YouTube Transcript:
Sowell EXPOSES Why Intellectuals are F*cking Idiots... || Thomas Sowell Reacts
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
View:
My point is apparently the XXXY
chromosomes are
insufficient because when we wake up in
the morning we exaggerate whatever
feature we want to portray the gender of
our choice.
Either the one you're assigned, the one
you choose to be, whatever it is. And so
now here so so now just to tie a bow on
this I say to you somewhere I read
somewhere I think I read that the United
States was a land where we have the
pursuit of happiness.
Yes. Suppose no matter my chromosomes
today I feel 80% female 20% male. I'm
going to I'm going to put on makeup. I'm
going to do that. Tomorrow I might feel
80% male. I'll remove the makeup and
I'll wear a muscle
shirt. Why do you care? Yeah. What?
What? Why? What business it is it of
yours to
require that I
fulfill your inability to think of
gender on a spectrum. This is all
wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should
be back in school on the other side of
the
ocean. Yet you all come to us young
people for hope. How dare
you? You have stolen my dreams and my
childhood with your empty words. And yet
I'm one of the lucky
ones. People are suffering. People are
dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
We are in the beginning of a mass
extinction. and all you can talk about
is money and fairy tales of eternal
economic growth. How dare you? The
mindset behind these initiatives is what
I've called the vision of the
anointed. It's a belief among certain
elites, intellectuals, policy makers,
technocrats that they possess a unique
wisdom, a superior moral and
intellectual capacity to redesign
society according to their
ideals. This isn't
new. It's a recurring pattern. In the
vision of the anointed, I argue that
these self-appointed visionaries see
themselves as the arbiters of what's
just or necessary, dismissing dissent as
ignorance, bigotry, or backwardness.
They assume their knowledge is not only
sufficient but preeminent, capable of
overriding the accumulated experience of
millions of individuals making decisions
in their own contexts.
This presumption of superior wisdom is
dangerous because it replaces empirical
evidence with moral self-
congratulation. Take urban planning in
the midentieth century. Elites like
Robert Moses in New York believed they
could improve cities by raising vibrant
neighborhoods for highways and high-rise
projects. The result, disrupted
communities, increased poverty, and
urban decay. The planner's intentions
were noble. modernization, efficiency,
but their ignorance of local knowledge
of how people actually lived led to
disaster. Similarly, economic
redistribution schemes like progressive
taxation or wealth transfers often
assume elites can allocate resources
better than markets. Yet, as I discuss
in knowledge and decisions, markets
aggregate disperse knowledge. Prices
reflect supply, demand, and tradeoffs.
While central planners, no matter how
brilliant, can't process that
information. The Soviet Union's collapse
is a stark reminder. Centralized
expertise failed where decentralized
decisions, however imperfect,
succeeded. The danger lies in this
hubris. Policym should be about testing
hypotheses against
reality, not imposing visions. When
elites presume their wisdom trumps all,
they invite catastrophe because no one,
no matter how credentialed, can know
enough to engineer society from the top
down. They often failed miserably,
especially for the very groups they
claim to help. Intentions are cheap.
Results are what matter. In intellectual
and society, I point out that policies
are too often sold on their emotional
appeal, compassion, fairness, while
their consequences are ignored or
excused. Let's take minimum wage laws.
The intention is to ensure workers earn
a living wage. Sounds noble. But the
outcome, employers, especially small
businesses, cut jobs or hours to afford
the mandated wages. Studies like those
from the University of California show
that low-skilled workers, minorities,
teenagers, lose jobs first. In 2019,
Seattle's $15 minimum wage led to a 6%
drop in low-wage employment. The poor,
whom the policy aimed to uplift, were
worse
off. Rent control is another example.
Advocates want affordable housing, but
by capping rents, they discourage
landlords from maintaining properties or
building new ones. Look at San
Francisco. Rent control since the 1970s
has shrunk the housing supply, driving
up prices for everyone else. The
beneficiaries, often affluent tenants
who lock in low rates, not the
struggling families the policy targets.
DEI mandates and corporations and
universities follow a similar pattern.
