I have listened to about two thirds of the podcast, then I stopped. The reason I stopped was my dissatisfaction witth the way in whci Helen Lewis sort of mixed all kinds of things that should really be more differentiated. In the discussion of the socalled IDW, names were thrown around (also by Bari Weiss, but in particular by Helen Lewis) that should really be distinguished and better differentiated.
For instance, why talk about Ibrahim Kendi in such positive tones and then ruthlessly disqualify other names such as Brett Weinstein or Jordan Peterson. This is a political judgement that does not say its name.
Critical Race Theory deserves as much a critical treatment than for instance some of the utterings of Joe Rogan, or some of Jordan Peterson's thoughts. But giving one some sort of special treatment is granting him a statute that just is not justified: Kendi's re-edition of marxist theory based on race (white people and their privilege replacing the bourgeoisie, and white privilege being equivalent to bourgois privilege, and black people becoming the new proletariat that has to be made classconscious and conscious of it being exploited by white supremacy) is really not an original and indeed a very poor rudimentary theory that does not withstand any serious scrutiny.
Listening to Helen Lewis, one could have thought that Kendi was a deep and thoughtful (her terms) thinker, which obviously he is not. He might be calm, but in reality he is a Marxist agitator. In that sense he might even be considered more of a guru than Joe Rogan while Helen Lewis even had us understand that she did not really consider him to be a guru because of his quiet thoughtful manner (she was even forgiving for his "seemingly and falsly "humanist explanation for the price he accepts to be paid for his conferences within corporations) whereas all the members of the IDW were talked about as mere gurus, with no intellectual interest. That might be justified for Dave Rubin or maybe Joe Rogan, but not for Jordan Peterson whose thoughts are at least as deep, if not more profound, than Kendi's.
So all in all, I thought this conversation (or the two thirds I listened to, covered too much ground, too many subjects and in some instances provided a very biased political perspective.
Some of these “gurus” are teaching vulnerable kids how to present themselves with various psychological disorders, like autism. They brainwash them into believing it, they become frozen, disabled. This is criminal. They need Jordan Peterson instead.
Helen Lewis is an idealogue and a poor choice for a forum dedicated to exploring political or cultural phenomena with openness and honesty. Her personal animosity toward Jordan Peterson was obvious in her interview of him several years ago. I would question anyone who attempts to "unite" in any meaningful context Jordan Peterson--who explores psychology, culture, and mythology with profound thoughtfulness--with Ibram X. Kendi, a Marxist who promotes a destructive ideology. I enjoy most of Bari Weiss's discussions whether I agree with the points of view expressed or not, but I'll skip this one.
I have listened to Lewis a couple of times now and trying, with an open mind, to grasp her version of ‘guru’. Like most things now, we spend far too much time trying to explain outcomes without dissecting the conditions that are creating them. Helen gives institutions and those within more credit than they deserve and almost zero scrutiny. Much like the gurus she criticizes, she narrows in on one small detail and uses that as the evidence she is right. Fauci got masks wrong, so he’s untrustworthy and people can’t let it go? An unbelievably simplistic statement that doesn’t even come close to describing the phenomena of his corruption. It’s lazy and demeaning to her audience. She is one-siding things and it makes her whole premise not compelling and feels like a thinly veiled cover for defending the mounting failures of her tribe.
Some of these gurus are the new robber barons of the late 1800s, eventually vilified as blood suckers and their monopolies broken up. How many small businesses has Bezos/Amazon destroyed? Big tech destroyed Parler. And they think their massive wealth allows them to dictate how the rest of us serfs can live. We need a modern day Ida Tarbell to take them down. Will it be Bari, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi?
Given the chaotic, dysfunctional state of our culture and the streets of our major cities perhaps we have had quite enough of these so called spoiled, idle ,rich experts.
Listened to this for way too long. A wannabe guru giving advice on how to avoid gurus. I think most of the people here are smart enough to trust themselves.
It's why the left is so comical when they call us Trumpsters or Trumpkins, or Trumpeters or any of the silly names they use. We voted for Trump because he was light years better than the two totalitarian grifters the Dems offered. But we are not deluded into thinking that Trump is anything other than a spoiled, irascible, pain in the ass. Rational choices, not hero worship. And smart enough to discern the difference. Sorry, Bari, this one was a waste of time.
