Journal full page ads by Asian American business leaders who really should have known better or who are blood libeling whites and saying, you know, this is this is Trump, this is conservative, this is white supremacy. And you know, look, I can have an adult conversation with people about this. But like, you're simply blaming white people for something they didn't do. And in any normal term, you would call that a blood libel.

    Yeah. I mean, there's lots of ways to go with it. I will say one small thing that I will bring up, it was around the BLM time, you know, a friend of mine academic on Facebook posted something about, you know, a guy, I think an old Hispanic man was lattacked and there was some racial, anti immigrant stuff reported in the media. And, you know, my friend posted like, Trump, this was still when Trump was president. And you know, it was like Trump, but blah, blah, blah. And I was like, bro, you could just look up the demographics of the area. It's mostly Hispanic, with a black minority, there's almost no white people that live there. So all of your commentary is irrelevant. And then later, he had an update, he's like, okay, yeah, Razib was right, you know, so I mean, this is like, just put on your thinking, cap, like, look at the empirical data. But you know, you have a theory, and theory demands evidence, theory demands validation. And that's what a lot of what’s going on there. Right. Let's talk about, you know, there's a lot of stuff in the book, actually, it's a short book, but you put a lot of topics in there a lot of topics that I think people kind of like, talk about privately in their group chats or, you know, you know, but it's not like written about, you just went wrote about it. Or at least, like, it's not written about that much. So let's talk about entertainment.

    Yeah, two things. It just as a quick preface, you mentioned theory and something I got have stolen from you. But I know you've got it from somewhere else is theory is information for free. I think it's a really powerful way of sort of thinking about the world. And in terms of the things that I wrote about. Yeah, I mean, these things do get talked about in group chats. They're not necessarily considered fodder for polite conversation in some places. But that's why I talked about it. So in the entertainment world, there's a few things going on. One is that, and this is kind of interesting, because you I think you asked earlier, certainly other interviewers have kind of asked me, like when did we sort of turn around from maybe being a more white dominated, or even white supremacist if you wanted to be provocative, culture to kind of an anti white? There are again, left wing scholars who have done careful empirical studies of the portrayal of minorities on TV and movies over the years and how much was it and were they positively portrayed, negatively portrayed, etc. And again, these are left wing scholars are not people predisposed to kind of like apologize for whiteness, what the scholars have generally found is that even starting in the 1960s, minorities are overall portrayed more positively in Hollywood, in movies and in TV than white people. Now, of course, again, caveat, millions of exceptions, we can remember stereotypes like Long Duk Dong from 1980s, John Hughes movies, you know, other mean stereotypes of African Americans or whatever. But if you kind of look even think back, I think to my childhood is core Gen X, you sort of have the brave, majestic Native American against the slightly, you know, dangerous rapacious white guys trying to take their land or whatever else, or, you know, even sometimes, if the black person might be a criminal in the movie, his motives are portrayed as somehow more pristine and pure. There's even a concept again, I'm borrowing this from from left wing scholars called the magical negro. And this is the sort of person of a black person in this case, who comes in with their superior wisdom, and kind of solves the problem for the benighted white people, Morgan Freeman has played this role in a few movies, there have been others, there's there I mean, if you type in magical Negro, you'll see a lot of discussion of of this particular term, but even goes beyond just film. I talk about Hamilton, which is an interesting mixed case, because in certain ways, it's reifying, a very unifying identity around the founders. It's it's kind of a transitional project before wokeness really took over, it's completed in 2015. But it sort of starts before the Great Awokening. At one level, you'd say that that's a kind of unifying document, and it's giving every group part of American history. On the other hand, it's not a coincidence, I would argue that the one bad guy, King George, in that musical is the one white guy in the cast. And there are various other things, and even my kids, you know, who were younger, and they'd be listening to Hamilton, and they would be kind of confused about the ethnic identity of the founding fathers, which is a certain amount of historical erasure. And then finally, you kind of go beyond that. There's a Twitter account, I think it's called ‘white people are stupid in commercials’ that consists of nothing but this thing that's actually like a trope at this went on Madison Avenue, have the dumb white guy in the commercial doing something for which he's mocked and the minority person comes in, or sometimes it's a woman, and sort of solves this, this problem for him.

