Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Viewpoint diversity helps academia avoid becoming an echo chamber. HxA President John Tomasi describes how ideological homogeneity is undermining science:

Heterodox Academy

61,445 subscribers

11,595 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Former president of ESPN, John Skipper, explains how a handshake deal with FIFA for World Cup broadcast rights turned into becoming a government witness for the feds. 😳 "We had an agreement. ... What I know is, they wanted to award it to Fox." More:

Former president of ESPN, John Skipper, explains how a handshake deal with FIFA for World Cup broadcast rights turned into becoming a government witness for the feds. 😳 "We had an agreement. ... What I know is, they wanted to award it to Fox." More:

Pablo Torre Finds Out

74,781 views • 2 years ago

.Ben Shapiro PERFECTLY describes the “Echo Chamber of Evil” that many of us call “Podcastistan”: “What you have here is a closed loop- an echo chamber where the same dozen people cycle through each other’s shows saying the same poisonous things…” Ben names some of them: “Cenk Uygur has a show with Ana Kasparian and is Hasan Piker’s uncle… Candace Owens has Tucker on. Tucker platforms Nick Fuentes AND Cenk AND Ana. Cenk endorses Tucker. Hasan nods along with the same lines that Nick Fuentes is posting. They’re all pretending to be opponents, but they’re not.” Many of us have noticed this loop (which includes the unnamed Megyn Kelly), and it’s why we wonder how any good people continue to appear as guests on these podcasts? 🎥:

.Ben Shapiro PERFECTLY describes the “Echo Chamber of Evil” that many of us call “Podcastistan”: “What you have here is a closed loop- an echo chamber where the same dozen people cycle through each other’s shows saying the same poisonous things…” Ben names some of them: “Cenk Uygur has a show with Ana Kasparian and is Hasan Piker’s uncle… Candace Owens has Tucker on. Tucker platforms Nick Fuentes AND Cenk AND Ana. Cenk endorses Tucker. Hasan nods along with the same lines that Nick Fuentes is posting. They’re all pretending to be opponents, but they’re not.” Many of us have noticed this loop (which includes the unnamed Megyn Kelly), and it’s why we wonder how any good people continue to appear as guests on these podcasts? 🎥:

Jackie Chea ⚖️

25,331 views • 11 days ago

Some Democrat Voters are realizing they may have been wrong and in an echo chamber “I genuinely was riding that blue wave and felt like we were really unified in that. Obviously, I was aware of the MAGA presence, but I didn't quite realize just how massive it was.” “It's becoming abundantly clear to me that the reality that I'm seeing is not the same as a lot of you” “So, yeah, I mean, I just wanna hear what you guys have to say. What is it about him? What is it about the campaign? What do you feel like he's going to do to push our country forward? — I'm genuinely confused, and I wanna know.”

Some Democrat Voters are realizing they may have been wrong and in an echo chamber “I genuinely was riding that blue wave and felt like we were really unified in that. Obviously, I was aware of the MAGA presence, but I didn't quite realize just how massive it was.” “It's becoming abundantly clear to me that the reality that I'm seeing is not the same as a lot of you” “So, yeah, I mean, I just wanna hear what you guys have to say. What is it about him? What is it about the campaign? What do you feel like he's going to do to push our country forward? — I'm genuinely confused, and I wanna know.”

Wall Street Apes

6,723,225 views • 1 year ago

I sat down with James Lindsay to unpack how woke Marxist ideology infiltrated Western society, starting from Marx himself up through the political turmoil of the past decade. While working on the “Grievance Studies” hoax papers alongside Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose, James began to realize that the ideological rot in academia was worse than he thought. Following that experience, he dedicated himself to researching the long intellectual history of wokeness, critical theory, and communism and educating the public about the political, rhetorical, and institutional traps set by the modern Left. James Lindsay, anti-Communist Outline: 0:00 - Targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center 12:30 - Sense-making in the internet age 25:47 - Becoming the top intellectual historian of wokeness 47:54 - How Marxism transformed into intersectionality 1:04:40 - Power politics vs utopian Marxism 1:24:57 - Marxism is inherently anti-democratic 1:31:46 - Are academics are natural marxists? 1:44:40 - How neo-Marxism took over education 1:58:25 - Race, sex, and the internet 2:13:22 - Is James pushing an ideological narrative? 2:20:15 - What role did the collapse of religion play? 2:34:44 - Have we developed antibodies to wokeness? 2:43:13 - James won’t (and can’t) keep his mouth shut

I sat down with James Lindsay to unpack how woke Marxist ideology infiltrated Western society, starting from Marx himself up through the political turmoil of the past decade. While working on the “Grievance Studies” hoax papers alongside Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose, James began to realize that the ideological rot in academia was worse than he thought. Following that experience, he dedicated himself to researching the long intellectual history of wokeness, critical theory, and communism and educating the public about the political, rhetorical, and institutional traps set by the modern Left. James Lindsay, anti-Communist Outline: 0:00 - Targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center 12:30 - Sense-making in the internet age 25:47 - Becoming the top intellectual historian of wokeness 47:54 - How Marxism transformed into intersectionality 1:04:40 - Power politics vs utopian Marxism 1:24:57 - Marxism is inherently anti-democratic 1:31:46 - Are academics are natural marxists? 1:44:40 - How neo-Marxism took over education 1:58:25 - Race, sex, and the internet 2:13:22 - Is James pushing an ideological narrative? 2:20:15 - What role did the collapse of religion play? 2:34:44 - Have we developed antibodies to wokeness? 2:43:13 - James won’t (and can’t) keep his mouth shut

