0:00 My point is apparently the XXXY
0:04 chromosomes are
0:06 insufficient because when we wake up in
0:09 the morning we exaggerate whatever
0:13 feature we want to portray the gender of
0:18 our choice.
0:21 Either the one you're assigned, the one
0:23 you choose to be, whatever it is. And so
0:26 now here so so now just to tie a bow on
0:29 this I say to you somewhere I read
0:34 somewhere I think I read that the United
0:36 States was a land where we have the
0:39 pursuit of happiness.
0:41 Yes. Suppose no matter my chromosomes
0:44 today I feel 80% female 20% male. I'm
0:48 going to I'm going to put on makeup. I'm
0:50 going to do that. Tomorrow I might feel
0:52 80% male. I'll remove the makeup and
0:54 I'll wear a muscle
0:56 shirt. Why do you care? Yeah. What?
1:00 What? Why? What business it is it of
1:02 yours to
1:05 require that I
1:07 fulfill your inability to think of
1:10 gender on a spectrum. This is all
1:13 wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should
1:17 be back in school on the other side of
1:19 the
1:20 ocean. Yet you all come to us young
1:24 people for hope. How dare
1:28 you? You have stolen my dreams and my
1:31 childhood with your empty words. And yet
1:35 I'm one of the lucky
1:37 ones. People are suffering. People are
1:41 dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
1:46 We are in the beginning of a mass
1:48 extinction. and all you can talk about
1:51 is money and fairy tales of eternal
1:54 economic growth. How dare you? The
1:57 mindset behind these initiatives is what
1:59 I've called the vision of the
2:02 anointed. It's a belief among certain
2:05 elites, intellectuals, policy makers,
2:08 technocrats that they possess a unique
2:11 wisdom, a superior moral and
2:14 intellectual capacity to redesign
2:17 society according to their
2:19 ideals. This isn't
2:22 new. It's a recurring pattern. In the
2:24 vision of the anointed, I argue that
2:26 these self-appointed visionaries see
2:29 themselves as the arbiters of what's
2:32 just or necessary, dismissing dissent as
2:36 ignorance, bigotry, or backwardness.
2:39 They assume their knowledge is not only
2:42 sufficient but preeminent, capable of
2:45 overriding the accumulated experience of
2:48 millions of individuals making decisions
2:50 in their own contexts.
2:53 This presumption of superior wisdom is
2:56 dangerous because it replaces empirical
2:58 evidence with moral self-
3:00 congratulation. Take urban planning in
3:02 the midentieth century. Elites like
3:05 Robert Moses in New York believed they
3:07 could improve cities by raising vibrant
3:11 neighborhoods for highways and high-rise
3:13 projects. The result, disrupted
3:16 communities, increased poverty, and
3:19 urban decay. The planner's intentions
3:21 were noble. modernization, efficiency,
3:24 but their ignorance of local knowledge
3:27 of how people actually lived led to
3:30 disaster. Similarly, economic
3:33 redistribution schemes like progressive
3:35 taxation or wealth transfers often
3:38 assume elites can allocate resources
3:41 better than markets. Yet, as I discuss
3:43 in knowledge and decisions, markets
3:45 aggregate disperse knowledge. Prices
3:48 reflect supply, demand, and tradeoffs.
3:51 While central planners, no matter how
3:53 brilliant, can't process that
3:55 information. The Soviet Union's collapse
3:57 is a stark reminder. Centralized
4:00 expertise failed where decentralized
4:03 decisions, however imperfect,
4:05 succeeded. The danger lies in this
4:08 hubris. Policym should be about testing
4:11 hypotheses against
4:13 reality, not imposing visions. When
4:16 elites presume their wisdom trumps all,
4:19 they invite catastrophe because no one,
4:23 no matter how credentialed, can know
4:26 enough to engineer society from the top
4:29 down. They often failed miserably,
4:32 especially for the very groups they
4:34 claim to help. Intentions are cheap.
4:36 Results are what matter. In intellectual
4:39 and society, I point out that policies
4:41 are too often sold on their emotional
4:43 appeal, compassion, fairness, while
4:47 their consequences are ignored or
4:49 excused. Let's take minimum wage laws.