The goal is inclusion, but quotas or
preferential hiring can foster
resentment, undermine merit, and
stigmatize beneficiaries as diversity
hires. A 2004 study by Princeton's
Thomas Espenshade found that affirmative
action in elite universities often
benefited upper middle class minorities
over poorer applicants, contradicting
the narrative of uplifting the
disadvantaged. These policies illustrate
a key point from knowledge and
decisions. Reality is about tradeoffs,
not solutions. Every policy has costs,
and pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Elites love to bask in the glow of their
intentions. But when the results harm
the vulnerable, that's not compassion.
It's negligence. Language is a weapon
for the anointed. In the vision of the
anointed, I describe how they inflate
rhetoric to make their projects seem
unassalable. Words like equity, justice,
or sustainability are redefined to mean
whatever serves their agenda, detaching
them from measurable reality. Equity
once implied fairness under the law. Now
it's code for equal outcomes regardless
of effort, ability, or circumstance.
This shift makes dissent impossible.
Criticize equity, and you're branded as
opposing justice itself. Take
disinformation. It used to mean
verifiable falsehoods. Now it's a
catch-all for anything that challenges
elite consensus. Whether it's skepticism
about climate models or questions about
COVID policies. During the pandemic,
scientists like Jay Bacharia who
questioned lockdowns were labeled
spreaders of disinformation by tech
platforms and media despite their
credentials. This isn't about truth.
It's about control. By redefining terms,
elites turn debate into a moral litmus
test where disagreement is heresy. So
this manipulation hollows out discourse
and law. When hate speech can mean
anything from slurs to policy critiques,
legal protections erode. The first
amendment thrives on precise language.
Vague, elastic terms invite censorship.
As I argue in intellectuals in society,
this rhetorical slight of hand lets
elites dodge
accountability. If justice means their
vision, who can oppose it without
seeming unjust? Centralized power
dismisses the knowledge embedded in
communities, families, and traditions.
What Hayek called tacet knowledge? In
knowledge and decisions, I emphasize
that individuals closest to a problem
have the most relevant information, not
distant bureaucrats. Yet elite reforms
often impose one-sizefits-all solutions,
crushing the diversity of local
responses. Take education. Federal
mandates like No Child Left Behind or
Common Core. Assume Washington knows
better than local schools how to teach
kids. But a teacher in rural Alabama
face different challenges than one in
Manhattan.
Standardized tests and curricula ignore
those nuances, forcing schools to teach
to the test rather than to their
students. The result, stagnant test
scores despite billions spent. NA data
shows no significant gains in reading or
math since the
1990s. Housing quotas are another
example. Federal or state mandates to
force affordable units in suburbs
override local zoning, which reflects
community needs and character. In
California, laws like
SB35 bypass local governments, leading
to high density projects that strain
infrastructure and erode neighborhood
cohesion. Planners in Sacramento don't
know the rhythms of a small town, but
they act as if they do. This this
technocratic arrogance weakens civic
institutions, families, churches, and
local associations solve problems
organically. think uh mutual aid
societies or community watch programs.
But when bureaucrats dictate solutions,
they crowd out these voluntary
structures. The war on povertyy's
welfare programs, for instance,
displaced black community organizations
that had long provided support. As I
note in wealth, poverty, and politics,
centralization doesn't just fail, it
fractures the social fabric. Crises,
real or manufactured, are the anointed's
golden ticket. In the vision of the
anointed, I show how they exploit
urgency to bypass debate and due
process, claiming something must be
done. The 2008 financial crisis led to
DoddFrank. A 2000 300page law rushed
through Congress with little scrutiny.
Its regulations crushed small banks,
consolidating power in big ones. the
opposite of what reformers claim to
want. Pandemic lockdowns are a recent
case. Governments egged on by public
health elites impose sweeping
restrictions ignoring trade-offs.
Shutting schools harmed kids learning
and mental health. Stanford studies
estimates students lost up to a year of
learning while protecting the affluent
who could work remotely. The crisis
justified censorship too. Dissenting
scientists were silenced and social
media platforms suppressed posts
questioning mandates. A mantra was
follow the science. But science isn't
the monolith. It thrives on debate not
decrees. Climate activism follows the
same script. Catastrophic predictions,
decades of 10 years left to save the
planet create panic justifying policies
like ESG mandates or green energy
subsidies.