Dad Saves America

54,777 views • 11 months ago

When I was a student, the best part of university was the fierce, passionate debates in the classroom. We disagreed deeply on almost everything. But when class ended, we sat on the grass together, shared lunch, and never stopped seeing each other as human beings. Look at academia today. It has completely abandoned the pursuit of truth to become a toxic echo chamber of a single, enforced dogma. Instead of teaching students how to think, they teach them what to think and how to scream down anyone who thinks differently. Watching a Jewish professor being physically blocked from entering his own campus by a screaming mob isn’t just a security failure. It is the ultimate certificate of moral bankruptcy for modern higher education. By replacing open debate with radical conformity, universities haven't educated a generation: they’ve built an army of brainwashed bullies who are utterly incapable of tolerating any perspective but their own.

When I was a student, the best part of university was the fierce, passionate debates in the classroom. We disagreed deeply on almost everything. But when class ended, we sat on the grass together, shared lunch, and never stopped seeing each other as human beings. Look at academia today. It has completely abandoned the pursuit of truth to become a toxic echo chamber of a single, enforced dogma. Instead of teaching students how to think, they teach them what to think and how to scream down anyone who thinks differently. Watching a Jewish professor being physically blocked from entering his own campus by a screaming mob isn’t just a security failure. It is the ultimate certificate of moral bankruptcy for modern higher education. By replacing open debate with radical conformity, universities haven't educated a generation: they’ve built an army of brainwashed bullies who are utterly incapable of tolerating any perspective but their own.

Ashager Araro

15,814 views • 18 days ago

David Sacks: The AI Race is bigger than the Space Race 🇺🇸 "This was the first speech that President Trump has given on AI since the AI boom began." "And he declared that the United States was in an AI race. It's a global competition." "The language that he used was reminiscent of how President John F. Kennedy declared that America was in a space race, and in a similar way, President Trump declared that we had to win the AI race." "I think you could argue that the AI race is more important than the space race." "It's going to reshape the global economy, it's going to determine who the superpowers are of the 21st century." During his speech, President Trump laid out three key pillars of American AI dominance: 1) Innovation (let the geniuses cook) 2) Infrastructure (energy, datacenters) 3) Exports (make US tech stack the global standard) The president also noted that it matters HOW we win, mentioning three non-negotiables: 1) American workers have to be at the center of the prosperity created by AI 2) AI models that the government procures and buys must be free of ideological bias (no Woke AI) 3) Prevent misuse and/or theft by malicious actors

David Sacks: The AI Race is bigger than the Space Race 🇺🇸 "This was the first speech that President Trump has given on AI since the AI boom began." "And he declared that the United States was in an AI race. It's a global competition." "The language that he used was reminiscent of how President John F. Kennedy declared that America was in a space race, and in a similar way, President Trump declared that we had to win the AI race." "I think you could argue that the AI race is more important than the space race." "It's going to reshape the global economy, it's going to determine who the superpowers are of the 21st century." During his speech, President Trump laid out three key pillars of American AI dominance: 1) Innovation (let the geniuses cook) 2) Infrastructure (energy, datacenters) 3) Exports (make US tech stack the global standard) The president also noted that it matters HOW we win, mentioning three non-negotiables: 1) American workers have to be at the center of the prosperity created by AI 2) AI models that the government procures and buys must be free of ideological bias (no Woke AI) 3) Prevent misuse and/or theft by malicious actors

The All-In Podcast

100,027 views • 11 months ago

“BURN THE INSTITUTIONS”: PETER BOGHOSSIAN on Academia, Gender Ideology & the Grievance Studies Hoax In this exclusive interview at the Genspect conference in Albuquerque, Professor Peter Boghossian explains why he believes gender ideology spread through universities as a kind of social contagion, and why, academia and many institutions are now deeply corrupted. Highlights from the conversation: How postmodern theory and obscure ideas seeped into universities and then flowed downstream into the media and public policy. His experience at the University of Portland, which he calls an “ideological cesspool.” The reaction he received after raising skeptical questions in 2011, immediate anger rather than debate, and why that should be a red flag. The Grievance Studies hoax (including the “conceptual penis” paper) and what it revealed about the peer-review process: Why Peter thinks smart people can be very good at justifying bad conclusions, creating echo chambers and ideological hiring practices. The replication crisis in social sciences and clinical literature, and the danger of basing major public policies on unreplicable research. The claim that institutions are beyond reform, “burn them to the ground and build new ones.” A shared analogy: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu as a model of real, testable skill versus academic ideas that can be faked and still be rewarded. This is a must-watch for anyone concerned about the integrity of universities, the shaping of public policy, and the origins of contemporary ideological movements. If you would like to support my work you can do so here - 🔔 If you found this interview valuable, please like, share, and subscribe to EDGE OF THE MATRIX on YouTube and consider turning on notifications for more exclusive coverage and in-depth interviews. 📚 Related: Grievance Studies / concept papers / Genspect conference Tags / Keywords: Peter Boghossian, Genspect, grievance studies hoax, conceptal penis, gender ideology, academia critique, postmodernism, replication crisis, free speech in universities, how to have civil conversations, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu analogy, build new institutions, University of Portland, WPATH invite, academic corruption.