4:52 The intention is to ensure workers earn
4:54 a living wage. Sounds noble. But the
4:57 outcome, employers, especially small
4:59 businesses, cut jobs or hours to afford
5:03 the mandated wages. Studies like those
5:06 from the University of California show
5:08 that low-skilled workers, minorities,
5:11 teenagers, lose jobs first. In 2019,
5:15 Seattle's $15 minimum wage led to a 6%
5:19 drop in low-wage employment. The poor,
5:22 whom the policy aimed to uplift, were
5:25 worse
5:26 off. Rent control is another example.
5:30 Advocates want affordable housing, but
5:33 by capping rents, they discourage
5:35 landlords from maintaining properties or
5:37 building new ones. Look at San
5:39 Francisco. Rent control since the 1970s
5:42 has shrunk the housing supply, driving
5:44 up prices for everyone else. The
5:46 beneficiaries, often affluent tenants
5:49 who lock in low rates, not the
5:51 struggling families the policy targets.
5:54 DEI mandates and corporations and
5:56 universities follow a similar pattern.
5:59 The goal is inclusion, but quotas or
6:01 preferential hiring can foster
6:03 resentment, undermine merit, and
6:05 stigmatize beneficiaries as diversity
6:08 hires. A 2004 study by Princeton's
6:11 Thomas Espenshade found that affirmative
6:14 action in elite universities often
6:16 benefited upper middle class minorities
6:19 over poorer applicants, contradicting
6:21 the narrative of uplifting the
6:23 disadvantaged. These policies illustrate
6:25 a key point from knowledge and
6:27 decisions. Reality is about tradeoffs,
6:29 not solutions. Every policy has costs,
6:31 and pretending otherwise is dishonest.
6:34 Elites love to bask in the glow of their
6:36 intentions. But when the results harm
6:39 the vulnerable, that's not compassion.
6:41 It's negligence. Language is a weapon
6:44 for the anointed. In the vision of the
6:46 anointed, I describe how they inflate
6:48 rhetoric to make their projects seem
6:51 unassalable. Words like equity, justice,
6:55 or sustainability are redefined to mean
6:58 whatever serves their agenda, detaching
7:01 them from measurable reality. Equity
7:04 once implied fairness under the law. Now
7:07 it's code for equal outcomes regardless
7:10 of effort, ability, or circumstance.
7:13 This shift makes dissent impossible.
7:16 Criticize equity, and you're branded as
7:19 opposing justice itself. Take
7:21 disinformation. It used to mean
7:23 verifiable falsehoods. Now it's a
7:25 catch-all for anything that challenges
7:27 elite consensus. Whether it's skepticism
7:30 about climate models or questions about
7:32 COVID policies. During the pandemic,
7:35 scientists like Jay Bacharia who
7:37 questioned lockdowns were labeled
7:39 spreaders of disinformation by tech
7:41 platforms and media despite their
7:44 credentials. This isn't about truth.
7:46 It's about control. By redefining terms,
7:50 elites turn debate into a moral litmus
7:53 test where disagreement is heresy. So
7:56 this manipulation hollows out discourse
7:58 and law. When hate speech can mean
8:01 anything from slurs to policy critiques,
8:04 legal protections erode. The first
8:06 amendment thrives on precise language.
8:09 Vague, elastic terms invite censorship.
8:13 As I argue in intellectuals in society,
8:15 this rhetorical slight of hand lets
8:17 elites dodge
8:18 accountability. If justice means their
8:21 vision, who can oppose it without
8:23 seeming unjust? Centralized power
8:26 dismisses the knowledge embedded in
8:27 communities, families, and traditions.
8:29 What Hayek called tacet knowledge? In
8:32 knowledge and decisions, I emphasize
8:34 that individuals closest to a problem
8:36 have the most relevant information, not
8:38 distant bureaucrats. Yet elite reforms
8:43 often impose one-sizefits-all solutions,
8:47 crushing the diversity of local
8:50 responses. Take education. Federal
8:53 mandates like No Child Left Behind or
8:55 Common Core. Assume Washington knows
8:58 better than local schools how to teach
9:00 kids. But a teacher in rural Alabama
9:03 face different challenges than one in
9:05 Manhattan.
