TaraElla Themes 2017-18

A Moral Liberty
Contrary to popular (American) belief, real liberals are not Left (or Right), but pro-liberty.
The Ideas Lab is on a campaign to revive Moral Liberalism.
For more about Moral Liberalism, read TaraElla's book The Moral Libertarian Horizon.

More Music
More new work will be added to the catalog of TaraElla's Music.

TaraElla Report

TaraElla Report

Sunday, May 19, 2019

A New Cultural Hegemony of Atheist Fundamentalism, Postmodernism and Identity Politics? | TaraElla Report S4 E8



Welcome to the TaraElla Report, where I talk about cultural and political issues. All of us are individuals who are simply looking for more freedom, but we often get confused along the way. My aim is to untangle the confusions and seek the truth, in the areas of civilizational values, economic policy, and culture.Today, I want to talk about two interrelated recent developments in the internet political left, that leave me quite worried about the future of social and political discourse.

Part 1: Postmodernism as Deradicalization? No thanks!

The first thing I want to talk about today is that there seems to be a new trend in the internet left to promote stories of people who were supposedly sucked into the far-right by watching some YouTube videos, who later left the far-right because they were convinced by some left-wing YouTubers, in particular ContraPoints and/or Destiny. I have come across this type of story so many times in the past few weeks that I have lost count of it by now. I have also become increasingly concerned about the narrative that is being promoted here. My first concern is that, in quite a few of these stories, Intellectual Dark Web type thinkers like Jordan Peterson are described to be part of the pipeline towards far-right thinking. While I can't rule out that some individuals may have been fans of such figures during their political conversion, the fact is many of these figures are rational and moderate people, and this sounds like a case of guilt by association. Jordan Peterson is popular across the political spectrum, for example. What I'm concerned about is that these narratives paint an unfair picture of many classical liberal thinkers, which also mean they are strongly unsympathetic to the cultural worldview of classical liberalism. Notice I said 'cultural worldview', because while leftists and classical liberals have long disagreed economically, they weren't necessarily in conflict in the cultural side of things historically. I mean, I don't see why Marx or Engels would have problems with free speech or an anti-identity politics stance, for example. To be fair, even today, some far-left thinkers like Slavoj Zizek continue to reject the postmodern and identity New Left, and I have great respect for them as a result, but they seem to be in the distinct minority nowadays. If Marx and Engels were alive today, I seriously don't think they would be liked by the New Left, with all their politically incorrect ideas. Gone are the days where the left and classical liberals disagreed on the economic system but at least agree on many cultural issues. Nowadays, to be truly left, it seems that one has to also reject the cultural values of classical liberalism, in favour of agreeing with deconstructionism, systems of oppression analyses, and postmodern political philosophy in general. My other concern is that, in many of these narratives, de-radicalization of the former far-right occurs by the way of watching some YouTubers with New Left type views, and agreeing with what they say. You start with moderate ones like ContraPoints, and work your way through the other, much more radical, channels recommended by the algorithm, including, eventually, some that openly state that free speech is not important! I mean, I actually like to watch many of these channels myself, but it is a fact that many of them are heavy on postmodernist and identitarian ideas. It paints a picture that one needs to go hard left culturally to be no longer far-right. This ignores the fact that disagreeing with one extreme on cultural issues doesn't mean you have to agree with the other extreme. I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with the worldview of the Lobster Queen and her followers, even though I actually like the aesthetics of many of those videos. And disagreeing with the Lobster Queen doesn't make me, a supporter of Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, right wing!

Part 2: Why Postmodernism and Existentialism are Atheist Fundamentalism

The main reason why I'm so concerned is that postmodernism, along with its associated ideas of existentialism, and various types of critical theory, are in my opinion, akin to a type of religious fundamentalism, where fundamental metaphysical beliefs drive the agenda, to the exclusion of both liberty and pragmatic reason. My view has always been that while people are welcome to be religious, it would be totally inappropriate for fundamentalist religious ideas to have a strong impact on politics, and this view is shared by most people in the West. While what has been long feared is the influence of say, fundametalist Christianity or fundamentalist Islam, I would say that a bigger threat nowadays is fundamentalist atheism, as expressed through postmodernism, existentialism and some forms of critical theory. These ideas are fundamentalist because their logic is totally based on a prior firm acceptance of atheism, because they simply cannot be true if atheism is rejected. Once again, I am a firm believer in religious freedom, and people are of course welcome to be atheists. The problem is that I don't want any fundamentalism in politics. Just as I wouldn't want the religious fundamentalist idea that being gay is immoral to influence our politics, I really don't want any influence from postmodernism, existentalism, or neo-Gramscian cultural hegemony theory in our politics either.

Part 3: Drug-induced 'Ideas' as False Englightenment?

Another reason why I'm concerned with BreadTube, and also the wider internet New Left, is that they often push people to just accept postmodernist ideas without properly critiquing them. For example, another big problem with a lot of post-1960s far-left philosophy is that some of those ideas may have been influenced by drug use, because some important thinkers, like Foucault for example, are well known to have experimented with drugs. Some of their ideas, for example about how everything is interconnected, sounds to me like the psychotic effects of drugs like ecstacy, at least from what I understand from what people have said in books. I think the content creators of BreadTube, who often talk about ideas that stem from Foucauldian thinking, should at least discuss this concern for once. I really want to hear their perspective on it.

Part 4: Be Woke, or You Enable the Far-Right?

A second, and clearly related thing I want to talk about is the decreasing acceptance of SJW-skeptic type ideas in left-leaning circles. Just a few years ago, SJW skepticism had a huge presence on the internet left, and it was very common for Bernie Sanders supporters to openly oppose identity politics. In fact, back then, the appeal of Bernie Sanders for many people was that he didn't play identity politics like Hillary Clinton. But those days are gone. These days, if you want to be welcome on the internet left, you have to at least refrain from attacking identity politics. What they like to say now is that SJW issues aren't important compared to economic issues like Medicare For All, and somehow indulging in criticizing SJWs will lead to victory for the far-right. Notice that this is the party line applied to SJW skeptic lefties, but pro-identity politics lefties still get a free pass to promote their views within the internet left. Therefore, the real internet left party line in 2019 seems to be that the internet left is now thoroughly supportive of SJW thinking, and anyone who doesn't agree needs to shut up. Toe the new party line, or we'll toss you into the social construct we call 'right-wing'. A very scary development indeed.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Why Dave Rubin Should Get Tulsi Gabbard on the Rubin Report | #Tulsi2020 | Moral Libertarian View



Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more individual liberty and equal opportunity, values that are at the heart of the Moral Libertarian idea. My aim is to untangle the confusions and seek the truth, in the areas of civilizational values, economic policy, and culture. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Several weeks ago, I made the recommendation that Dave Rubin should interview 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang on his show, and it appears that he is actually going to do that now. I'm certainly looking forward to watching that. Today, I'm going to make a case that Dave Rubin should also interview another 2020 candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, on his show.

For those of you who are living under a rock, Tulsi Gabbard is the anti-war candidate of the 2020 cycle. While she does have a comprehensive policy platform covering many areas, her main theme is to end the useless regime change wars that America and her allies have been fighting for the past 70 years or so, which will of course both make the world a better place in general, and also save a lot of money. What's not to like about that? Now, what does this have to do with liberty? Firstly, cutting out the endless wars is perhaps the most effective way to cut the size of government. One of the reasons why Americans pay a lot in tax but don't get a lot back from their government is because a lot of it is spent in pointless overseas adventures. In fact, the budgetary effects of ending the wars would actually also extend to America's long time allies like the UK and Australia, because they too have joined every single American war since 1945. If you want to cut government, I think useless wars should be the first to go.

Secondly, anti-war consciousness is an important gateway into pro-liberty consciousness more generally. After the end of World War 2, the desire to not fight another great war led to the embrace of classical liberal values throughout Western society, which brought us the golden period of the 1950s. In the 1960s, a whole generation of young people developed their political consciousness in opposition to the Vietnam War, and the early foundation of libertarianism was perhaps built in those years. More recently, the 2003 Iraq War was the beginning of political consciousness for many people of my generation, starting with mass protests across America and also in Britain and Australia, the two other countries that joined Bush in that unfortunate war. I think this is an important reason why classical liberal values are so popular among those born in the 1970s and the 1980s in particular. This attitude also effectively translated into other hot-button issues at the time, such as gay marriage and drug law reform, which found strong support in people of our generation even as they remained taboo for most older adults. In other words, there is a strong link between supporting liberty and opposing war, and many who start out opposing a particular war often become life-long liberty enthusiasts.