    Yeah, actually, I want to back up a little bit. In your book you have a chapter on history. Let me just put out like a kind of an obscure esoteric thing that I'm kind of obsessed with. Many things, as you guys know. So, when you talk about whiteness, obviously, In the 19th century with the Irish, there's some confusions there. It gets really weird in Greco Roman antiquity. And this comes up with both like the wokes and the Nazis, I'm just going to use those two groups, but there, there's a spectrum. And it is true that Greco Romans did not have our categories. But they did understand that there were white skinned people and dark skinned people and the dark skinned they were like, so for example, I think it was Herodotus, but it was one of the Greeks was saying how Egyptians are light brown, and North Indians are light brown, but South Indians are dark brown like Ethiopians, but their hair is not woolly. They actually had a pretty sophisticated understanding of these sorts of things. So for example, Septimius Severus, who was born in Leptis Magna, he was part Latin, part either Punic or Berber. There's debates about it. He is sometimes depicted with darker skin, but he was clearly not black, even though he was from Africa, but Africa back that originally was actually just like, you know, the Northwest shores of the Mediterranean. So these sorts of things get confused and interpolated into our current historical arguments. And you know, you have these weird things like Bridgerton. You know, is plausible to it's plausible to a lot of dumb Zoomers. I mean, you guys are listening. I mean, you guys are mostly smart, like, candidly. But like, there are a lot of dumb people out there who will actually literally believe fake stuff, because they don't know no better.

    And you kind of touched on the ancient world. I talked about this a little bit. I mean, in a couple of contexts. One is which is if you read the British historian, Peter Heather, who's a very well known and well regarded historian, I think he may be at Oxford. He kind of writes about how uncontrolled immigration basically does in the Roman Empire. And that's a long story. And it's not a direct parallel. So I'm not trying to kind of tie everything up with too neat a bow, but that's there. Secondly, in the way that these sorts of debates come into our own debate. Classic example I talk about in my chapter on religion is St. Augustine. St. Augustine is from Africa. But he's from North Africa. And basically, I think pretty much all scholars agree, he was a Berber. So Berbers are, you know, we can argue whether they're on that border of whiteness, but they're not black, they're not sub Saharan Africans. And yet, if you go into the modern Catholic Church in which St. Augustine, I mean, he's venerated by by the vast majority of Christians, but he’s particularly an important figure in Catholic history. You can find all this stuff, which I document in the book about, oh, you know, we need to portray St. Augustine as black and he is black, and all this stuff that's just completely non historical. And, you know, kind of just indicative of how much the modern racial politics has sort of leaked into everything.

    So now we'll jump back into this topic that I've actually read about before, it's pretty interesting, the environmental movement. I mean, to some extent, okay, the environmental movement does actually legit have some white supremacist antecedents and even contemporary connections. So it's a really, really weird thing to tackle because you're gonna blow people's minds about who Madison Grant was and what he did what he wasn't, you know, what he wasn't like protecting the Nordic race, right? Let you talk a little bit about that.