9:07 Standardized tests and curricula ignore
9:09 those nuances, forcing schools to teach
9:12 to the test rather than to their
9:13 students. The result, stagnant test
9:16 scores despite billions spent. NA data
9:19 shows no significant gains in reading or
9:22 math since the
9:24 1990s. Housing quotas are another
9:27 example. Federal or state mandates to
9:29 force affordable units in suburbs
9:31 override local zoning, which reflects
9:33 community needs and character. In
9:35 California, laws like
9:37 SB35 bypass local governments, leading
9:41 to high density projects that strain
9:44 infrastructure and erode neighborhood
9:46 cohesion. Planners in Sacramento don't
9:48 know the rhythms of a small town, but
9:51 they act as if they do. This this
9:55 technocratic arrogance weakens civic
9:58 institutions, families, churches, and
10:00 local associations solve problems
10:02 organically. think uh mutual aid
10:05 societies or community watch programs.
10:07 But when bureaucrats dictate solutions,
10:10 they crowd out these voluntary
10:11 structures. The war on povertyy's
10:14 welfare programs, for instance,
10:15 displaced black community organizations
10:17 that had long provided support. As I
10:20 note in wealth, poverty, and politics,
10:23 centralization doesn't just fail, it
10:27 fractures the social fabric. Crises,
10:30 real or manufactured, are the anointed's
10:33 golden ticket. In the vision of the
10:35 anointed, I show how they exploit
10:37 urgency to bypass debate and due
10:40 process, claiming something must be
10:43 done. The 2008 financial crisis led to
10:46 DoddFrank. A 2000 300page law rushed
10:50 through Congress with little scrutiny.
10:52 Its regulations crushed small banks,
10:54 consolidating power in big ones. the
10:57 opposite of what reformers claim to
10:59 want. Pandemic lockdowns are a recent
11:02 case. Governments egged on by public
11:04 health elites impose sweeping
11:06 restrictions ignoring trade-offs.
11:08 Shutting schools harmed kids learning
11:10 and mental health. Stanford studies
11:12 estimates students lost up to a year of
11:14 learning while protecting the affluent
11:16 who could work remotely. The crisis
11:18 justified censorship too. Dissenting
11:21 scientists were silenced and social
11:23 media platforms suppressed posts
11:25 questioning mandates. A mantra was
11:28 follow the science. But science isn't
11:30 the monolith. It thrives on debate not
11:34 decrees. Climate activism follows the
11:37 same script. Catastrophic predictions,
11:40 decades of 10 years left to save the
11:42 planet create panic justifying policies
11:45 like ESG mandates or green energy
11:47 subsidies.
11:49 Yet these often enrich corporations
11:50 while raising energy costs for the
11:54 poor. Germany's anenda doubled
11:57 electricity prices for households,
11:59 hitting low-income families hardest.
12:02 Now, the crisis narrative shuts down
12:04 questions about tradeoffs like the
12:06 environmental cost of battery production
12:08 or the reliability of renewables. As I
12:11 said, the issue isn't the goal cleaner
12:14 energy, but the refusal to weigh cost
12:17 against benefits. The anointed are
12:20 masters of selective outrage, decrying
12:23 oppression while wielding institutional
12:26 power to silence dissent. In
12:28 intellectuals in society, I describe
12:30 their unconstrained vision where they
12:33 demand sacrifice from others but exempt
12:36 themselves. Look at cancel culture.
12:39 Elites in media, academia, and
12:41 corporations condemn harmful speech, yet
12:44 they're quick to ruin careers or
12:46 reputations over a tweet or an old
12:48 quote. A professor like Amy Wax at Penn
12:52 faces professional penalties for
12:54 questioning affirmative action. But
12:56 those targeting her face no
12:58 consequences. It's a one-way street.
13:01 This hypocrisy extends to policy.
13:03 Climate activists fly private jets while
13:06 lecturing workers about carbon
13:07 footprints. DEI advocates push quotas
13:10 but rarely diversify their own elite
13:12 circles. Look at the homogeneity of Ivy
13:15 League faculties. They're outraged by
13:18 systemic racism but silent when their
13:21 policies like defunding police lead to
13:23 spiking crime in minority neighborhoods.