“BURN THE INSTITUTIONS”: PETER BOGHOSSIAN on Academia, Gender Ideology & the Grievance Studies Hoax In this exclusive interview at the Genspect conference in Albuquerque, Professor Peter Boghossian explains why he believes gender ideology spread through universities as a kind of social contagion, and why, academia and many institutions are now deeply corrupted. Highlights from the conversation: How postmodern theory and obscure ideas seeped into universities and then flowed downstream into the media and public policy. His experience at the University of Portland, which he calls an “ideological cesspool.” The reaction he received after raising skeptical questions in 2011, immediate anger rather than debate, and why that should be a red flag. The Grievance Studies hoax (including the “conceptual penis” paper) and what it revealed about the peer-review process: Why Peter thinks smart people can be very good at justifying bad conclusions, creating echo chambers and ideological hiring practices. The replication crisis in social sciences and clinical literature, and the danger of basing major public policies on unreplicable research. The claim that institutions are beyond reform, “burn them to the ground and build new ones.” A shared analogy: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu as a model of real, testable skill versus academic ideas that can be faked and still be rewarded. This is a must-watch for anyone concerned about the integrity of universities, the shaping of public policy, and the origins of contemporary ideological movements. If you would like to support my work you can do so here - 🔔 If you found this interview valuable, please like, share, and subscribe to EDGE OF THE MATRIX on YouTube and consider turning on notifications for more exclusive coverage and in-depth interviews. 📚 Related: Grievance Studies / concept papers / Genspect conference Tags / Keywords: Peter Boghossian, Genspect, grievance studies hoax, conceptal penis, gender ideology, academia critique, postmodernism, replication crisis, free speech in universities, how to have civil conversations, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu analogy, build new institutions, University of Portland, WPATH invite, academic corruption.

Edge of the Matrix

70,451 views • 9 months ago

Bill Ackman Bill Ackman discusses President Trump's battle with Harvard. Bill Ackman: "The wrong thing to do is receive a letter from the Administration and write back saying: we're doing nothing and in fact, we're going to sue you." "What Harvard should have done is say: President Trump - you make some good points. Taxpayer money coming to Harvard is a privilege, not a right." Taxpayer money going to an institution - an institution cannot have massive amounts of administrative bloat, waste, bureaucracy- we're going to eliminate it." Bill Ackman goes further on the culture at Harvard. "There is not viewpoint diversity at Harvard. Students are self-censoring their remarks in classrooms. Faculty are doing the same - people are afraid to have real conversations. You go to college to be exposed to a broad array of ideas - and that's not happening at Harvard. Free speech is not happening." On Trump trying to make a deal with Harvard. "He (President Trump) wants to make a deal. Make a deal with the President. Commit to fix these things, which by the way, your alumni want you to fix - it's in the best interest of Harvard. Treat shareholder taxpayer money as a fiduciary." Fair or unfair to take the tax exempt status away? "I think it's fair. Harvard became over time a political advocacy organization for one party. When a University goes from being a University to effecting and becoming a political activist organization - it doesn't deserve a non-profit status." "Harvard should be a place where students go to learn and the best research gets done. It shouldn't be a place that is allowing pro-terrorist orgs on campus and only allows certain kinds of thinking and speech on campus - that's a political advocacy organization - not a University."

Bill Ackman Bill Ackman discusses President Trump's battle with Harvard. Bill Ackman: "The wrong thing to do is receive a letter from the Administration and write back saying: we're doing nothing and in fact, we're going to sue you." "What Harvard should have done is say: President Trump - you make some good points. Taxpayer money coming to Harvard is a privilege, not a right." Taxpayer money going to an institution - an institution cannot have massive amounts of administrative bloat, waste, bureaucracy- we're going to eliminate it." Bill Ackman goes further on the culture at Harvard. "There is not viewpoint diversity at Harvard. Students are self-censoring their remarks in classrooms. Faculty are doing the same - people are afraid to have real conversations. You go to college to be exposed to a broad array of ideas - and that's not happening at Harvard. Free speech is not happening." On Trump trying to make a deal with Harvard. "He (President Trump) wants to make a deal. Make a deal with the President. Commit to fix these things, which by the way, your alumni want you to fix - it's in the best interest of Harvard. Treat shareholder taxpayer money as a fiduciary." Fair or unfair to take the tax exempt status away? "I think it's fair. Harvard became over time a political advocacy organization for one party. When a University goes from being a University to effecting and becoming a political activist organization - it doesn't deserve a non-profit status." "Harvard should be a place where students go to learn and the best research gets done. It shouldn't be a place that is allowing pro-terrorist orgs on campus and only allows certain kinds of thinking and speech on campus - that's a political advocacy organization - not a University."