    So absolutely. And I should sort of back off because I only gave a thumbnail bio. But in addition to writing this book, and in my my kind of formal life, most of my formal training is in energy and environment, my graduate training, and I was a deputy assistant secretary of the interior under President Trump overseeing the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. So I'm very familiar with these issues. You touched on Madison Grant. Madison Grant was probably the foremost so called Scientific racist, I hate to even put scientific in front of it, because his ideas were really for the most part, I mean, truly pure pseudoscience about oblong heads and, and things like that. But he was he wrote a book called “The Passing of the Great Race” and he was certainly the kind of preeminent public white supremacist, but he also had tons of connections in elite society. And at that point, you know, 100 plus years ago, you could do that while having this very sort of incendiary kind of notion around race. And of course, even for him he was a Nordicist beyond being a white supremacist. So, you know, he didn't even like those swarthy southern Italians or anybody like that. But in his other Life, he was one of the foremost important conservationists and environmentalists in American history. He founded the Save the Redwoods League, he did all sorts of things, as did Teddy Roosevelt whose racial record would be kind of scandalous by today, to preserve the environment, and so a lot of the environmental movement is is kind of historically, sometimes it's deeply like preservation of species and preservation of the white race begin to get very intermix. So that's a lot of the the kind of subtext and background of the history of the environmental movement. And of course, the modern environmental movement loves to kind of brush that aside. And so in many cases, what you get, and I spend a lot of time talking in the book about the Sierra Club in particular, which in the wake of George Floyd, Sierra Club being the biggest grassroots environmental organization in the US, goes absolutely insane. That'd be just like, I'm going to give you the passages you buy the book, read the book, but like, it's almost like a Stalinist show trial of their own white privilege and white supremacy, the environmental movement, still being very white disproportionately. And it kind of ends with their leadership, literally canceling John Muir who founded the Sierra Club. Now, I would say that this is like America canceling George Washington. But it's even more extreme than that. Because Muir, who was actually basically a racial progressive for his time, but he was 19th century, early 20th century, he had some views on race that would not be considered current in 2024. But Muir he had these ideas. You can't even imagine the Sierra Club without John Muir. And yet, the racial hysteria had gotten so much that they they canceled them, they say, you know, we have to tear down our monuments literally, is the sort of thing that is going on and is being mentioned, I'd say beyond that. There's there's other things going on, that I write about and talk about. So you have the environmental movement, I describe an experience of going to Glacier National Park in Montana where I live, and I go up to a sign and again, this is 35 miles down a gravel road, in a pretty remote part of the park. And everything I see is not like trail directions, but its various indigenous peoples this or anti racist, it's literally just it is an entire parade of seven notices about different areas of wokeness. That's what confronts me as I'm getting ready to go into the wilderness. And I just think it shows how much the environmental movement has really been captured by this type of thinking.

    I mean, you know, it's interesting, because David Brower, the founder of the Sierra Club, he was anti immigration. In fact, he was anti immigration until his dying day. I think he died like in 2010 or something. So, you know, there is this, I'm not saying anti immigration is white supremacist obviously. I had Jason Richwine, another podcast couple years ago, you guys know that. But the environmental movement was much more broad based in its social and its cultural roots than it is perceived today, which is just an adjunct to the broader kind of like left wing NGO industrial complex, right. So it makes sense that it would have like a diversity of political views. And I would argue that this sort of politicization is actually bad for the environment.

    Absolutely. And again, I write about I talk about, I'm glad you mentioned it. So the Sierra Club, famously was even neutral on immigration issues well into the 70s and 80s. At a time, when in other ways, it would have been seen as a member of the left in good standing. Even in the early 2000s, there was an insurgent campaign by a multi ethnic group of Sierra Club members to kind of get them to take the club to take an anti immigration position. And on the notion that kind of population pressures reduce kind of environmental money, something I actually agree with. And they won actually there, first board seats, and then the administration just totally freaked out and managed to game things so they lost it. The follow on rounds, but the point is, even 20 years ago, there's a substantial constituency in the environmental movement that is concerned about these issues that's concerned about immigration. Some of this may come from white racial chauvinism. A lot of it I think, just comes from a concern about population pressures. And that was kind of the older type of environmentalism. And this has kind of been pushed aside in various hysterical ways. And I think it's because they know that to be viable politically, in the 21st century, the investment No movement must be less white than they are. And so they will do anything to kind of bash whites and whiteness to maintain their relevance.

    Yeah, as I said, ironically, it's actually narrowing their relevance because we are still a white majority country, at least for a little while, or, you know, in some ways parenthetically, I'm just gonna reject this because, you know, you've talked about this, even anti immigration, like more, you know, I don't know, like the doyenne of anti immigration activists, writers, Peter Brimelow, has talked about this in his book Alien Nation. People who are mixed white, usually, if they're, if you're white non black. It is not that uncommon for the person to identify, you know, I'm gonna use the word identify, but like, what do they check? You know, like, I have friends who are like a fourth Japanese. What do they check? They check white? Right?