Here are the two words that drive progressives crazy: human nature. Always been there. Always will be. Gurus will always be in demand cause that's our nature. And never forget the immortal words of PT Barnum about suckers.
Helen Lewis is quite interesting to listen to, but her being a writer for The Atlantic, and praising that publication, is difficult for me to understand.
The Atlantic was basically going out of business, like many magazines that had lost their relevance, until Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs and undeserving inheritor of his fortune) bought it in 2017 and propped it up artificially.
The magazine is unapologetically liberal, anti-Donald Trump, anti-conservative, pro-gender-affirming-care-for-children, cold toward Israel... all the trends and ideas that are eating away at the foundations of America's strength. Like termites.
Now, as for Ibram X. Kendi, the man is quite similar to Mao Zedong in his absolutist view of human nature and behavior. Clearly, he was inspired by Maoist thinking, in which anything that is not "good" in his world view is a contradiction.
It is a contradiction that white people are more prosperous and privileged than black people, for example. And it is a contradiction that white babies inherently have a better life and feel no guilt about it. Whites should be punished from birth; that is the ultimate non-contradiction, in Kendi's eyes. Blacks, on the other hand, can do no wrong, because their lives are cursed from birth due to systemic racism for which they are not responsible.
To both Kendi and Mao, human beings as individuals have no control over their behavior and fate. They are helpless pawns in a greater game. The only way to help them is to rewrite the rules of the game, and tip the scales to favor those who are inherently losing the game, until finally the losers become the winners and the previous winners become apologetic losers.
Of course, Kendi doesn't directly say whites should be killed or have their wealth confiscated, but that is the implication, because he never exhorts black Americans to simply work harder and uplift themselves. The system, he says, is rigged against them and thus, they shouldn't even bother to try. And no, he doesn't say that directly, either, but it is the obvious implication.
To me, this type of thinking is a form of social programming, a grifter's approach. Kendi has done very well for himself, playing on white guilt and black frustrations.
In the 1950s, 80% of black families had a male head of household, two parents, and 80% of black males had jobs and were supporting families. Thousands of black males served in the U.S. Army and Marines, which was a pathway out of poverty and illiteracy. In the early 1950s, President Truman ordered the armed forces to integrate, which the generals resisted. However, they observed how black Marines fought with distinction in the Korean War, and they then relented and integrated the military, the first public institutions to do so. Until the military was discredited and its recruitment offices thrown off campuses in the 1960s, it was the obvious and beneficial pathway to a middle class lifestyle for millions of young working class men of all ethnicities.
In the past 20-30 years, unfortunately, 80% of black families have come to have a single female head of household, men have gone AWOL from raising their children, and the bottom 20-30% of the black community in every city are completely dysfunctional, with record-breaking levels of murder and other violence.
Kendi does not address this except in the sense that it's Whitey's fault, it's all because of systemic racism. It is dismaying how everyone, my rabbi, my liberal friends, liberal thinkers in general, all buy into this theory which is completely inconsistent with history, common sense, and anyone with knowledge of human behavior can see through it. It's delusional and to call Kendi a guru is to insult real gurus. He's a con man.
I fully agree. having listened to her interview of Peterson, she was a hostile interviewer. that much awas clear. But that she would be so kind and forgiving to Kendi beats me, even for someone who declares herself to be a social democrat. Yes, and she would be popular on BBC
Bari, I wonder if you have actually listened to any conversations with Jordan Peterson or Brett Weinstein? These are both thoughtful people and the immediate dismissal that they both received in this podcast as nutty gurus is unwarranted. I'm sure you would not agree with them on every point and nor should that be a goal. But casually dismissing people who are thoughtfully considering the world's problems and are self-reflective of their own potential personal flaws... to me this shows that you have a blind spot that you need to reflect on yourself. I love your work and please keep doing what you're doing.
I have listened to about two thirds of the podcast, then I stopped. The reason I stopped was my dissatisfaction witth the way in whci Helen Lewis sort of mixed all kinds of things that should really be more differentiated. In the discussion of the socalled IDW, names were thrown around (also by Bari Weiss, but in particular by Helen Lewis) that should really be distinguished and better differentiated.