Barbie True Blue

712,341 views • 1 year ago

🇺🇸 WHY LIBERAL WOMEN ARE SO MISERABLE, ACCORDING TO SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE Here’s a wild stat: single liberal women report the highest rates of mental illness. Shocking? Not really. When your worldview trains you to see yourself as a victim 24/7, it's going to take a toll. Author Katy Faust says modern feminism doesn’t just reject men - it teaches women to reject their own bodies, their biology, and even motherhood. Turns out, telling women that their natural strengths are oppressive and their fertility is a burden doesn’t lead to inner peace. Add to that the constant doomscrolling, climate panic, and social media echo chambers, and you've got a recipe for anxiety and burnout. The left frames every issue as an existential crisis, and rewards people for how oppressed they can claim to be. Living like that isn’t empowering. It’s exhausting. And maybe, just maybe, it’s time to rethink the narrative. Source: John Anderson, Jeffery Mead

🇺🇸 WHY LIBERAL WOMEN ARE SO MISERABLE, ACCORDING TO SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE Here’s a wild stat: single liberal women report the highest rates of mental illness. Shocking? Not really. When your worldview trains you to see yourself as a victim 24/7, it's going to take a toll. Author Katy Faust says modern feminism doesn’t just reject men - it teaches women to reject their own bodies, their biology, and even motherhood. Turns out, telling women that their natural strengths are oppressive and their fertility is a burden doesn’t lead to inner peace. Add to that the constant doomscrolling, climate panic, and social media echo chambers, and you've got a recipe for anxiety and burnout. The left frames every issue as an existential crisis, and rewards people for how oppressed they can claim to be. Living like that isn’t empowering. It’s exhausting. And maybe, just maybe, it’s time to rethink the narrative. Source: John Anderson, Jeffery Mead

Mario Nawfal

31,984 views • 7 months ago

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE! We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.” But that’s not really true. Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear. And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense. This isn’t exactly new. In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship. Two decades later, James Lindsay, anti-Communist, Helen Pluckrose , and Peter Boghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory. The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing. And today, the problem is even worse. We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.” But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults. That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children. And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.” That is untenable. So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (Theory and Society (Springer Nature)), and I decided to do something about it. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.” The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it. A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks. Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention? If yes, it gets published. And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue. That’s how science is supposed to work. Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen. That’s what we’ve done. Now it’s time for academics to use it. Read our announcement on the The Wall Street Journal below. 🔗

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE! We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.” But that’s not really true. Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear. And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense. This isn’t exactly new. In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship. Two decades later, James Lindsay, anti-Communist, Helen Pluckrose , and Peter Boghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory. The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing. And today, the problem is even worse. We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.” But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults. That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children. And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.” That is untenable. So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (Theory and Society (Springer Nature)), and I decided to do something about it. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.” The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it. A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks. Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention? If yes, it gets published. And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue. That’s how science is supposed to work. Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen. That’s what we’ve done. Now it’s time for academics to use it. Read our announcement on the The Wall Street Journal below. 🔗

Colin Wright

1,000,843 views • 1 month ago

Marc Andreessen breaks down the fatal trap of the traditional corporate leader: the "big gray cloud." He describes how legacy CEOs used to operate surrounded by an entourage of men in gray business suits. When the boss came to visit, it was not a working session. It was a state visit. It was like a king traveling with his court. The primary job of that gray cloud? To act as a completely impervious bubble. They prevented the CEO from ever talking to the people who were actually doing the work. Being the CEO of a giant like IBM in 1989 was a great way to live. You had the jet, the chauffeur, and 80 guys making sure you only ever heard good news. You woke up every morning famous, rich, and successful, never having to speak to a single engineer. But Andreessen notes this is the polar opposite of the Elon approach, and it comes with a massive hidden risk. Living in an echo chamber of good news is exactly like being the turkey on Thanksgiving. Everything is perfectly fine right up until things suddenly change. When a real crisis hits, the bubble pops, and because you let the gray suits insulate you from the actual work, you have absolutely no idea what to do about it.

Marc Andreessen breaks down the fatal trap of the traditional corporate leader: the "big gray cloud." He describes how legacy CEOs used to operate surrounded by an entourage of men in gray business suits. When the boss came to visit, it was not a working session. It was a state visit. It was like a king traveling with his court. The primary job of that gray cloud? To act as a completely impervious bubble. They prevented the CEO from ever talking to the people who were actually doing the work. Being the CEO of a giant like IBM in 1989 was a great way to live. You had the jet, the chauffeur, and 80 guys making sure you only ever heard good news. You woke up every morning famous, rich, and successful, never having to speak to a single engineer. But Andreessen notes this is the polar opposite of the Elon approach, and it comes with a massive hidden risk. Living in an echo chamber of good news is exactly like being the turkey on Thanksgiving. Everything is perfectly fine right up until things suddenly change. When a real crisis hits, the bubble pops, and because you let the gray suits insulate you from the actual work, you have absolutely no idea what to do about it.

Ian Miles Cheong

24,749 views • 2 months ago

Jared Weinstein is deeply trusted and quietly effective. He is a friend to many. This is his first interview. From President Bush, to Thrive's team and founders, to new leaders building in his hometown of Birmingham and globally, Jared Weinstein is an amplifier of people. We discuss: - Cold-calling the Bush campaign in college, joining them in the run up to 2000, and not dropping out - Becoming the President's personal aide (or "body man") in his mid-20s, what the President does, and how little Jared slept - an unlikely partnership with Joshua Kushner that led to over a decade building the now-legendary Thrive Capital - what it was like helping Palantir in the very early days - Bringing seriousness and humanity to work, whether the West Wing or investing - the three-body problem of ego, ambition, and impact - why people trust Jared and how he helps them become their best selves - east vs. west coast ambition, across DC, SF, and NY - how he's investing in Birmingham, why cities change and thrive, and helping people raise their ambition - championing those who champion you Timestamps: 0:00 - Opening Highlights 1:40 - Intro to Jared 3:32 - Thanks to Notion 4:39 - Start: Being a "Friend" and Bringing Humanity to Serious Work 10:55 - From Duke to the West Wing 31:45 - Riding Shotgun with President Bush 59:27 - Starting Over Out West: Post-WH, Stanford, and Palantir 1:16:05 - Meeting Josh Kushner and Building Thrive Capital 1:44:37 - Founders, Humility, and the Three-Body Problem of Ego, Ambition, and Impact 2:06:41 - Leaving Thrive, Coming Home to Birmingham, and Overton 2:32:40 - Busier Than Ever: Mentors, Life in Acts, and What You Hope to Be Known For Dialectic with Jackson Dahl 44: Jared Weinstein - Within Earshot, Out of Camera Shot - is available below and on all platforms.