    Yeah, absolutely. And again, I actually, overall would argue this is good thing. And in fact, in my conclusion, to kind of go back to this white shift, Eric Kaufman idea. What I kind of argue is that given where we are right now as a society, and given that we're not going to go to the far right's sort of fancy fill racial nationalism, nor do I think we want unbridled multiculturalism, and multi ethnic things, because I think it often leads to racial violence and other other things that we really don't want in this country, what we should be doing is, in fact, trying to have what scholars might call sort of if White shift is too edgy for you, an ethnogenesis. So essentially, we are creating a new American ethnicity for people who in most cases are going to have some quote unquote, white heritage, but it's more of a multi ethnic group of people, some of whom will be all of European descent, but some of whom will just be a partial European descent that they will kind of identify with that American story, that American history that'll be part of their heritage. So you get Hispanics are like really the easiest target for this, a third of them are marrying, they're already a heavily European descent group, they're four times more a European descent than anything else, genetically something that you're certainly familiar with, on average. So I think that's, that's one of the ways that we could get to a sort of more peaceable place where we could kind of move forward as a more unified nation.

    Yeah. So I think I want to I want to talk about these, these big picture issues like at the end of our conversation, but I do want to hit about a couple of your topics. These are actually all in the chapter. So you know, if you are obviously more detail, this is like a surface sketch. You know, but I want to talk about, let's talk about like, tech, religion and military. And, you know, it's like, I don't know, I mean, military and tech in particular, I think a lot of people would say, Well, those are like, very white domains. Religion, I think it's a little bit more complicated. So like, like, address them in sequence? Sure.

    So in my tech chapter, I tell you, I lived in Silicon Valley for years, and I live in Montana now, but I'm very familiar with kind of that context. It was actually fascinating. I'll never forget, when I was in, I wish I'd saved the paper, when it was like it was old enough that I was actually getting a physical paper. But there was a San Jose Mercury News piece that came out, and I don't know 2008 2009. And it was all about kind of how tech was disproportionately white. And it was a huge problem. And like, literally, they just erased the Asian Americans from this equation. And the Asian Americans were, of course, dramatically over represented, particularly in the engineering jobs, but not exclusively. And it just, they were so desperate to talk about white supremacy and white privilege, that they ignored the fact that whites are still underrepresented in Silicon Valley in these jobs. And again, I think I talked about in the book, I did pick up another headline, where they suggested, Well, Asian Americans are 55% of the engineering people with only 27% of the overall executives. So it's clearly white supremacy. So the idea that they're only four and a half times more over represented on a population basis, in in kind of the management was seen as obvious white supremacy. Again, something you're probably familiar with, one of the interesting ways that you blow holes in that is that the vast majority of these really top Asian American tech CEOs who run some of the biggest companies in tech are from the Indian subcontinent. Well, why is that? Could it be not that it's white supremacy, but that they speak English when they come in. That they are coming from a much more similar cultural context than say, a Chinese immigrant is. You know, I think all these things play into that. Look, I mean, if you go to the top of the venture capital world or whatever, that's still a kind of disproportionately white world and we can kind of author hypotheses as to why that is, but but actually show how, in fact, you've had massive white flight from Silicon Valley over the last, particularly last 20 years, to the point that San Mateo and Santa Clara County, which are kind of the heart of, of Silicon Valley, have fewer whites now than they've had on an absolute basis, since, like 1950, when their populations were, you know, 1/7 of what they were today. So you've had some very dramatic changes. So that's the tech world. In the military world, you have some of the same things going on. First of all, there is a myth. It's a pernicious myth. It's one that's been laundered by Hollywood, extensively, that going back to the Vietnam War, that kind of black soldiers in particularly were cannon fodder, and white people got out of it. It's just statistically not true. Now, with the within the white community, there were gradations of people, particularly who were actually sort of socially and economically privileged, who got out of it more, but the deaths were even in slight disproportion White. And actually what you're seeing right now in the military is that particularly promotions at the top and I, I've worked with when I'm particularly when it's at the Hoover Institution, in my past life, I worked a lot with four star generals and things like that. So I know a lot of these folks. It's gotten so discriminatory against white people. And the kind of rhetoric around white privilege has gotten so bad that white dads who are in the military are telling their kids not to go in. And you've had an absolute collapse over the last five years, I think down 40% of white recruits while everybody else stayed the same. Now, that would be a problem if it were any group, but whites are disproportionately, white soldiers, at the tip of the spear as they would say. So they're in the most dangerous combat roles, the big Special Forces roles. So the fact that this group is now being made to feel unwelcome in the military, and they are and we can really see it in these numbers is really a national security threat.