13:26 Chicago's murder rate jumped 36% from
13:29 2019 to 2021. Yet the anointed focus on
13:33 rhetoric, not results. Their double
13:36 standards protect their vision. They
13:39 frame dissent as moral failure so they
13:42 don't have to engage with it. This isn't
13:44 just unfair, it's corrosive. When elites
13:47 use their perch to crush debate, they
13:50 undermine the trust that holds societies
13:52 together. History is littered with
13:55 elitdriven utopian failures, and the
13:59 parallels are stark. The Soviet Union is
14:02 the obvious example. Lenin and Stalin
14:05 believed centralized planning could
14:06 outperform markets, but their scientific
14:09 socialism led to famines, purges, and
14:12 economic stagnation. By 1989, the USSR's
14:15 GDP per capita was a fraction of the
14:18 West. The planners vision ignored human
14:21 nature and local knowledge, just as
14:23 today's technocrats do. America's great
14:26 society is closer to home. LBJ's
14:30 programs aimed to eradicate poverty, but
14:33 welfare expansions disrupted families
14:35 and entrenched dependency. By the 1980s,
14:38 black illegitimacy rates had tripled and
14:41 urban poverty persisted. As I discuss in
14:44 the vision of the anointed, the anointed
14:46 ignored warnings from scholars like
14:48 Daniel Patrick Moahan who predicted
14:50 these outcomes because their vision was
14:53 too grand to question. Postcolonial
14:56 Africa offers another lesson. Leaders
14:58 like Necruma in Ghana or Naira in
15:00 Tanzania embrace socialist planning,
15:02 nationalizing industries and
15:03 collectivizing agriculture. The result
15:06 economic collapse and authoritarianism.
15:08 Tanzania's Ujama policy forced farmers
15:11 into collective slashing agricultural
15:13 output. These leaders often educated at
15:16 elite western universities dismissed
15:18 traditional practices as backward. Much
15:21 like today's elites scorn local wisdom,
15:24 the common thread is the belief that
15:26 abstract ideals, equality, progress can
15:30 override reality. History shows that
15:33 when elites chase utopias, the costs
15:37 fall on the ordinary, not the
15:39 visionaries. Top-down social engineering
15:42 often strips individuals of agency,
15:44 treating them as pawns in a grand
15:46 design. In knowledge and decisions, I
15:49 argue that individual choices guided by
15:51 personal knowledge and incentives are
15:53 the bedrock of a functioning society.
15:56 Yet, elite reforms, whether ESG mandates
15:59 or education overhauls, assume people
16:02 can't be trusted to make their own
16:03 decisions. Take financial regulations
16:05 like ESG criteria. They force companies
16:08 to prioritize socially responsible
16:10 investments, limiting the options of
16:13 investors who might prefer higher
16:15 returns or different values. This isn't
16:17 empowerment. It's coercion dressed as
16:20 virtue. In education, centralized
16:22 reforms like mandatory curricula or
16:25 diversity training reduce teachers and
16:27 parents ability to tailor learning to
16:29 their students needs. A 2021 study from
16:32 the Manhattan Institute found that
16:34 teachers felt demoralized by
16:36 bureaucratic mandates that ignored
16:38 classroom realities. When individuals
16:41 lose the freedom to act on their own
16:43 knowledge, innovation and adaptation
16:45 suffer and society becomes rigid, less
16:50 resilient. The the anointed fetishize
16:53 expertise is a substitute for reality.
16:55 And intellectuals in society, I note
16:56 that they elevate credentials over
16:58 practical knowledge, assuming a PhD or
17:02 corner office equips someone to
17:04 dictate society's course. Climate
17:07 models, for instance, are treated as
17:09 gospel. Despite their spotty predictive
17:12 record, decades of apocalyptic forecasts
17:15 haven't materialized as predicted. Yet,
17:18 policymakers defer to experts over
17:21 farmers or engineers who deal with
17:23 weather and energy in the real world.
17:26 Uh, this over reliance on expertise
17:30 ignores the limits of human knowledge.
17:32 No expert, no matter how brilliant, can
17:34 account for the complexity of social
17:36 systems. The 2008 financial crisis
17:39 showed this. Economists and regulators
17:42 armed with models failed to predict the
17:44 collapse. Respect expertise, but don't
17:47 worship it. Realworld feedback trumps
17:50 theoretical elegance every time. The
17:53 pressing dissent is central to the
17:56 anointed's playbook. In the vision of
17:59 the anointed, I describe how they frame
18:02 critics as not just wrong, but morally
18:06 defective, racist, greedy, or
18:09 antis-science. This shuts down debate
18:12 without engaging it. Look at tech
18:14 censorship. Platforms like
18:17 pre2023 Twitter banned users for
18:20 questioning COVID policies or election
18:23 integrity not because they were
18:25 factually wrong but because they
18:27 challenged the narrative. 2022 Stanford
18:29 study showed that 43% of Americans felt
18:33 afraid to express political views online
18:36 due to censorship fears.
18:39 This suppression stifles the feedback
18:42 loops that correct bad
18:44 policies. If you can't question DEI's
18:48 impact or green energy's costs without
18:51 being labeled a bigot or a denier, how
18:55 can society learn from mistakes?
18:58 Disscent isn't a nuisance. It's a
19:01 safeguard against hubris. Globalized
19:03 social engineering like climate accords
19:05 or ESG standards magnifies the risks of
19:07 centralized error in knowledge and
19:10 decisions. I emphasize that knowledge is
19:12 dispersed varying by place and culture.
19:14 Global mandates like the Paris
19:16 agreement's emissions targets ignore
19:18 this. What works for Sweden's energy
19:20 grid, hydro power, nuclear won't work
19:24 for India reliant on coal. Yet elites
19:27 push uniform standards raising costs for
19:29 poorer nations. The World Bank estimated
19:33 in 2020 that green policies could push
19:37 88 million people into poverty by 2030.
19:41 Global schemes also dilute
19:44 accountability. When unelected bodies
19:48 like the UN or corporate boards set
19:51 rules, who do you hold responsible?
19:53 Local governments at least face voters.
19:56 Global elites answer to no one. The
19:59 bigger the scale, the bigger the blunder
20:01 and the harder it is to reverse. The
20:04 anointed's visions offer a psychological
20:07 high, a sense of moral superiority and
20:10 purpose. In intellectuals in society, I
20:12 argue that intellectuals, often detached
20:14 from practical consequences, crave the
20:16 role of societal savior. Climate
20:19 activism, for instance, lets elites feel
20:21 they're saving the planet, while DEI
20:24 promises to redeem historical sins.
20:28 This appeal isn't just personal. It's a
20:30 status signal. Supporting progressive
20:33 causes marks you as enlightened, part of
20:36 the moral elect. Our followers, these
20:40 visions provide belonging and certainty
20:42 in a complex world. But this
20:45 psychological payoff blinds both to
20:48 tradeoffs. When you're convinced you're
20:50 on the side of angels, questioning costs
20:53 feels like betrayal. That's why the
20:56 anointed cling to failing policies.
20:57 They're not just plans. They're
21:00 identities. First, reign in central
21:03 planners. Power should stay with those
21:06 closest to the consequences of
21:08 decisions. Individuals, families, local
21:11 governments. The further removed the
21:13 decision maker, the less they know and
21:15 the less they suffer for being wrong.
21:17 Federal overreach, whether in education
21:19 or housing, must be checked by
21:22 constitutional limits and voter
21:24 vigilance. Second, prioritize tradeoffs
21:27 over dreams. Policymakers must ground
21:30 decisions in empirical reality, not
21:32 idealized visions. Before passing a law,
21:35 ask, "What are the costs? Who pays
21:37 them?" Minimum wage hikes or green
21:40 mandates sound noble, but if they hurt
21:43 the
21:44 poor, they're failures. Data, not
21:47 feelings should guide
21:49 us. Third, insist on accountability.
21:53 Elites must face the consequences of
21:55 their policies, not just the applause.
21:58 If a reform backfires, say rent control
22:01 shrinks housing, its advocates should
22:03 admit error, not double down. Public
22:07 discourse must reward humility over
22:10 posturing. Fourth, protect the language
22:13 of law. Words like justice or rights
22:18 must retain clear, measurable
22:21 meanings. When elites redefine terms to
22:25 suit their agenda, they erode the rule
22:28 of law. Courts, legislators, and
22:31 citizens must guard against this
22:33 semantic drift. Fifth, respect local
22:37 institutions and civil society.
22:38 Communities, churches, and voluntary
22:40 associations adapt better than distant
22:43 elites with grand theories. Policies
22:45 should empower these structures, not
22:47 supplant them. Welfare reform in the
22:50 1990s succeeded by letting states
22:53 experiment, not by imposing a federal
22:55 blueprint. Six, safeguard individual
22:58 agency. Policies should maximize
23:01 people's freedom to make choices based
23:03 on their own knowledge and values.
23:06 Mandates that dictate how businesses
23:08 invest or how parents raise kids erode
23:11 the initiative that drives
23:14 progress. And lastly, demand
23:17 transparency in expertise. Experts
23:20 advising policy must disclose their
23:22 assumptions.
Chrome Extension