The other reason why I want Dave Rubin to interview Tulsi Gabbard is that, Tulsi is currently somewhat a victim of SJW craziness, and Rubin specialises in demolishing SJW craziness. You see, Tulsi used to strongly oppose gay marriage, back in the early part of last decade. As far as I know, all this was from 2004 and before, and she has since changed her position and apologized for her past views. But given that SJWs like to hold witch hunts into people's pasts, they still haven't let it go. As a result of SJW demonization about Tulsi being supposedly homophobic, a substantial number of LGBT people and supporters seem to have become reluctant to give her a fair hearing, which is totally unfair and unfortunate. As a gay man who sees through SJW madness and confusion, I hope Dave Rubin will give her an opportunity to clarify her views once again, and put this smear to bed once and for all.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Why Pete Buttigieg isn't the 'Liberal Elite' Enemy | TaraElla Report Radio



Welcome to TaraElla Report Radio, the podcast style compliment program to the TaraElla Report, where we revisit and Rethink the fundamental Classical Liberal ideals and values for the 21st century. Our aim is to reboot classical liberalism by looking for new and interesting ideas, and evaluating these ideas through the lens of free speech, individual liberty and equal opportunity. On different days, we will be looking at issues around civilizational values, economic policy, culture, and more.

Today, I'm going to talk about 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. And yes, this is one of those special episodes of the podcast where you can actually see me talking. From what I see, Mayor Pete has become deeply unpopular in some circles, where he is called names like 'Sneaky Pete', or the gay version of Hillary 2016. I am even getting new dislikes on my old Buttigieg videos. From what I understand, there are several reasons for his new-found unpopularity. Firstly, he has received a lot of mainstream media attention, which many fans of Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang find unfair, because these candidates with clearer policy platforms have received almost no attention. Being a fan of both Gabbard and Yang myself, I totally get this sentiment. Secondly, there's a suspicion that he is only getting this attention because he is gay, which feeds into the general rising resentment against identity politics everywhere. A related issue is the amount of funding he has received from pro-gay elites. Thirdly, his very elite background has become very well-known, and this is, understandably, a point of worry for many people who fear that he would become an out-of-touch President should he get elected.

I will now address these issues one-by-one, and I will show you why I don't think we should see Pete Buttigieg as an elitist enemy of the common people. Firstly, if the media is giving attention to Pete Buttigieg but not Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard, it is the media's own choice, and there is no evidence that Buttigieg himself condones this unfair treatment. I mean, if you were in his shoes, you can't afford to boycott mainstream media just because they are unfair to other candidates, right? Some of you may say that this media attention demonstrates that Buttigieg is now the establishment pick, and should hence be opposed by all anti-establishment candidate supporters. But my experience tells me that the establishment, who always like to play it safe, is highly unlikely to pick somebody who is both gay and 37 years old. The other thing is that Buttigieg didn't get much attention until a sudden surge in March, unlike for example Kamala Harris, who received a lot of attention from the day of her announcement. This also supports the idea that he is not the establishment choice. In other words, it is possible that the establishment is using Buttigieg to their own ends, perhaps to influence the relative popularity of other candidates. If this is true, the media attention could be seen as a windfall for Buttigieg, but then this would only be a side-effect of being used to fulfill other plans that don't involve him actually getting the nomination. I think we all need to be smarter with how mainstream media actually tries to manipulate opinion.

Secondly, to his credit, Buttigieg has not played the identity politics card, unlike some of the other 2020 candidates. He has not made a big deal about being gay, and he is also opposed to the whole boycott Chick-Fil-A thing. He even spoke negatively of identity politics in front of an LGBT audience! The fact that others make a big deal about him being gay isn't his fault. The fact that pro-gay elite donors have donated to his campaign also isn't his fault. While I think it is a very bad idea to support Buttigieg simply because he is gay, if some people choose to do that, it is not his fault either. I mean, some people supported Obama simply because he was black, but nobody blames him for that, and nobody should. It is clear to me that Mayor Pete is not actively courting the gay-identity vote, and this is all that matters for me. Another thing is, Buttigieg actually has a much needed moderating influence on the social justice activist crowd, with his comments from the Chick-Fil-A situation to the need to bring people together. This is perhaps the main reason why I sometimes promote Buttigieg, even though I actually like Yang and Gabbard more.

Finally, the elite background thing, you know, going to Harvard, working in a very well-paid job as a young man, and so on, this is a real concern. But then, it's not like most other candidates don't have a similarly posh background. Tulsi Gabbard comes from a political family, which is arguably the biggest head start you can get in politics. Andrew Yang's parents are very well educated. The sad truth is, no average person can become President in this day and age, and it's something we have to just accept, at least for the time being.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

The Case for Listening to Joe Biden | TaraElla Report Radio



Welcome to TaraElla Report Radio, the podcast style compliment program to the TaraElla Report, where we revisit and Rethink the fundamental Classical Liberal ideals and values for the 21st century. Our aim is to reboot classical liberalism by looking for new and interesting ideas, and evaluating these ideas through the lens of free speech, individual liberty and equal opportunity.

The recent entry of Former Vice President Joe Biden into the 2020 race has provoked strong reactions from all sides. Politics being a tribal game, it is unsurprising that supporters of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and other candidates alike have all joined the anti-Biden camp. In this way, Joe Biden has actually been able to unite people who were previously sworn enemies, if only temporarily.

A few days ago I talked about how SJW revolutionaries are coming for Biden, and how we shouldn't encourage their campaign. Today, I will outline my current attitude towards Joe Biden, why I won't be doing the anti-Biden thing like everyone else, and my approach towards his campaign going forward. Firstly, Joe Biden is not my favorite 2020 candidate at this stage, and there's a good reason for this. Right now, Biden clearly doesn't have the most interesting ideas and policies. This may or may not change in the future, but as of today, Biden is certainly weak in terms of policy, compared to both President Trump, and to other Democrats like Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.

However, even though Biden is not my favorite, I will be giving him fair consideration going forward, like everyone else. As a classical liberal, I am committed to the exploration of ideas rather than the support of personality cults. Ideas deserve to be considered, no matter who they come from. Furthermore, I believe that it is only through the discussion of interesting ideas from everyone, and the fair evaluation of every idea against classical liberal ideals, that we can make classical liberalism great again. And to be fair, I believe Joe Biden has a lot to contribute to our political discussion, because of the perspective he brings. Firstly, he is known for his strong connection to the working class. This means that he is likely to be more in touch with the perspective of the average individual, and less likely to be affected by the fashion of the day views that circulate among the so-called educated elite. Secondly, he is known for his bipartisanship, which means he is more likely to take into account the concerns of a wide spectrum of people in the community when forming his views. These two things make Joe Biden a voice that is worth listening to, especially in a Democratic primary where there is increasing concern that the intellectual elite has too much influence.

Another thing I like about Joe Biden is his respect for the traditional civility of Western politics. In Western democracies, there has been a long standing expectation that people behave in a civil manner towards their opponents, and Joe Biden has stuck to this norm throughout his political career. The norm of civility demands that, while you may have heated arguments on the floor with your opponent, you should still be able to shake their hand and have dinner with them afterwards. While many young people have lost respect for this style of politics and instead embrace the confrontational style of people like AOC, the expectation of civility exists for a good reason:

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Saturday, May 4, 2019

Why Donald Trump Fans and Andrew Yang Fans should Stop Fighting! | #YangGang | TaraElla Report Radio



Welcome to TaraElla Report Radio, the podcast style compliment program to the TaraElla Report, where we revisit and Rethink the fundamental Classical Liberal ideals and values for the 21st century. Our aim is to reboot classical liberalism by looking for new and interesting ideas, and evaluating these ideas through the lens of free speech, individual liberty and equal opportunity.

Today, we will take a look at the deteriorating relationship between supporters of President Donald Trump, and supporters of 2020 candidate Andrew Yang. Here on the TaraElla Report I take the approach of treating everyone with goodwill, and considering ideas from every part of the political spectrum with equal respect. I believe this is the true classical liberal way. I like Andrew Yang very much, but I also have respect for President Trump, even if I don't always agree with him. However, an unfortunate fact of life is that, politics is seen by some as a tribal sport, and fans of one candidate are often unfriendly to fans of another candidate, particularly if the two candidates in question are somehow in direct competition.

Which is where the whole Andrew Yang vs Donald Trump, or Yang Gang vs MAGA Gang thing comes in. Andrew Yang isn't considered a front-runner in the Democratic Primary, but he has won over a disproportionate amount of former Trump supporters. Therefore, in recent weeks, some Trump supporters have been particularly hard on Yang, for example saying that his Freedom Dividend is a Communist idea, and that Yang is perhaps a closet Communist. Or that Yang only appeals to NEETs, because he gives NEETBux to people who play video games all day. Or that people only like Andrew Yang because his policies would cause the system to collapse, and he is therefore an accelerationist candidate supported by nihilists who have given up on everything. It seems that no other 2020 candidate has attracted a similar level of alarmist criticism.

The truth is, every camp is protective of the numbers they already have, and this means they are often particularly nasty to other camps that have won over some of their former supporters. This explains the particular hostility to Andrew Yang. But then, this is a very pessismistic view of democracy. In the free market of ideas, everyone should be able to compete for supporters, and the person with the best ideas will deservedly win. In 2016, in the Republican Party Donald Trump won over many people with his bold proposals to solve problems, and in the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders did a similar thing. They won over people because they were willing to talk about things the establishment wouldn't talk about. Fast forward three years, and Andrew Yang is rising quickly, like how Trump and Sanders did back then, and he has taken in some former Trump and Sanders supporters in the process. One major reason why Trump fans shouldn't hate Yang or the Yang Gang is because Yang is part of the same phenomenon that brought us Trump, and Yang fans and Trump fans probably have similar frustrations about the status quo. Instead of fighting each other, I think Yang fans, Trump fans, and perhaps Sanders fans should talk to each other about their shared frustrations. The logic of the free market dictates that, if Yang is winning over supporters, than he is talking about the right things, and other candidates like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders should take notice and join the conversation.

I guess the important question Donald Trump supporters should ask, is why Andrew Yang is winning over people. The Freedom Dividend must be attractive for a reason. The Freedom Dividend is attractive because it would support struggling families, thus strengthening the social fabric, which is a major concern for many conservatives. The Freedom Dividend is attractive because it would allow some financial security for individuals, so they may take risks such as to start their own business and chase their own American Dream. This would be attractive for many classical liberals. The Freedom Dividend is also attractive because it represents a potential first step in simplifying the welfare safety net, and this is what progress sounds like for some libertarians. While other programs will not be replaced overnight, this process can happen gradually, perhaps with subsequent administrations. And no, the Freedom Dividend is not Communist, because it doesn't collectivize the means of production. Private enterprize will continue uninterrupted. Furthermore, some people believe that once mass automation becomes a reality, the only way to prevent a Communist revolution would be to provide a basic income for everyone, so that people don't actually starve. The new system would need to be in place well before mass automation, to prevent instability, and this is why the Freedom Dividend should be introduced in the early 2020s.

I guess if Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders or some other candidate want their supporters back, then they better step up their game, and address the concerns that Andrew Yang has addressed. I mean, Trump hasn't even begun to talk about automation, and he really needs to join this conversation. In a true free market of ideas, the quality of the conversation keeps improving because of the competition, so no matter who you support, we should all support the idea of continuous competition, and continuous mobility between camps.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

The SJW Army is Back: Why they're coming for Joe Biden | Moral Libertarian View



Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more free speech, individual liberty and equal opportunity, values that are at the heart of the Moral Libertarian idea.

Ever since Joe Biden entered the 2020 presidential race, supporters of other candidates like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump have been relentlessly attacking him. I mean, this is not surprising, because politics is often a tribal game, but it's still disappointing for me. Joe Biden is not my favorite, but he deserves to be listened to, and I will make a case for this later this week. Today, I will instead take a look at the wider picture of what's actually happening with all the anti-Biden activity. Make no mistake: the identity politics SJW revolutionaries are the ones leading the attack against Biden, and Bernie and Trump supporters alike are cheering for their former enemies just because they are coming for Biden. This is actually scary: the SJW revolutionaries is back, and the resistance is effectively paralyzed because they think they have other priorities. Furthermore, as I will explain, the SJW revolutionaries is after a much bigger prize than last time, and if they win it, there will be a much more fundamental shift in our culture. This is much bigger than the fate of the Biden campaign, or who wins in 2020.

Let's put this in context. During the middle of the decade, the SJW revolutionaries were out and about, and their actions contributed to a major shift away from classical liberal values like free speech and individual liberty. Note that by SJW revolutionaries, I don't mean ordinary SJWs, who may be irrational about their demands but are mostly not that harmful. By SJW revolutionaries, I mean organized ideological activists who use SJW concerns and arguments in an attempt to discredit and dismantle classical liberal values. They want to do so because, in their ideology, they see political norms like fair debate and respect towards opponents as what they call 'false consciousness', and they want politics to become less about civil discussion and more about raw power struggle between social classes. Every silenced critic, every de-platformed speaker, and every new speech code was a victory for the SJW revolutionaries, and in time these added up to a historical shift in our culture, making it more tribal and confrontational, and less rational and civil. By the end of 2017, the SJW revolutionaries had largely won that wave of culture wars, and they faded away, at least for a while.

However, over the course of the past two weeks, it has dawned on me that a second, even more problematic, SJW revolutionary campaign appears to be coming, and its first target appears to be the Joe Biden 2020 campaign. I know this is counter-intuitive, especially since most SJW action was focused on conservatives and Donald Trump last time. But every cycle in politics is different, because the players are different, and more importantly, the players may have different goals. In the first SJW wave, circa 2013-2017, the SJW revolutionaries set out to recruit left-leaning intellectuals, and now their ideology is entrenched and hegemonic in some cirlces, which has given them disproportionate influence in wider society. However, most other people still hold traditional views about political norms, such as the value of free speech and rational debate, the value of treating one's opponents in good faith, and the value of seeing the humanity in your opponents. This means the SJW revolutionaries' agenda of dismantling classical liberal civility, and replacing liberal politics with raw struggle, is still far from achieved. This is why, in the second SJW wave, the SJW revolutionaries will set out to destroy the community consensus in our political values.

From this point of view, it is only logical that the 2020 Democratic Primary has become the new battleground for the SJW revolutionaries, and Joe Biden, the candidate who most represents traditional civility in Democratic politics, has become the new enemy. As we can see, SJW revolutionaries are directly attacking Joe Biden's adherence to norms of political civility and decency. For example, since Joe Biden called Dick Cheney decent, he must not care enough about the victims of the Iraq War. Similarly, since Joe Biden called Mike Pence decent, he must not care enough about gay people. In this radical ideology, rationality and civility are equated with not caring enough, and the flip-side is that someone who does care enough must be angry and confrontational, like the kind of people who de-platform speakers they don't like. Make no mistake: if Joe Biden's candidacy falls because of these attacks, so does our whole notion of political civility, and by extension, the whole classical liberal approach to political differences, including the Voltarian ideal of free speech, and respect for the marketplace of ideas, and so on. Note that I'm not actually saying that Biden must win 2020 or else the SJW revolutionaries win. If Biden falls because he didn't have the best policies, this will be more than OK. But if Biden falls because of SJW revolutionaries' attacks, this will discredit political civility, and indirectly legitimize tactics like no-platforming.

We simply cannot let the SJW revolutionaries win another round of the culture wars. This is why Bernie and Trump supporters alike are making a grave mistake if they cheer the SJW anti-Biden squad on. It's like someone who hates their neighbor so much that they cheer when they see his apartment burning, seemingly unaware that if they don't call for help the whole building would burn soon. Our cherished values are at risk, and we need to protect these values, even if we don't particularly care about Biden himself. Of course, criticism of Biden on policy grounds is fair game. But it pains me to see so many formerly anti-SJW people now cheer the SJW revolutionaries on because they are out to get Uncle Joe. This is not only extremely unprincipled and opportunistic, it is also a very dangerous move indeed.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.