Jared Weinstein is deeply trusted and quietly effective. He is a friend to many. This is his first interview. From President Bush, to Thrive's team and founders, to new leaders building in his hometown of Birmingham and globally, Jared Weinstein is an amplifier of people. We discuss: - Cold-calling the Bush campaign in college, joining them in the run up to 2000, and not dropping out - Becoming the President's personal aide (or "body man") in his mid-20s, what the President does, and how little Jared slept - an unlikely partnership with Joshua Kushner that led to over a decade building the now-legendary Thrive Capital - what it was like helping Palantir in the very early days - Bringing seriousness and humanity to work, whether the West Wing or investing - the three-body problem of ego, ambition, and impact - why people trust Jared and how he helps them become their best selves - east vs. west coast ambition, across DC, SF, and NY - how he's investing in Birmingham, why cities change and thrive, and helping people raise their ambition - championing those who champion you Timestamps: 0:00 - Opening Highlights 1:40 - Intro to Jared 3:32 - Thanks to Notion 4:39 - Start: Being a "Friend" and Bringing Humanity to Serious Work 10:55 - From Duke to the West Wing 31:45 - Riding Shotgun with President Bush 59:27 - Starting Over Out West: Post-WH, Stanford, and Palantir 1:16:05 - Meeting Josh Kushner and Building Thrive Capital 1:44:37 - Founders, Humility, and the Three-Body Problem of Ego, Ambition, and Impact 2:06:41 - Leaving Thrive, Coming Home to Birmingham, and Overton 2:32:40 - Busier Than Ever: Mentors, Life in Acts, and What You Hope to Be Known For Dialectic with Jackson Dahl 44: Jared Weinstein - Within Earshot, Out of Camera Shot - is available below and on all platforms.

Jackson Dahl

87,112 views • 3 months ago

I was one of three parliamentary staff members at The Scottish Parliament who got together in a room to draft the Parliament's first ever Language Policy back in 2004. Here's an archived copy of the policy, as it has obviously been replaced by more recent versions since then: The policy was designed to support use of Gaelic in the work of the Parliament, and to overcome genuine barriers that a minority of people might face in accessing the Parliament or its work because they were not fluent in English. This policy was not designed to prompt politicians to speak any language they liked in the chamber to score points relating to their own identity or ideology. MC would seem to be able to speak English fluently, and therefore I struggle to see any access-based premise for her speaking in Shona in this context. I feel constantly embarrassed by the way in which genuine good-faith work to address genuine barriers to access has been used by people for ideological and political reasons. I feel sad that it has now become difficult to defend inclusion-based activity because it has become associated with virtue signalling and with undermining, rather than strengthening, human connectedness. I wish I had been able to foresee what would happen, so I could have detached myself from equality and diversity work even sooner than I did. This is before we get onto the political symbol Maggie Chapman is wearing around her neck. This whole thing is so unprofessional and embarassing.

I was one of three parliamentary staff members at The Scottish Parliament who got together in a room to draft the Parliament's first ever Language Policy back in 2004. Here's an archived copy of the policy, as it has obviously been replaced by more recent versions since then: The policy was designed to support use of Gaelic in the work of the Parliament, and to overcome genuine barriers that a minority of people might face in accessing the Parliament or its work because they were not fluent in English. This policy was not designed to prompt politicians to speak any language they liked in the chamber to score points relating to their own identity or ideology. MC would seem to be able to speak English fluently, and therefore I struggle to see any access-based premise for her speaking in Shona in this context. I feel constantly embarrassed by the way in which genuine good-faith work to address genuine barriers to access has been used by people for ideological and political reasons. I feel sad that it has now become difficult to defend inclusion-based activity because it has become associated with virtue signalling and with undermining, rather than strengthening, human connectedness. I wish I had been able to foresee what would happen, so I could have detached myself from equality and diversity work even sooner than I did. This is before we get onto the political symbol Maggie Chapman is wearing around her neck. This whole thing is so unprofessional and embarassing.

Levi Pay

72,394 views • 2 months ago

University drops job posting after DEI requirement exposed, professor says ‘I would not be hired’ today | Preston Mizell, Fox News University of Washington requires a 'one-page diversity statement' for new professor applications A University of Washington professor unleashed on the college’s strict diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements for new hires and a teacher performance rubric that includes a scorecard measuring DEI strategy used to assess potential professor performance. Stuart Reges, a non-tenured teaching professor at UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, said he wouldn’t have been hired under the strict DEI pledge requirements, despite his academic achievements at the university. "You have to say that you have deep knowledge of the DEIs in order to get a high rating on all of this," Reges told Fox News Digital. "Funny thing is, I'm convinced I would not be hired if I applied today. There's just no way, even though I've won the Distinguished Teaching Award here at the university." The University of Washington’s listing for an associate professor of school psychology role includes a mandatory "diversity statement" for all applicants, signifying a pledge to the university’s "commitment to racial equity." "A one-page diversity statement describing your identity, positionality, experience and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and alignment to the APA's Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Framework," the job posting reads. "In addition, describe your philosophy of teaching and learning, including how your work will further the College of Education’s commitment to racial equity and social justice." Seattle Red radio host Jason Rantz also blasted the university’s hiring policy, saying in his recent op-ed that "this application process makes it easier to discriminate against conservatives, which is precisely why you won’t hear the far-left faculty speak out." "The university isn’t looking for diverse thought; it’s enforcing a monoculture of approved political opinions," Rantz added. In addition to the mandatory application diversity statement, the professor explained that a grading rubric to assess a potential professor's performance includes a section labeled "Diversity," ranking applicants on a scale of poor to excellent. A "Poor" rating describes the professor displaying "little evidence of potential to contribute to the UW Diversity Blueprint." "I've known faculty, very talented faculty who've left because of this kind of pressure and people who won't even apply," Reges explained. "I think a lot of grad students who might've wanted a career in teaching are kind of saying, why bother?" "I mean, look at all of the crap that you have to deal with," Reges added. "You have to kind of basically make up a statement that's going to make them happy saying the things that you're going to do." The publicly funded University of Washington’s dedication to "challenge" itself to implement DEI policies brings into question its alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order from January titled: "President Donald J. Trump Protects Civil Rights and Merit-Based Opportunity by Ending Illegal DEI." "Many corporations and universities use DEI as an excuse for biased and unlawful employment practices and illegal admissions preferences, ignoring the fact that DEI’s foundational rhetoric and ideas foster intergroup hostility and authoritarianism," the executive order reads. In March, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched investigations into a number of universities for "race-exclusionary practices in education programs and activities." The University of Washington was among those universities being investigated. "The University of Washington does not view diversity and access as being in opposition to merit and excellence, and we remain committed to providing access to excellence for all," a spokesperson for the university told Fox News Digital. "Our hiring practices adhere to state and federal laws in ensuring that race is not a factor in hiring, and the UW has acted proactively when such a violation is known to have occurred." "Schools, colleges and departments within the University have significant latitude in their hiring practices, however all must adhere to state and federal laws," the spokesperson added. "The College of Education search referenced in a recent local commentator’s blog post was in compliance with these laws, but to prevent any ambiguity or misinterpretation, we are canceling it and providing additional guidance on hiring practices before it is reposted," the spokesperson continued. "We are also reviewing hiring practices more broadly to ensure that they follow state and federal laws." Read more:

University drops job posting after DEI requirement exposed, professor says ‘I would not be hired’ today | Preston Mizell, Fox News University of Washington requires a 'one-page diversity statement' for new professor applications A University of Washington professor unleashed on the college’s strict diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements for new hires and a teacher performance rubric that includes a scorecard measuring DEI strategy used to assess potential professor performance. Stuart Reges, a non-tenured teaching professor at UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, said he wouldn’t have been hired under the strict DEI pledge requirements, despite his academic achievements at the university. "You have to say that you have deep knowledge of the DEIs in order to get a high rating on all of this," Reges told Fox News Digital. "Funny thing is, I'm convinced I would not be hired if I applied today. There's just no way, even though I've won the Distinguished Teaching Award here at the university." The University of Washington’s listing for an associate professor of school psychology role includes a mandatory "diversity statement" for all applicants, signifying a pledge to the university’s "commitment to racial equity." "A one-page diversity statement describing your identity, positionality, experience and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and alignment to the APA's Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Framework," the job posting reads. "In addition, describe your philosophy of teaching and learning, including how your work will further the College of Education’s commitment to racial equity and social justice." Seattle Red radio host Jason Rantz also blasted the university’s hiring policy, saying in his recent op-ed that "this application process makes it easier to discriminate against conservatives, which is precisely why you won’t hear the far-left faculty speak out." "The university isn’t looking for diverse thought; it’s enforcing a monoculture of approved political opinions," Rantz added. In addition to the mandatory application diversity statement, the professor explained that a grading rubric to assess a potential professor's performance includes a section labeled "Diversity," ranking applicants on a scale of poor to excellent. A "Poor" rating describes the professor displaying "little evidence of potential to contribute to the UW Diversity Blueprint." "I've known faculty, very talented faculty who've left because of this kind of pressure and people who won't even apply," Reges explained. "I think a lot of grad students who might've wanted a career in teaching are kind of saying, why bother?" "I mean, look at all of the crap that you have to deal with," Reges added. "You have to kind of basically make up a statement that's going to make them happy saying the things that you're going to do." The publicly funded University of Washington’s dedication to "challenge" itself to implement DEI policies brings into question its alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order from January titled: "President Donald J. Trump Protects Civil Rights and Merit-Based Opportunity by Ending Illegal DEI." "Many corporations and universities use DEI as an excuse for biased and unlawful employment practices and illegal admissions preferences, ignoring the fact that DEI’s foundational rhetoric and ideas foster intergroup hostility and authoritarianism," the executive order reads. In March, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched investigations into a number of universities for "race-exclusionary practices in education programs and activities." The University of Washington was among those universities being investigated. "The University of Washington does not view diversity and access as being in opposition to merit and excellence, and we remain committed to providing access to excellence for all," a spokesperson for the university told Fox News Digital. "Our hiring practices adhere to state and federal laws in ensuring that race is not a factor in hiring, and the UW has acted proactively when such a violation is known to have occurred." "Schools, colleges and departments within the University have significant latitude in their hiring practices, however all must adhere to state and federal laws," the spokesperson added. "The College of Education search referenced in a recent local commentator’s blog post was in compliance with these laws, but to prevent any ambiguity or misinterpretation, we are canceling it and providing additional guidance on hiring practices before it is reposted," the spokesperson continued. "We are also reviewing hiring practices more broadly to ensure that they follow state and federal laws." Read more:

Owen Gregorian

94,153 views • 9 months ago

I have attached this 74-minute documentary film at a time when America is once again threatening to depose the Venezuelan government, this time by advising aircraft to avoid Venezuelan skies. It is a timely reminder of how foreign powers manufacture narratives, engineer crises and justify intervention under the guise of protecting democracy or fighting drugs. In 2006, I won a British government scholarship to study documentary filmmaking at Master’s level at Brunel University in London. One of my lecturers, Prof Michael Wayne, who is still at Brunel University today, introduced us to the concept of propaganda and how film and television are used to shape public perception. One of the films he brought to class for us to watch and dissect was The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. It was made by two Irish filmmakers who happened to be visiting Venezuela in 2002, and before they had even begun their planned filming, a coup erupted. They suddenly found themselves at the centre of the crisis with their cameras rolling. The coup was inspired and encouraged by elements linked to the American government, which had long viewed Hugo Chávez as a threat to its geopolitical interests. The filmmakers captured how the opposition, parts of the military, the private media and external actors collaborated to remove a democratically elected president. They also documented how ordinary Venezuelans and loyal sections of the army mobilised, pushed back and returned Chávez to power within 48 hours. It is one of the most important documentary records of a coup taking place in real time. Today we are witnessing Donald Trump going after Venezuela again, a country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Surprise, surprise, the excuse this time is “drugs”, the same way “weapons of mass destruction” were used as an excuse in Iraq. Yet this is the same Trump who is preparing to pardon the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in the United States and sentenced to 45 years for drug trafficking. US prosecutors proved that Hernández helped move hundreds of tonnes of cocaine through Honduras into the United States, undermining Trump’s claim that his crusade against Venezuela is genuinely about fighting drugs. Watch this film to understand how coups are engineered, how narratives are manufactured and how the media is used as a weapon. All the visuals you see in the documentary are real, filmed as events unfolded. It is a powerful reminder of how foreign interests destabilise nations, and how the people of Venezuela resisted manipulation and restored their democracy through collective action.

I have attached this 74-minute documentary film at a time when America is once again threatening to depose the Venezuelan government, this time by advising aircraft to avoid Venezuelan skies. It is a timely reminder of how foreign powers manufacture narratives, engineer crises and justify intervention under the guise of protecting democracy or fighting drugs. In 2006, I won a British government scholarship to study documentary filmmaking at Master’s level at Brunel University in London. One of my lecturers, Prof Michael Wayne, who is still at Brunel University today, introduced us to the concept of propaganda and how film and television are used to shape public perception. One of the films he brought to class for us to watch and dissect was The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. It was made by two Irish filmmakers who happened to be visiting Venezuela in 2002, and before they had even begun their planned filming, a coup erupted. They suddenly found themselves at the centre of the crisis with their cameras rolling. The coup was inspired and encouraged by elements linked to the American government, which had long viewed Hugo Chávez as a threat to its geopolitical interests. The filmmakers captured how the opposition, parts of the military, the private media and external actors collaborated to remove a democratically elected president. They also documented how ordinary Venezuelans and loyal sections of the army mobilised, pushed back and returned Chávez to power within 48 hours. It is one of the most important documentary records of a coup taking place in real time. Today we are witnessing Donald Trump going after Venezuela again, a country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Surprise, surprise, the excuse this time is “drugs”, the same way “weapons of mass destruction” were used as an excuse in Iraq. Yet this is the same Trump who is preparing to pardon the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in the United States and sentenced to 45 years for drug trafficking. US prosecutors proved that Hernández helped move hundreds of tonnes of cocaine through Honduras into the United States, undermining Trump’s claim that his crusade against Venezuela is genuinely about fighting drugs. Watch this film to understand how coups are engineered, how narratives are manufactured and how the media is used as a weapon. All the visuals you see in the documentary are real, filmed as events unfolded. It is a powerful reminder of how foreign interests destabilise nations, and how the people of Venezuela resisted manipulation and restored their democracy through collective action.

Hopewell Chin’ono

25,801 views • 7 months ago

Today, President Ryan is set to brief the Board of Visitors on how UVA is handling viewpoint diversity—an issue that’s drawn growing public scrutiny. UVA talks a good game while enforcing blatant double standards—tolerating some views, punishing others. Last year, we defended student Simon Goldstein after he was targeted simply for wearing a “Make America Christian Again” hat in UVA’s Elections class—a course specifically designed to encourage political debate around the 2024 race. The hat, both satirical and sincere, expressed his deeply held Christian convictions. Despite clear First Amendment protections, Simon was anonymously reported by a fellow student and summoned by the Office for Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights. He was interrogated for 30 minutes over Zoom—asked to explain his beliefs, justify his expression, and consider changing his behavior. UVA only backed down after we worked with national media and exposed the situation. Simon later spoke at our Annual Meeting. His words speak volumes: “On a Zoom call that lasted about 30 minutes, I was asked why I wore [the hat], whether I understood why others found it problematic, if I would change my behavior… The underlying implication was clear: Christian conviction is increasingly viewed as disruptive—even at a place allegedly dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.” We were there then. We’re watching now. And we encourage everyone to listen to Simon Goldstein’s full remarks—an expression of faith, courage, and principled dissent.