    Yeah, and I think Jeremy, I mean, you've alluded to this, but let's be explicit here. You know, not all whites are created equal when it comes to military representation. So, you know, someone like George W. Bush, famously kind of, you know, took the easy path, shall we say, but I mean, look at his lineage, he's a Yankee. Yes, he did grow up in Texas part of the time, but, you know, he is a Connecticut Yankee. And quite literally, the people that are disproportionately in the military are the same people that were in the military right before the Civil War. They're Southerners. You know, a lot of Scots Irish, lowland southerners, white Southerners are the white people, Scots Irish people that were, you know, that were like, staffing our military, and if they start to be alienated from our institutions, and that's what's happening. It's an alienation from institutions, it's going to cause some serious problems. You know, there are things you could do, what Ancient Rome did, when Italians stopped serving the military, is they got German federates, mercenaries, and over the long term that didn't really work out.

    Absolutely. And you see right now the same I mean, these are the sort of the disturbing patterns where you're seeing Democrats say, oh, let's just let illegals come in. And we'll give them citizenship if they'll fight. And as you point out, not just in ancient Rome, but in other scenarios, we have historically, things to suggest that doesn't really work out. It is the Scots Irish. Jim Webb, for any of you particularly are interested in this issue. Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy and then a leader, a Democratic senator from Virginia wrote a really good book called “Born Fighting” that's about this very phenomena. But yes, we see recruits particularly Scots Irish, but but even more particularly, they tend to be in general, small town, white. These are kind of the disproportionate people who are volunteering for these combat roles. And the military is in varying ways, telling them they're not welcome. And one of the things that was actually heartening is when Tom Cotton kind of blew the whistle, he’s a senator from Arkansas, on some of this in a recent hearing, what came out was a lot of minority soldiers in these guys battalion sort of testifying that, yeah, we had to do this white privilege training or critical race theory. And I think it's bullshit, I don’t like this, it ruins unit cohesion. So I think the military because it has a strong culture is trying to resist this, but even the military is beginning to give away.

    What's I mean, it's not just the military. You know, America right now is going through a wave of mass secularization but there's still a predominately religious country, it is still more religious than most European nations, I would say, for example, and definitely East Asian nations. So you know, religion is still a big part of our culture, and some of these dynamics that you've been talking about have been impacting the Christian churches. I will say, I was talking to a traditionalist Catholic, I think is a good description of this person, not going to name who they are, because they are editor in a prominent religious publication during BLM and I was actually upset by a lot of the behavior during BLM. You know, I understand that a lot of you out there think that it was all about justice and equity, but if you read what BLM’s plank was they wanted to destroy the nuclear family. It was basically communism. Race communism, I guess. And so I was very upset. So I asked, you know, my conservative Christian friends, like, what do you guys gonna be doing about this sort of stuff. And several of them got back to me and they were just like, we probably can't do anything because Christianity is anti racist. Whereas like with the sexuality stuff, the trans stuff, all the other stuff that they're opposed to, that's very clear for them, and they can, you know, push back, but they just predicted that the church would would basically cave in every which way, because of the universalism embedded within Christianity when it comes to ethnicity.