Yet these often enrich corporations
while raising energy costs for the
poor. Germany's anenda doubled
electricity prices for households,
hitting low-income families hardest.
Now, the crisis narrative shuts down
questions about tradeoffs like the
environmental cost of battery production
or the reliability of renewables. As I
said, the issue isn't the goal cleaner
energy, but the refusal to weigh cost
against benefits. The anointed are
masters of selective outrage, decrying
oppression while wielding institutional
power to silence dissent. In
intellectuals in society, I describe
their unconstrained vision where they
demand sacrifice from others but exempt
themselves. Look at cancel culture.
Elites in media, academia, and
corporations condemn harmful speech, yet
they're quick to ruin careers or
reputations over a tweet or an old
quote. A professor like Amy Wax at Penn
faces professional penalties for
questioning affirmative action. But
those targeting her face no
consequences. It's a one-way street.
This hypocrisy extends to policy.
Climate activists fly private jets while
lecturing workers about carbon
footprints. DEI advocates push quotas
but rarely diversify their own elite
circles. Look at the homogeneity of Ivy
League faculties. They're outraged by
systemic racism but silent when their
policies like defunding police lead to
spiking crime in minority neighborhoods.
Chicago's murder rate jumped 36% from
2019 to 2021. Yet the anointed focus on
rhetoric, not results. Their double
standards protect their vision. They
frame dissent as moral failure so they
don't have to engage with it. This isn't
just unfair, it's corrosive. When elites
use their perch to crush debate, they
undermine the trust that holds societies
together. History is littered with
elitdriven utopian failures, and the
parallels are stark. The Soviet Union is
the obvious example. Lenin and Stalin
believed centralized planning could
outperform markets, but their scientific
socialism led to famines, purges, and
economic stagnation. By 1989, the USSR's
GDP per capita was a fraction of the
West. The planners vision ignored human
nature and local knowledge, just as
today's technocrats do. America's great
society is closer to home. LBJ's
programs aimed to eradicate poverty, but
welfare expansions disrupted families
and entrenched dependency. By the 1980s,
black illegitimacy rates had tripled and
urban poverty persisted. As I discuss in
the vision of the anointed, the anointed
ignored warnings from scholars like
Daniel Patrick Moahan who predicted
these outcomes because their vision was
too grand to question. Postcolonial
Africa offers another lesson. Leaders
like Necruma in Ghana or Naira in
Tanzania embrace socialist planning,
nationalizing industries and
collectivizing agriculture. The result
economic collapse and authoritarianism.
Tanzania's Ujama policy forced farmers
into collective slashing agricultural
output. These leaders often educated at
elite western universities dismissed
traditional practices as backward. Much
like today's elites scorn local wisdom,
the common thread is the belief that
abstract ideals, equality, progress can
override reality. History shows that
when elites chase utopias, the costs
fall on the ordinary, not the
visionaries. Top-down social engineering
often strips individuals of agency,
treating them as pawns in a grand
design. In knowledge and decisions, I
argue that individual choices guided by
personal knowledge and incentives are
the bedrock of a functioning society.
Yet, elite reforms, whether ESG mandates
or education overhauls, assume people
can't be trusted to make their own
decisions. Take financial regulations
like ESG criteria. They force companies
to prioritize socially responsible
investments, limiting the options of
investors who might prefer higher
returns or different values. This isn't
empowerment. It's coercion dressed as
virtue. In education, centralized
reforms like mandatory curricula or
diversity training reduce teachers and
parents ability to tailor learning to
their students needs. A 2021 study from
the Manhattan Institute found that
teachers felt demoralized by
bureaucratic mandates that ignored
classroom realities. When individuals
lose the freedom to act on their own
knowledge, innovation and adaptation
suffer and society becomes rigid, less
resilient. The the anointed fetishize
expertise is a substitute for reality.
And intellectuals in society, I note
that they elevate credentials over
practical knowledge, assuming a PhD or
corner office equips someone to
dictate society's course. Climate
models, for instance, are treated as
gospel. Despite their spotty predictive
record, decades of apocalyptic forecasts
haven't materialized as predicted. Yet,
policymakers defer to experts over
farmers or engineers who deal with
weather and energy in the real world.