Today, President Ryan is set to brief the Board of Visitors on how UVA is handling viewpoint diversity—an issue that’s drawn growing public scrutiny. UVA talks a good game while enforcing blatant double standards—tolerating some views, punishing others. Last year, we defended student Simon Goldstein after he was targeted simply for wearing a “Make America Christian Again” hat in UVA’s Elections class—a course specifically designed to encourage political debate around the 2024 race. The hat, both satirical and sincere, expressed his deeply held Christian convictions. Despite clear First Amendment protections, Simon was anonymously reported by a fellow student and summoned by the Office for Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights. He was interrogated for 30 minutes over Zoom—asked to explain his beliefs, justify his expression, and consider changing his behavior. UVA only backed down after we worked with national media and exposed the situation. Simon later spoke at our Annual Meeting. His words speak volumes: “On a Zoom call that lasted about 30 minutes, I was asked why I wore [the hat], whether I understood why others found it problematic, if I would change my behavior… The underlying implication was clear: Christian conviction is increasingly viewed as disruptive—even at a place allegedly dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.” We were there then. We’re watching now. And we encourage everyone to listen to Simon Goldstein’s full remarks—an expression of faith, courage, and principled dissent.

The Jefferson Council

61,221 views • 1 year ago

NEW EPISODE: JOHN BRENNAN FACING INDICTMENT with Svetlana Lokhova | Ep 58 | Going Rogue with Lara Logan The most important case people may not be following. Svetlana Lokhova, the British historian falsely branded a Russian spy in the Russia collusion hoax, joins Lara to expose the ongoing grand jury investigation in Florida targeting John Brennan and key figures behind Crossfire Hurricane. Lokhova details how Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and their co-conspirators fabricated the narrative that Russia installed Trump, using lies from CIA asset Stefan Halper and foreign allies to de-legitimize a duly elected president, an act she describes as seditious conspiracy bordering on treason. With subpoenas now issued for documents and testimony spanning 2016–2017, and Brennan fighting to avoid a judge who knows the truth, Lokhova warns that real accountability is finally within reach, but only if the American people stay vigilant and demand justice for the crime of the century. 00:00:00 - MI6 Standard Operations and Personal Setup 00:00:33 - Introducing Svetlana and the Russia Collusion Narrative 00:07:30 - Florida Case and Pursuit of Accountability 00:12:35 - Trump’s Promise of Justice and Declassification of Documents 00:16:58 - The Mar-A-Lago Raid and Handling of Evidence 00:20:20 - Definitions of Sedition, Treason, and International Collaboration 00:23:53 - The Russiagate Timeline and Launch of the Conspiracy 00:31:09 - The Hunter Biden Laptop and Recurring Actors 00:38:14 - British and American Intelligence Operations at Cambridge 00:47:26 - The Hillary Plan, Steele Dossier, and Fusion GPS 01:54:19 - The Brennan-Clinton Plan Documented and the Intelligence Community Assessment 03:01:41 - Florida Grand Jury, Cover-up, and Accountability Efforts Svetlana Lokhova Going Rogue with Lara Logan Russia Collusion, John Brennan, CIA Conspiracy, General Flynn, Hillary Clinton Emails, Deep State

NEW EPISODE: JOHN BRENNAN FACING INDICTMENT with Svetlana Lokhova | Ep 58 | Going Rogue with Lara Logan The most important case people may not be following. Svetlana Lokhova, the British historian falsely branded a Russian spy in the Russia collusion hoax, joins Lara to expose the ongoing grand jury investigation in Florida targeting John Brennan and key figures behind Crossfire Hurricane. Lokhova details how Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and their co-conspirators fabricated the narrative that Russia installed Trump, using lies from CIA asset Stefan Halper and foreign allies to de-legitimize a duly elected president, an act she describes as seditious conspiracy bordering on treason. With subpoenas now issued for documents and testimony spanning 2016–2017, and Brennan fighting to avoid a judge who knows the truth, Lokhova warns that real accountability is finally within reach, but only if the American people stay vigilant and demand justice for the crime of the century. 00:00:00 - MI6 Standard Operations and Personal Setup 00:00:33 - Introducing Svetlana and the Russia Collusion Narrative 00:07:30 - Florida Case and Pursuit of Accountability 00:12:35 - Trump’s Promise of Justice and Declassification of Documents 00:16:58 - The Mar-A-Lago Raid and Handling of Evidence 00:20:20 - Definitions of Sedition, Treason, and International Collaboration 00:23:53 - The Russiagate Timeline and Launch of the Conspiracy 00:31:09 - The Hunter Biden Laptop and Recurring Actors 00:38:14 - British and American Intelligence Operations at Cambridge 00:47:26 - The Hillary Plan, Steele Dossier, and Fusion GPS 01:54:19 - The Brennan-Clinton Plan Documented and the Intelligence Community Assessment 03:01:41 - Florida Grand Jury, Cover-up, and Accountability Efforts Svetlana Lokhova Going Rogue with Lara Logan Russia Collusion, John Brennan, CIA Conspiracy, General Flynn, Hillary Clinton Emails, Deep State

Lara Logan

186,321 views • 6 months ago