    Absolutely. And to some extent, that's an advantage, right? I mean, to me, I'm a Christian, I’m an evangelical, it's one of the things that's that's actually attractive about Christianity is that in Christ, there is no East or West, or black or white, or any of these things. Ideally. Now, of course, the history of our church, in America and elsewhere has shown that that's not true. And I even remember, when we lived in India, the church of North India, for example, everything was very stratified by caste, even though caste shouldn't have really existed in an Indian context. So, of course, churches are sinful, just like the people who inhabit them, at least from a Christian perspective. So that's not a surprise. I do think that Christianity does have some vulnerabilities in this area, you go back to kind of Nietzsche talking about Christianity’s slave morality. I don't agree with Nietzsche his critique, but I think that you know, he does use on to a certain something there that is a certain vulnerability within Christianity. Having said that, this really is from a Christians perspective what's going on unbiblical, even though there's a lot of pressure within the church to kind of move in that direction. And actually, the person who I cite kind of most extensively in my chapter on religion is a guy named Voddie Baucham who has the same publisher as me. He wrote a book called “Fault Lines” that kind of explores the rise of critical race theory in the church. He is Himself, he's an African American Southern Baptist pastor. He's currently pastoring in Angola, and being the Dean of Theology at a university there. But I gotta be honest, my publisher, because we have the same publisher, he gave me this book, he said, it sold 100,000 copies in hardback, which is huge. He said, It's really good. And I kind of picked it up. And I was like, Okay, well, I'll take it, you know, it's gonna be the black guy who says it's like, bad to be woke. And I was just like, I didn't think I wasn't going in with super high expectations. But it's actually really terrific. It's a deep theological exploration of just how these anti white claims and critical race theory are directly substitutions for actual Christianity. And in fact, in many cases are also negations of Christianity. I won't try to go into it all here. You should buy the book if you're interested in getting into it, or you could buy just Baucham’s book and you should. But it's it's a sort of deeply embedded thing where we've almost put in a substitute religion for actual Christianity within a lot of the evangelical church say nothing of the mainline Church, which is I mean, with apologies to any mainline folks listening here is institutionally at least pretty far gone.

    Yeah. So, you know, in terms of race and Christianity, I just want to say this is gonna be weird aside, but during the period of National Socialism, there was a form of reconstructive, I mean, it was basically mostly Protestant. It was all Protestant, called German Christianity. And they added race as a sacrament. It was it was basically I mean, operationally, it wasn't a step towards paganism. But, you know, they tried it for a while there was a Confessing Church that oppose that. So Christianity can be twisted in all sorts of weird ways. It can be, you know, there was pro slavery Christians. There were anti slavery Christians, obviously, you know, in Calvin in America, and like Presbyterianism, and Calvinism. There's RL Dabney, who was a southern pastor, and also he was a soldier as well. And he justified the Southern way of life, so to speak with slavery and race hierarchy. So, you know, there's a lot of directions you could go to, and I think, in some ways, it's a reflection of the culture, the conflicts within the church, or conflicts within America in general. And, you know, it's not surprising that it's happening. Again, I think it's a little confusing a lot of the details to non Americans who are Christian, or non Christian, because all of the things that are happening in this country, they are a product of our particular history, our particular time, even though people try to put it in a global context, you know, global white supremacy, you know, Ta-Nehisi Coates and his ilk would say the white supremacy is embedded in the fabric of the universe, as if it's like the ontology, which it all get, like, I think it's like making white people into Gods almost like divine beings, but inverting their moral valence. So they're actually demons. Right? So that's, that's what we live in. And that's, you know, Jeremy goes into a lot of details about the specifics of what's happening, but like, let's, let's brass tacks get into, like, what is happening in this country. It is a product of our history, but it's got a very strange direction. I mean, you know, Jeremy and I are same generation. I mean, you know, we were against racism back in the day like it was bad, but like, we do not recognize what is happening in this country today as being against racism.

    Yeah, you know, I think back to the 1980s. And I want to really avoid the sort of middle aged guy thing, or old guy thing of looking back and saying, oh, everything was perfect. It wasn't. But you know, we had Michael Jackson is the big pop star and Eddie Murphy is the big movie star. And Michael Jordan is the big basketball player. And you kind of name it and, and certainly, I think nobody was under any sort of illusions that racial problems didn't exist. But the sort of fractured and fractious environment that we're in now, it just wasn't, it wasn't present, it just wasn't. And it wasn't just that I was like, living in some bubble. I mean, I was living, I went to a highly integrated southern school with lots of African American students. So I had a lot of exposure to kind of that cultural context. It just everything was not as frayed lin either direction. And it just at some point, maybe it's the internet, maybe it's changing demographics, there's a lot of things I kind of speculated on, you see in the in the statistical data, which you and I care a lot about, because we're very empirical people in 2013, right after Obama is elected, we get what's called the Great Awokening, which is a play on the Great Awakening these early religious revivals we had in the US. And you suddenly begin to see this dramatic rise in sort of racial anti whiteness and political correctness of various types. So I think I mean, this is actually something I want to explore in my next book is, is kind of what all the causes of that works. I don't think we have a perfect answer to it yet. But yet it is. I mean, I have to tell you, just like and if you don't believe me talk to other Gen Xers who aren't crazy. It's not just me and Razib. It was not this toxic of an environment there was a much more of a unity I mean, a Rocky and Apollo Creed are best friends and they go beat Ivan Drago in Rocky IV right. It was like the ultimate sort of patriotic thing. Nobody was like, well, the Russians are racially white. So I'm gonna vote for that. Right, like everybody understood that, like, the black of the white guy were both equally American. And the clear good guys, and we've just gotten away from that, in a society, we've gone down this really weird and toxic intellectual culdesac

    I don't know what the next generation is gonna be like, you know, those of you in the audience know that I have three kids have mixed provenance, you know, population origins. And you know, at school sometimes, you know, their parents, you know, like, be candid, asked about, like, the racial stuff, and they literally eye roll, say it's cringe. It's annoying. Nobody cares. Why do you guys talk about that? So I wonder sometimes if our middle aged at like, somewhat younger than middle age, preconceptions, I wonder where Gen alpha, which is the least white generation, but also the most mixed generation is going to go? So you know, you are a conservative, you are very conservative, Jeremy, in the American? Well, I don't know you're moderately very conservative. That's what I'm gonna say. I think that's that's correct. You're right, you're not far right. You're whatever. So. But some of the things you write about some of the things you're applying here, are actually quite radical, that it's an ending of the way we conceive of race in the United States, as we have from 1790. To, you know, the BLM, awakening period, like you're imagining a future of Americanism, of a new form of humanity, in a way. And to me, like, this is actually frightening to a lot of people on the far right as well.

    Yeah, absolutely. And I think, again, one of the reasons I wrote this book, which is a radical book, I think it is fair to say in certain ways, but I actually wrote it. I didn't write it for this reason, but I think it will have this effect is that if we were to do some of the things I'm asking for, it's de-radicalizing. What I'm looking at is I've got five kids. I see like what the future looks like for them. I'm really concerned, I've studied history, I've seen what ethnic conflict looks like, it can get really, really bad. And anybody who's kind of LARPing, about new civil war stuff, and the civil war movie just is coming out this weekend, when we're recording this, I'm not sure when this podcast will see the light of day, but anybody who's LARPing to think that like that's the road that we want to go down is kidding themselves and doesn't have any real familiarity with what that would look like. So I'm really trying to get us to make some concessions to getting back to a more sensible ground here. Because if we don't, they're going to be - and I know some of these guys I see them may comment on my posts sometimes. Who are really angry young white guys and I don't blame them for being angry. Okay. And they are being in my view. Again, this is why I wrote the book. They're being discriminated against. It's the system. It doesn't mean - of course, I mean, there's a bunch of cultural capital they have. There's even financial capital because their families have often been here for a long time and have had chance to build that up, but that doesn't change kind of the going forward perspective that they're at and having a bunch of young, very angry white guys, you know, running around feeling correctly, the system is not giving them a fair shake is not a position that this country or anybody should want to be in. Yeah,

    I mean, as Jeremy just said, look, they’re our pilots, they’re our financial engineers, they’re our doctors, like they are Americans, just like everybody else. Okay. You might think that they're the most evil Americans, but whatever. You know, they do a lot of things in our culture in our society, a lot of concrete things, a lot of things that are material, a lot of things that keep our society going. White male roughnecks, you know, they're getting the oil out of the Gulf right now, as Jeremy and I are talking. So you know, like, respect, like they created this country, this is a great country, I think, I will say, this is the greatest country in the history of the world so far, you know, maybe, maybe not forever. That's a long time. They did create this country, you know, for good, or Ill like, whatever their sins were. So I think that is the historical perspective that we need to have. I think it's fine, obviously to revise and reconsider our historical context. But we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anger, needs an outlet, it will find an outlet. So, you know, this is a controversial thing that I say, supposedly, but like, I do not like the fact that these, that our Society in America today is fixated on us thinking excessively about our racial identity. I don't think that that's a good trend for anyone, I definitely don't think it's a good trend for young whites. This is a good, I think, our administrative or bureaucratic or intelligentsia class, not understanding the psychology of the average human being, if you tell them that they should put their race above all other things, they will.

    Absolutely. And along those lines, and you mentioned in your fondness for America, I have to mention to your audience, for those who haven't written it. I've, of course, read many of the things you've written over the years but but my favorite is, was this rare personal reflection you had called ‘Get Lucky’ that was about your pride as a guy who came here as a young immigrant from Bangladesh at age three, was that right? It was for very young. And your pride in being American and in adopting that American identity and making this fully your home in every way, and the unique opportunities that America has offered you right. And that's how I want everybody to think about America, regardless of what racial or ethnic background that they have. And that's why I wrote this book, because I'm concerned that we are going in the wrong direction on a lot of this stuff. And I think we really, we need a fundamental course correction.

    Yeah, I would say, you know, I'm proud to be America. This is the only country I have. Only country I can be. And that is also true for you know, young John White, or whatever his name is. Actually, John White is probably most likely a black American, let's say like John Smith, okay. You know, but you know, so this is our country, we have to live here we have to figure it out. I so I do think “The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart”Jeremy's book, you should check it out, you should read it. If you're liberal, you should definitely read it. Because I think there's a lot of facts that are there. You kind of suspect on some level and he surfaces. So I know I'm gonna get like, I probably gonna get a little guff about, like, you know, talking to Jeremy, but look if you know who I am, you shouldn't be that scandalized. But I want you to be on and I want these ideas out there. Because they're real, they're serious. They're substantive, just because people don't want to talk about it. That doesn't mean it disappears, looking away does nothing. Ultimately, it's got to come at you. So I think we need to address these issues. Because you know, we have, we have a society to fix here. We have this country that produces all this innovation. For the rest of the world. Like this is not just an American concern. It's a world concern. Because we know what American sneezes the world catches a cold, right. So I think like with that, thank you for your time, Jeremy. And I will see you around, as I always do. Jeremy does come visit Boston. And I think I will definitely be going to Bozeman, where you live. I think this summer, you know, before, after this podcast is posted, for sure, I will see you

    Looking forward to it again Razib. It's a pleasure to be on always, you know, been a huge fan of your writing and everything else you've done over the years. And we talked for quite a long time before we ever did meet in person, but it's, you know, just keep doing all the great work that you're doing. And really appreciate the opportunity to also expand a little bit beyond the kind of more just conservative audiences I tend to be in front of, and I really do I hope in particular that open minded liberals or independents or whatnot will read this book, and give me their candid feedback. You know, things they like things they they agree with. It's a provocative subject, but I have to tried not to, despite the title, which is there to sell books, it's actually not over the top. I'm trying to do it to convince a fair minded independent person who could pick up the book that hey, there's really something here that we want to address and worry about. And I appreciate having the opportunity to talk to you and your audience.

    Yeah, if I can read Michael Parenti’s like apologists for 20th century state communism. You can read Jeremy Carl's “The Unprotected Class” you know, just expose yourself to something a little different. It's not always pleasant, but it's usually edifying. So thank you for your time. Jeremy.

    10% of pediatric cancer is linked to a single gene variation. These variants can be detected in embryos before pregnancy begins. Orchid’s whole genome reports can help mitigate your child's risk for cancer by screening for 90 Plus genetic variants linked to pediatric cancer. Discuss embryo screening and IVF with a genetics expert.

    Is this podcast for kids?