For instance, why talk about Ibrahim Kendi in such positive tones and then ruthlessly disqualify other names such as Brett Weinstein or Jordan Peterson. This is a political judgement that does not say its name.
Critical Race Theory deserves as much a critical treatment than for instance some of the utterings of Joe Rogan, or some of Jordan Peterson's thoughts. But giving one some sort of special treatment is granting him a statute that just is not justified: Kendi's re-edition of marxist theory based on race (white people and their privilege replacing the bourgeoisie, and white privilege being equivalent to bourgois privilege, and black people becoming the new proletariat that has to be made classconscious and conscious of it being exploited by white supremacy) is really not an original and indeed a very poor rudimentary theory that does not withstand any serious scrutiny.
Listening to Helen Lewis, one could have thought that Kendi was a deep and thoughtful (her terms) thinker, which obviously he is not. He might be calm, but in reality he is a Marxist agitator. In that sense he might even be considered more of a guru than Joe Rogan while Helen Lewis even had us understand that she did not really consider him to be a guru because of his quiet thoughtful manner (she was even forgiving for his "seemingly and falsly "humanist explanation for the price he accepts to be paid for his conferences within corporations) whereas all the members of the IDW were talked about as mere gurus, with no intellectual interest. That might be justified for Dave Rubin or maybe Joe Rogan, but not for Jordan Peterson whose thoughts are at least as deep, if not more profound, than Kendi's.
So all in all, I thought this conversation (or the two thirds I listened to, covered too much ground, too many subjects and in some instances provided a very biased political perspective.
I would say we are living in a golden age of stupid.
Please tell Helen I will be listening to this podcast for 70% as long as I would if it was a podcast with a man………because of the patriarchy.
Some of these “gurus” are teaching vulnerable kids how to present themselves with various psychological disorders, like autism. They brainwash them into believing it, they become frozen, disabled. This is criminal. They need Jordan Peterson instead.
Helen Lewis is an idealogue and a poor choice for a forum dedicated to exploring political or cultural phenomena with openness and honesty. Her personal animosity toward Jordan Peterson was obvious in her interview of him several years ago. I would question anyone who attempts to "unite" in any meaningful context Jordan Peterson--who explores psychology, culture, and mythology with profound thoughtfulness--with Ibram X. Kendi, a Marxist who promotes a destructive ideology. I enjoy most of Bari Weiss's discussions whether I agree with the points of view expressed or not, but I'll skip this one.
I have listened to Lewis a couple of times now and trying, with an open mind, to grasp her version of ‘guru’. Like most things now, we spend far too much time trying to explain outcomes without dissecting the conditions that are creating them. Helen gives institutions and those within more credit than they deserve and almost zero scrutiny. Much like the gurus she criticizes, she narrows in on one small detail and uses that as the evidence she is right. Fauci got masks wrong, so he’s untrustworthy and people can’t let it go? An unbelievably simplistic statement that doesn’t even come close to describing the phenomena of his corruption. It’s lazy and demeaning to her audience. She is one-siding things and it makes her whole premise not compelling and feels like a thinly veiled cover for defending the mounting failures of her tribe.
Some of these gurus are the new robber barons of the late 1800s, eventually vilified as blood suckers and their monopolies broken up. How many small businesses has Bezos/Amazon destroyed? Big tech destroyed Parler. And they think their massive wealth allows them to dictate how the rest of us serfs can live. We need a modern day Ida Tarbell to take them down. Will it be Bari, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi?
Given the chaotic, dysfunctional state of our culture and the streets of our major cities perhaps we have had quite enough of these so called spoiled, idle ,rich experts.
Why listen to the podcast when the comments are far more entertaining and relevant...carry on...
Listened to this for way too long. A wannabe guru giving advice on how to avoid gurus. I think most of the people here are smart enough to trust themselves.
It's why the left is so comical when they call us Trumpsters or Trumpkins, or Trumpeters or any of the silly names they use. We voted for Trump because he was light years better than the two totalitarian grifters the Dems offered. But we are not deluded into thinking that Trump is anything other than a spoiled, irascible, pain in the ass. Rational choices, not hero worship. And smart enough to discern the difference. Sorry, Bari, this one was a waste of time.
Here are the two words that drive progressives crazy: human nature. Always been there. Always will be. Gurus will always be in demand cause that's our nature. And never forget the immortal words of PT Barnum about suckers.
Helen Lewis is quite interesting to listen to, but her being a writer for The Atlantic, and praising that publication, is difficult for me to understand.
The Atlantic was basically going out of business, like many magazines that had lost their relevance, until Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs and undeserving inheritor of his fortune) bought it in 2017 and propped it up artificially.
The magazine is unapologetically liberal, anti-Donald Trump, anti-conservative, pro-gender-affirming-care-for-children, cold toward Israel... all the trends and ideas that are eating away at the foundations of America's strength. Like termites.
Now, as for Ibram X. Kendi, the man is quite similar to Mao Zedong in his absolutist view of human nature and behavior. Clearly, he was inspired by Maoist thinking, in which anything that is not "good" in his world view is a contradiction.
It is a contradiction that white people are more prosperous and privileged than black people, for example. And it is a contradiction that white babies inherently have a better life and feel no guilt about it. Whites should be punished from birth; that is the ultimate non-contradiction, in Kendi's eyes. Blacks, on the other hand, can do no wrong, because their lives are cursed from birth due to systemic racism for which they are not responsible.
To both Kendi and Mao, human beings as individuals have no control over their behavior and fate. They are helpless pawns in a greater game. The only way to help them is to rewrite the rules of the game, and tip the scales to favor those who are inherently losing the game, until finally the losers become the winners and the previous winners become apologetic losers.
Of course, Kendi doesn't directly say whites should be killed or have their wealth confiscated, but that is the implication, because he never exhorts black Americans to simply work harder and uplift themselves. The system, he says, is rigged against them and thus, they shouldn't even bother to try. And no, he doesn't say that directly, either, but it is the obvious implication.
To me, this type of thinking is a form of social programming, a grifter's approach. Kendi has done very well for himself, playing on white guilt and black frustrations.
In the 1950s, 80% of black families had a male head of household, two parents, and 80% of black males had jobs and were supporting families. Thousands of black males served in the U.S. Army and Marines, which was a pathway out of poverty and illiteracy. In the early 1950s, President Truman ordered the armed forces to integrate, which the generals resisted. However, they observed how black Marines fought with distinction in the Korean War, and they then relented and integrated the military, the first public institutions to do so. Until the military was discredited and its recruitment offices thrown off campuses in the 1960s, it was the obvious and beneficial pathway to a middle class lifestyle for millions of young working class men of all ethnicities.
In the past 20-30 years, unfortunately, 80% of black families have come to have a single female head of household, men have gone AWOL from raising their children, and the bottom 20-30% of the black community in every city are completely dysfunctional, with record-breaking levels of murder and other violence.
Kendi does not address this except in the sense that it's Whitey's fault, it's all because of systemic racism. It is dismaying how everyone, my rabbi, my liberal friends, liberal thinkers in general, all buy into this theory which is completely inconsistent with history, common sense, and anyone with knowledge of human behavior can see through it. It's delusional and to call Kendi a guru is to insult real gurus. He's a con man.
Wait, are we even allowed to say guru anymore?
I fully agree. having listened to her interview of Peterson, she was a hostile interviewer. that much awas clear. But that she would be so kind and forgiving to Kendi beats me, even for someone who declares herself to be a social democrat. Yes, and she would be popular on BBC
Bari, I wonder if you have actually listened to any conversations with Jordan Peterson or Brett Weinstein? These are both thoughtful people and the immediate dismissal that they both received in this podcast as nutty gurus is unwarranted. I'm sure you would not agree with them on every point and nor should that be a goal. But casually dismissing people who are thoughtfully considering the world's problems and are self-reflective of their own potential personal flaws... to me this shows that you have a blind spot that you need to reflect on yourself. I love your work and please keep doing what you're doing.
Not interested. The premise is not impressive. Sloppy use of the word "guru."
"Explains" suggests that her hypothesis is accepted truth, suspect in and of itself. Proposes a hypothesis. Not "explains."