Uh, this over reliance on expertise
ignores the limits of human knowledge.
No expert, no matter how brilliant, can
account for the complexity of social
systems. The 2008 financial crisis
showed this. Economists and regulators
armed with models failed to predict the
collapse. Respect expertise, but don't
worship it. Realworld feedback trumps
theoretical elegance every time. The
pressing dissent is central to the
anointed's playbook. In the vision of
the anointed, I describe how they frame
critics as not just wrong, but morally
defective, racist, greedy, or
antis-science. This shuts down debate
without engaging it. Look at tech
censorship. Platforms like
pre2023 Twitter banned users for
questioning COVID policies or election
integrity not because they were
factually wrong but because they
challenged the narrative. 2022 Stanford
study showed that 43% of Americans felt
afraid to express political views online
due to censorship fears.
This suppression stifles the feedback
loops that correct bad
policies. If you can't question DEI's
impact or green energy's costs without
being labeled a bigot or a denier, how
can society learn from mistakes?
Disscent isn't a nuisance. It's a
safeguard against hubris. Globalized
social engineering like climate accords
or ESG standards magnifies the risks of
centralized error in knowledge and
decisions. I emphasize that knowledge is
dispersed varying by place and culture.
Global mandates like the Paris
agreement's emissions targets ignore
this. What works for Sweden's energy
grid, hydro power, nuclear won't work
for India reliant on coal. Yet elites
push uniform standards raising costs for
poorer nations. The World Bank estimated
in 2020 that green policies could push
88 million people into poverty by 2030.
Global schemes also dilute
accountability. When unelected bodies
like the UN or corporate boards set
rules, who do you hold responsible?
Local governments at least face voters.
Global elites answer to no one. The
bigger the scale, the bigger the blunder
and the harder it is to reverse. The
anointed's visions offer a psychological
high, a sense of moral superiority and
purpose. In intellectuals in society, I
argue that intellectuals, often detached
from practical consequences, crave the
role of societal savior. Climate
activism, for instance, lets elites feel
they're saving the planet, while DEI
promises to redeem historical sins.
This appeal isn't just personal. It's a
status signal. Supporting progressive
causes marks you as enlightened, part of
the moral elect. Our followers, these
visions provide belonging and certainty
in a complex world. But this
psychological payoff blinds both to
tradeoffs. When you're convinced you're
on the side of angels, questioning costs
feels like betrayal. That's why the
anointed cling to failing policies.
They're not just plans. They're
identities. First, reign in central
planners. Power should stay with those
closest to the consequences of
decisions. Individuals, families, local
governments. The further removed the
decision maker, the less they know and
the less they suffer for being wrong.
Federal overreach, whether in education
or housing, must be checked by
constitutional limits and voter
vigilance. Second, prioritize tradeoffs
over dreams. Policymakers must ground
decisions in empirical reality, not
idealized visions. Before passing a law,
ask, "What are the costs? Who pays
them?" Minimum wage hikes or green
mandates sound noble, but if they hurt
the
poor, they're failures. Data, not
feelings should guide
us. Third, insist on accountability.
Elites must face the consequences of
their policies, not just the applause.
If a reform backfires, say rent control
shrinks housing, its advocates should
admit error, not double down. Public
discourse must reward humility over
posturing. Fourth, protect the language
of law. Words like justice or rights
must retain clear, measurable
meanings. When elites redefine terms to
suit their agenda, they erode the rule
of law. Courts, legislators, and
citizens must guard against this
semantic drift. Fifth, respect local
institutions and civil society.
Communities, churches, and voluntary
associations adapt better than distant
elites with grand theories. Policies
should empower these structures, not
supplant them. Welfare reform in the
1990s succeeded by letting states
experiment, not by imposing a federal
blueprint. Six, safeguard individual
agency. Policies should maximize
people's freedom to make choices based
on their own knowledge and values.
Mandates that dictate how businesses
invest or how parents raise kids erode
the initiative that drives
progress. And lastly, demand
transparency in expertise. Experts
advising policy must disclose their
assumptions.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms
Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!
YouTube
←
→
↻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
YoutubeToText
←
→
↻
https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc