Gad Saad Parasitic Mind

Quick question, when was the last time a display ad changed your mind? Now think about the last time a friend told you about something they loved. Different feeling, right? That's how podcast advertising works.

A host who's built a real trust with their audience talks about your brand and their own words and their own voice. It doesn't interrupt the experience. It's part of it. With ACAST, you can access the world's largest podcast marketplace.

Choose the right shows, the right audiences, the right format. Then watch the data to tell you it worked. You're not buying impressions. You're buying influence.

Learn more by visiting acast.com slash advertising. To deconstructive criticism, my name is Aaron Flamm. I hope you're doing well. We're having the world you're listening to this.

This episode's guest is Dr. Gard Saadam. We'll be talking about his new book, The Parasitic Mind, How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. Gard Saad has been a guest before and the links to those talks can be found in the description of this episode on my webpage, erinflamm.com.

The Parasitic Mind is the perfect read if you're looking for arguments backed up with facts and evidence to counter transactivism, feminism and a fence and or apology of Islamism. So I suggest you buy it and learn it by heart to become an Hafiz in the madras of the godfather. If you're wondering what court case I and Gard Saad referenced in the beginning of our talk, then I am currently being prosecuted in a appeals court for previously being acquitted of charges of copyright infringement. This is the first episode in English for quite some time and since last you heard from me my own book that I wrote and published has been confiscated by Swedish police and I am prosecuted for defaming a national symbol supposedly.

I won in the first instance. Hooray! Unfortunately, the prosecutor has appealed and in a few months I'll be tried in a appeals court. I say this before you start to wonder since the case is briefly referenced as I said in the beginning of the conversation between myself and Gard.

I haven't done an episode about it in English yet and this will not be the one but if you're curious about the book that has gone and such attention from the authorities, there's an English version and it's called This is a Swedish Tiger and it's available as an ebook on Amazon and can also be ordered as hard copy on my webpage or on flam.com. It is about the Swedish culture of silence and analyzes a Swedish joke from World War II. The joke is and I quote a Swedish tiger. I know and it's not particularly funny in the Swedish either.

In case that makes you as curious as the state of Sweden, I encourage you to order this as a Swedish tiger from rnflam.com.com. Now I also want to thank you for supporting my work at patreon.com. That's patreon.com. In one word on swish.

W46-7689-437-7. That's W46-7689-437. Thank you for your support. I promise to do more episodes with English speakers as soon as I dare trust my recording abilities.

This episode was recorded on Skype with video but alas the video feeds quality was too poor for broadcast so this recording is released in audio only. The sound is excellent though and so is my guest. God Sards the parasitic mind as a terrific read. Even if you already know a lot of the stuff he's writing about because you've seen and say it before, it is nice to have it all densely and poignantly written down with examples, statistics and facts ready to be used in the fight against modern political lunacy.

Which there is so much about these days it's hard to keep up. I agree with God Sard on a lot of things and we touch on similar ills in our respective works. Although I think Professor Sards experience a knowledge in the field of evolutionary psychology and his background in math, computer science and economics makes him extraordinarily well suited to counter claims from what they in the West called feminism today. What we in Sweden call gender science and no I shit you not.

Gender studies is a STEM field in Sweden. In the social democracy of Sweden we believe in equity to such a grotesque degree that we call everything that wants to be called a science science. Just so it doesn't get offended or it's feelings hurt. Sard also eloquently disproves ideas found in trans activism and critical race theory.

On top of that having been forced to flee the Lebanese civil war as a child has given him a realistic outlook on the chances of reconciling the tenets of Islam with Western values. God has talked about anti-Semitism and Islam as a guest of deconstructed criticism before and you will find the link to it and Dr Sard's YouTube channel as well as book on AaronFlan.com. According to his Wikipedia page, God Sard is a Lebanese Canadian evolutionary psychologist and professor in the John Molsom School of Business at Concordia University. And his work applies evolutionary psychology to marketing and consumer behavior.

Enjoy. Hello and welcome. I'm good sir. How are you?

Welcome back to deconstructive criticism the great Dr. God Sard. So nice to be with you. What's going on?

How? What's new with you? Well, I'm being sued for the by the state of Sweden apparently for copyrighted infringement regarding the cover of my book that I released like a little over a year ago. Apart from that everything is fine.

How is Canada doing during under Covid or during Covid? Well, it's very, very cool. I know that's a reason it's called too, but today I think it might be around minus 15. So I think Covid was really bearable when you could be outside and hang out in your yard and play soccer with your kids.

But now you really have to cocoon because it's not just Covid lockdown, it's weather lockdown. So it's a double whammy. It's tough to pick. But how is your state handling the pandemic?

Are you satisfied with how Canada has handled it so far? I mean, not really in that the kind of haphazard nature of not knowing where the edicts are coming from and for what reason makes it a bit difficult. But hopefully with this vaccine now we're going to get through it. I guess you guys are the ones that were the most less affair, right?

Yes, but I don't think it's because Sweden and the social democracy is a freedom-loving place. It's that we weren't prepared. We haven't had a war for 250 years. And so catastrophes are not on the agenda ever.

So we have nothing to deal with this in place. So yeah, we're pretty much screwed. That's the general consensus outside of Sweden concerning Sweden. Anyway, Yeah, and so Justin is not safely guiding your ship to port.

No, I wake up every day and I feel secure at least knowing that the great Justin Trudeau is leading us. So I'm safe in his loving arms. All right, and I know one thing you've done since last week spoke, which was a little more than a year ago, and that is you've released a book, another book in your case, I suppose, called The Parasitic Mind. And I've read it now and it's a great read.

I think it's very succinct and gets to the point and it provides you with all the statistics and tools you need, I think, if you're interested in combating PC at least. So I'd like to start with the question. Could you explain what a normal logical network of communicative evidences? So a normal logical network of cumulative evidence is something that I discussed toward the end of the book.

It's a chap is having while talking about how to seek truth. And so before I actually formally explain it, let me draw a parallel to what Charles Darwin did many years ago. So when he was trying to, anybody my glasses on, when he was trying to amass evidence in support of his theory of evolution, he did it over several decades by collecting data from many distinct lines of evidence from geology, from paleontology, from animal husbandry, from biodiversity, from ecology. So that when you put all of that data together, coming from, as I said, completely different disciplines and lines of evidence, that was clear that his theory was vertical.

And so I argue for a system that is way of thinking this way. This is called the logical networks of cumulative evidence. So for example, if I want to prove to you that toy preferences are socially constructed, the fact that little Johnny plays with a blue truck and little in that place where they pinked all is not only because of their sexist arbitrary parents. How would I go about doing that?

Well, I could look at the field of developmental psychology where they study infant psychology and I could show you that children who are in the pre socialization stage of their cognitive development. In other words, they're too young to have been socialized already exhibit those toy preferences. So that already is casting doubt on the idea that the toy preferences are socially constructed. But that's just one line of evidence coming from the mental psychology.

I could get your data from comparative psychology. This is where you look at other animals. And so you can look at the behavior or the preference of the toy preferences of vervet monkeys and recess monkeys and chimpanzees and show that they exhibit the sex specific toy preferences that are similar to those of infants. So now I've gotten your data from developmental psychology and from comparative psychology.

But let me do a few more. I won't do the whole network. But I'll give you enough so that your listeners can get a sense of how you go about doing this. Well, I can get you data from pediatric endocrinology.

So this is so there's a disorder called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which afflicts when afflicts little girls their behaviors become mass fill in eyes. So little girls who suffer from this endocrinological disorder have toy preferences that are similar to those of boys suggesting that there's a hormonal signature to those toy preferences. I can get you data from Sweden, by the way, this is one of the one of the boxes in the network comes from Sweden. Now, Sweden is a great example because for many, many years they have tried to create a gender neutral society.

So someone in I think it was 2005 maybe had Nelson had collected data from the actual bedrooms of children of Swedish children. He had inventoried more than 40,000 toys to determine if they are sex-type boys or girls. And even in the gender-free country of Sweden, their toy preferences were exactly the same as anywhere else. And I'll just do one more and then I'll look at the idea.

You can then take data from other cultures that are completely different from Western cultures. Nomadic tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa and show that they do the same. You can get data from ancient Greece where you analyze how children are depicted in funerary monuments. It's the exact same.

So I get two different time periods, different disciplines, different species, all of which point the same thing. So I didn't have to get hysterical. I didn't have to get emotional. I simply built a network that drowns you in its tsunami of evidence.

Well, that is a very controversial topic to apply your method to on. And when regarding gender neutrality, we as Swedes believe we're there very soon. Very soon. We just have to sacrifice one more child on the altar of equality and the gods will smile on us.

Or maybe just a few more castrations of Swedish men and then you could truly have gender neutrality. We don't call them castrations. We call them gender corrections, I think. But what if you were to apply this method which you do in your book?

Let's take a less controversial subject like Islam, for instance. Right, right. The very non-corrosophonic. So that's actually the point that I was trying to make in this chapter, which is that I'm taking this very powerful epistemological tool, which of course you can use in building scientific arguments, right?

Such as the specificity of toy preferences and so on. And then you can apply it to other areas where you're trying to build an argument. So if I want to navigate through the dangerous minefield of whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not, how would I go about building an ideological network of people to evidence? Well, I don't have to listen to Barack Obama tell me that it is a religion of peace or George Bush or Justin Trudeau.

I will try to argue, well, what would be the data that I need to amass to either prove that Islam is peaceful or not? So let's do a few. What content analysis of the actual canonical texts? I could look at the Qur'an, I could look at the Hadis, I could look at the Sierra de Bailah, and I could do a content analysis using formal quantitative techniques to see how often do these texts invoke brotherly love versus genocidal hate of the other?

I don't have to guess. I don't have to be emotional. I can quantify exactly. So I can do that.

I could add FBI statistics on the most wanted terrorists around the world and see if there is any pattern to detect there. I could look at governmental lists of global terrorist organizations from many different countries, from Canada, from the US, from other countries to see if there are any recurring patterns. I could look at how minorities fair in countries that are ruled by Islam. So I could look at global surveys of, say, Jew hatred or homophobia or freedom for women and see if there are any patterns that are unveiled when doing such an analysis.

So through a systematic collection of data and building this neurological network, coming from completely different disciplines and frameworks, I could then build a, you know, convincing a logical network. I'll leave it for your listeners to read the book to find out what the final answer is if Islam is not. Yes, I can tell you because I read the book and I can tell our listeners that out of 68 terror groups, 55 were Islamic, that is 81%. And I took some time to count through the ones that weren't in Islamic and found that 7 out of 13, I think, were socialist.

Which is more than 50% of us. Yeah, right, exactly. And yet in the US, we have one of the two parties that is all done about socialism. So there you go.

I guess here the mindset is, as you probably know, whenever you try to argue with someone against the beauty of socialism, they always tell you, well, it's because true socialism has simply not been implemented yet. If only we implemented socialism properly, then it would be the perfect place. By the way, the assassin reflex happens with Islam in that if you ever show Islamic societies that don't seem to be fairing too well on some of our freedom metrics, that's only because true Islam hasn't been implemented. If you did implement true Islam, then freedom and love would ring.

Yeah, very early in the book, you say there's a bidirectional relationship between truth and freedom. What do you mean by that? So what I mean is that you, you know, to seek truth, you have to have freedom and to, you know, have freedom, you have to be a lover of truth. These two co-exists, you cannot have one without the other.

So for example, if I want to pursue truth as an academic, I have to have the freedom to be able to do so. There can't be something like forbidden knowledge. Forbidden knowledge is now the idea that there are certain research questions in academia, for example, that you shouldn't ever broach because there's something too corrosive. What is the point of you studying this?

Well, I am a purist. And so I argue there is nothing that is outside the bound of honest inquiry, right? So for example, racial differences, sex differences. Those are topics that you truly don't want to touch if you want to have a, you know, a peaceful, successful academic career, because the argument is always, well, what is the ulterior motive of you broaching such a topic?

You must be a sexist. You must be a racist. But incidentally, though, there's a small asterisk I have to add here. What's interesting is that if you were to actually conduct that research, it would be perfectly fine for you to present the research as long as the findings came out in the politically correct way.

If it shows that women are superior to men, then publish that research and you're a hero. If the research shows that men are superior on some task, then you must be a Nazi. Because of what you find. So what is epistemological dichotomy?

Is that how you spell it? Yeah, epistemological dichotomy is the desire to constantly pit the world into two forces, nature versus nurture, reason versus emotion. And in many cases, I argue, so this is at the start of chapter two, where I'm trying to explain thinking versus feeling. And I argue that in many cases, this is a false dichotomy.

So to come to epistemological dichotomy is to really have a very narrow view of how nature works. Because take for example, nature versus nurture. It's a false dichotomy for the following reasons. So let me give you the explanation.

If you take a bunch of ingredients that say for a cake, the flour, the butter, the baking soda, the sugar, the eggs, well before you bake the cake, they are all clearly delineated. Once you bake the cake and it becomes an extricable melange, then I tell you, please point towards the eggs or the sugar, you can't. It's an inextricable mix. So to argue that we should separate what's nature, what's nurture is really for most phenomena, silly.

Because everything is an inextricable melange of these two forces. As a matter of fact, nurture exists in its form because of nature, not contra nature. So this is why I talk about epistemological dichotomy. It's a way of simplifying the world, but in many cases, it's a false dichotomy.

So do you as an evolutionary psychologist believe that this tendency humans have, because it's not only Taoists that divide the world into Yin and Yang, right? If you're an adherent of Hegel, for instance, you would also say there are two polar opposites and their interplay creates reality in a way. So do you think this has evolutionary, there's an evolutionary explanation for this, uh, almost, well, pathological need to divide reality into polar opposites? While every other channel is fighting for your customer's attention, podcasts are where they've already given it.

No one accidentally listens to a podcast for 45 minutes. They choose to be here. They trust the voice in their ears. And when that voice talks about your brand, it doesn't sound like advertising.

It sounds like a recommendation from a front. ACAST gives you that trust at scale. Digital precision, post-run authenticity, and performance data that proves it worked. Don't fight for attention.

Buy it with ACAST. Learn more by visiting ACAST.com slash advertise. And so off the top of my head, I would say it's the reason why that pension exists is because it is a way to simplify the world. So if I look at it from the perspective of experimental psychology, if you are conducting an experiment, it's a very nice way to say, okay, there are two possible forces at play.

It allows me to simplify the world. In many cases, that's perfectly fine. The simplified world is a good thing. But in other cases, by simplifying the world, you're really missing out a lot of the granular descriptions that are part of the phenomenon.

I see. So could you, as long as we're talking about this, I'm going through some of the idea concepts that you introduced in the book because I also, in the book I just wrote and got sued for, I also discussed the difference between, for instance, what you do, the ontological and consequential ethics. Could you explain those concepts? So the ontological ethics would be an absolute statement of what is right.

So it is always wrong to lie. That's the ontological statement. The consequential statement would be, well, it is okay to lie if it is to preserve someone's feelings. So if someone says, do I look at those genes, you might lie.

Because you don't want to hurt their feelings. The reality is for most things, we are both consequentialists and the ontological, depending on the context. So it's not as though we should always be the ontological minded or always consequentialist minded. The problem is that you sometimes apply the wrong system for the wrong thing.

When it comes to the defense of truth, you should always be the ontological. You should never sacrifice the truth to preserve someone's hurt feelings. And how can these two different ways of viewing ethics constitute a problem when it comes to formulating, for instance, policy? So how should we navigate through the two systems when we're constructing policy?

Well, I could pose the question like this. If you want it more pointed, how is the lunacy of the left the result of consequentialism? Well, because in many cases, what they are trying to maximize objectively is the wrong metric, right? So for example, if in the university settings, what we now try to maximize or minimize is hurt feelings, rather than the pursuit of truth.

You are pointing your gun, if you like, sort of speak, on the wrong objective function. I talk about this in the book when I talk about, what should universities be maximizing? And I use operations research, which is a field of mathematics, where you study how you should optimize or minimize something. And so the problem oftentimes with leftist policies is that they are trying to maximize or minimize the wrong thing.

In academia, the number one thing that I should be maximizing is the unbiased pursuit of truth, unencumbered by feelings and political correctness. And that would be a deontological way of looking at higher education, wouldn't it? Exactly. But you could also say I would like to maximize the amount of students who acquire truth, which would be a consequentialist way of still looking for the truth, right?

Well, if I want to maximize the number of students who pursue the truth, unencumbered by caring about their potentially hurt, fragile feelings, then that would be the ontological. The second that I put in Asterix, maximize truth whilst minimizing her feeling. Once I put the whilst, then we've gone into a consequentialist. If I stop it at maximize truth, stop full period, then it's a deontological approach.

So how would you say that consequentialism relates to the concept of truth? Well, I mean, it doesn't directly relate, or at least it softens it because it says the pursuit of truth has to be viewed through the calculus of the consequences of that pursuit, right? Whereas if you are an absolute deontological purist when it comes to truth, you just pursue truth. I mean, just watch me on Twitter.

I never modulate my language. I not because I'm trying to hurt anybody's feeling, but as a truth purist, I just pursue truth. If it upsets someone, so be it. So how is making a virtue of having emotions, cloud, your judgment, both avoid hurting others' feelings and as a sign of authenticity relate to consequentialism specifically?

Because that's a lot of stuff you threw at me there. All right. I was trying to quote your book in the question. I'm sorry.

So maybe I can answer it this way. We're not a thinking animal or a feeling animal. We are both. So this is why when I talk about epistemological dichotomy, it's a wrong dichotomy.

The challenge is to trigger the right system at the right time. If I'm driving, if I'm walking down a dark alley because I'm taking a shortcut to get home, and I see three young men loitering, and so it triggers a fear response in me, my heart starts raising, my blood pressure goes up, my cortisol levels go up. That's a perfectly reasonable emotional response to have at that moment. If I'm trying to solve a calculus problem, if I trigger my emotional system, it's not going to serve me much.

And so depending on the context, triggering the right system becomes the really important thing to pursue. The only reason I link it to the ontological versus consequentialist is because the consequentialist mindset in the pursuit of truth places your emotions as part of the calculus. Don't tell the truth if the consequences are that it hurts someone's feelings. So does that make a clear?

Do you see how I'm linking the two systems together? Yes, I think so. And since we're talking about feelings and truth, because you've developed an entire chapter to Trump in your book. I mean, not the entire chapter, but a section in one of the chapters.

Yes. Yes. So and the book just came out. But you're talking about when he got elected mostly, and what's happened since then.

How do you view the current political situation in the US? Even in terms of the actual outcome of the 2020 election? Yes. Now they have two precedents.

It's twice as democratic, I think. So first, I mentioned why I talked about Donald Trump in that particular chapter. I did so because what I was so if you speak to all of my intellectual friends, most of whom are going to be leftist, their position regarding Trump is always rooted in an emotional reaction. He disgusts me.

He's vile. He's grotesque. He's right. So it is strictly their affective system that is triggered.

They'll never tell you I despise him because of his specific foreign policy, because of this fiscal policy. So the reason why I mentioned the context of Trump in linking thinking versus feeling is that I argue that when it comes to taking positions about which political candidate we should choose, it can't be solely driven by our affective system. So that's why I talked about Trump in that chapter. When it comes to the current situation, I think it's bad.

I don't I don't I don't you know, a lot of people mistake my positions as you know, as being one who loves Trump or who supports Trump or who has posters of Trump in my bedroom. It's hardly that. I mean, I'm Canadian. I don't really have a dog in the fight.

It's not as though I'm going to vote in the American elections. But it's because I think that many of the values that I hold dearly, frankly, Trump defends them much better than all of the leftists on the Democratic side. So from my perspective, the fact that Joe Biden has been looks like he's going to be reelected is certainly not a good thing. What do you see happening them if Joe Biden gets elected?

Well, we go back to the swamp to use Trump's term. All of the people that he hires are career politicians who've known nothing other than being professional politicians. We see the same sort of leftist policies being implemented. Let's take a specific example.

Trump outlawed the imposition of critical race theory to federal employees. Well, that makes perfect sense to me, because critical race theory is pure racism, masquerading and social justice. I suspect that Joe Biden is going to completely reinstate it. So we're just going to have a repeat of all of the things that I was hoping to fight in the parasitic mine, which now these idea pathogens will come back even stronger than before.

Do you see the overtone window closing again? The which window? Overtone window. What's overtone?

What do you mean? It's in Swedish, we call it the opinion corridor. It's like it defines the axioms of what you can actually discuss in polite societies, so to speak. Well, of course, I could use that term.

Of course, I see the core corridors closing. You know, one thing that I loved about Trump is his irreverence. He spoke his mind. You knew exactly where he stands on every issue.

He was authentic, even though you may not have liked the content of his authenticity. He said things that many people felt, but were too afraid to say. Now we're going to go back to a nice diplomatic, warm environment of political correctness, where everybody is afraid of their shadow, where nobody utters a syllable out of context or out of place. So yeah, I think the corridor is going to close.

And the death by a thousand cuts that you describe in your book is going to continue, though. Yeah, so just to explain that expression. So what I basically argue is that all of these dreadful idea pathogens, postmodernism, biophobia, fear of using biology to explain human behavior, militant feminism, social constructivism, identity politics, cultural relativism, all of these idea pathogens, every single one of them may not be sufficient to destroy our edifices of reason. But once you put them all together, then you are dying a slow death by a thousand cuts.

One cut doesn't kill you, but add up all the cuts and then you bleed out and society dies. That's a bleak outlook, I think, but I couldn't agree more. So you describe certain non-negotiable elements for a free and modern society, and you basically narrow them down to one, freedom of speech. And then you go on to discuss polynogism.

Could you explain just quickly what polynogism is? So this basically is an idea that, for example, Marxist polylogism is the idea that there are literally different minds, different ways of thinking as a function of whether you are a member of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie racial polylogism would be that black people have a literally different mind than white people or people of another race. So it literally is a form of racism that's grotesque. And now what we are seeing is a reintroduction of some of these ideas, right?

Let's take it in the epistemological realm. So when you said earlier about the non-negotiable elements, I argue that freedom of speech is a non-negotiable element and the pursuit of truth, right? So again, it's the truth and freedom is only via the scientific method. There is no other game in town.

So for example, the indigenous way of knowing is not an alternate way of knowing. There is no Lebanese-Jewish way of knowing. There is no Swedish way of knowing. There is no indigenous way of knowing.

Now, indigenous people might have specific content about the flora and fauna of where they lived for thousands of years. And that's totally okay. That's, I agree with that. But if they are adjudicating issues of scientific importance, there isn't an indigenous way of pursuing that scientific question.

There's only the scientific method. Evolutionary psychology, by the way, is a very non-racist theory in that it actually argues that not withstanding our cultural and racial differences, we are united in our common humanity. We have a common human nature. So it is contrary to polyulogism, which basically says there is a black brain, there is a white brain, and so on.

Yes. And you mentioned now that they have started to meld because, for instance, Black Lives Matters, two of its three founders, Alisha Garsa and Patris Colors, they are self-professed trained Marxists. Yes, exactly. But they talk about race.

You've got social dialed in. Search is doing its thing. So why do your marketing results look the same as six months ago? That's because you're fishing in the same pond as everyone else.

Podcast listeners are a different audience entirely, more engaged, harder to reach their traditional channels and ready to act when someone they trust makes a recommendation. We're ACAST, and we put them right in front of you. Browse thousands of the world's leading podcasts, book host reads or run your own ads, and track every conversion in real time. Same skills you already have, brand new results.

ACAST.acast.com slash advertised. But they have substituted class with race. Yeah, exactly. What's that?

That's why. Yeah, so they're obviously racist, are they? 100%. That's why I said earlier that critical race theory, despite the fact that cloaks itself in the robe of progressive non-racism is about as racist as you can get.

You also talk a bit about apathy in your book, and you're not fond of it. I'm not fond of it, because for several reasons, one of which is because I admire people who are go-getters. I admire people who are irreverent to the orthodoxy. I admire courage.

Yesterday, I had a gentleman on my show who was documenting the horrors of ISIS and Mosul while living next to ISIS commanders. That's courage. That's a honey badger. That's non-apathy.

And so what I despise in the West is the fact that people are apathetic and cowardly in defending the wonderful societies that we've been able to create in the West. People think that it is a default value that West would exist. It isn't. It's an anomalous thing.

If you look at history, we didn't have societies that had all of the freedoms that are enshrined in the West. And now we are losing these freedoms because we are apathetic, because we are cowardly. And so this is why in chapter eight of the book, I implore people to activate their inner honey badger. And the reason why I use the honey badger is because the honey badger is an incredibly ferocious animal.

It is the size of a small dog. And yet if it is approached by a bunch of adult lions, they will run away intimidated. How could a bunch of lions be afraid of an animal that is the size of a small dog? Well, because it is extraordinarily ferocious and fierce.

And so I argue that you have to be an ideological honey badger. What I mean by that, I don't mean ideological in that you are dogmatic. But if you believe in a set of principles, if you can articulate why you believe in those principles, then be a honey badger and defending them. How does the Canadian university system work?

Do you have free universities that are market financed financed by the people who attend them? Or is it subsidized by the state? So universities, unlike the US, we don't really have a distinction between public and private universities. Most of the universities, the great majority of universities, I can't think of too many universities that are not public, state funded universities.

And so that's one of the reasons why tuition is typically much lower in Canada. Although, of course, you are subsidizing that, but it's not free in that you're paying it through your taxes. But yes, so universities in Canada are public, they're state funded. And Bill C16 is still in effect, right?

Bill C16 is still in effect. So I can summarize it for you if you want. Back in 2017, both Jordan Peterson and I had appeared in front of the Canadian Senate to discuss Bill C16, which at the time hadn't yet passed. It does a bill that seeks to incorporate gender identity and gender expression under the rubric of hate crimes.

And at least my position was that, of course, I support transgender rights. I'm fully socially liberal. But in the pursuit of that defense, we shouldn't be murdering truth. And so I was just warning about the slippery slope consequences of some of the positions.

And many of the predictions that I may have proven to be true. Can you exemplify? Well, although this doesn't happen in Canada, JK Rowling, the billionaire author, got into trouble because she sarcastically in a tweet where someone said, people who menstruate and she said, well, I wonder what those people are called? Oh, wait, they're called women.

And then she was attacked by the transgender activists because she was a genocidal transfer. That's exactly what I was arguing in my Canadian Senate testimony, which is we don't have to deny biology in the pursuit of freeing people from bigotry. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. So Bill 16 in Canada, does it apply to all publicly funded organizations?

So I don't know, I would be speaking beyond my level of expertise to know what is the exact legal mechanisms. I mean, the general reality is that we are living in an environment, in part because of Bill C16, but also independently of Bill C16, where people are no longer comfortable in knowing what is permissible to say. Am I allowed to say that 6 foot 4, 270 pound men who now self-identify as women and compete in women's sports, they hold an unfair advantage? Is that something that I can say?

Or am I a genocidal transfer if I say that? So the specific way by which the legal apparatus works is beyond my level of expertise, but I can tell you what is clear is that people are afraid to speak. And that's all you need really to have an Orwellian reality. You know, the attack on freedom of speech doesn't only come from the government, right?

Media companies can create an environment where it's difficult to speak. Your own self-censorship becomes a very powerful way to stop you from speaking. So the people who repeatedly say, oh, but that's not the government stopping you from speaking. So it's not a freedom of speech, so simply don't get the point.

Well, I hope it doesn't get as bad as it has been here for decades and decades and decades. But self-censorship is built into the Swedish cultural fabric, I think. My book incidentally is about the Swedish culture of silence, because we are, as far as I know, the only country in the world who celebrates silence in our national anthem. We call it, oh, Joyful O'Silent North.

There you go. I sense your seething anger in your voice. Yes, well, I find narcissistic rage is a good force to surform. So you're also talking in your book about judging people or phenomena ideas.

And you say judging is a good thing. Right, so here what I'm talking about is this reflex that people constantly succumb to, who am I to judge others? Don't judge, let's be judged. And I even quote specific passages from religious doctrines where this reflex might come from.

Well, there in the religious doctrines, it's about moral hypocrisy. Don't judge others until you also take the mirror onto yourself. Like, if I'm accusing someone of something, but I'm also doing it, then I'm being a moral hypocrite. It's not saying that the ontological don't judge period full stop.

We are a judging animal. We judge. I belong to the society for judgment and decision-making. When I'm choosing between alternatives, I judge which is the best one.

So there is nothing being logically wrong with judging. All that the religion is saying is don't be a moral hypocrite, which is very different than simply judging others if they are worthy of your judgment. Right, I appreciate that very much, by the way. I think it needs to be said.

Concerning Sweden, we have something here called gender mainstreaming. Gender mainstreaming? Yes, it's a political process where, upon all state organizations or publicly funded, activities need to be gender mainstream. And we're now going to be what I like to call intersectionalized after BLM, of course, which was a huge thing in Sweden, regardless of the fact that we didn't really have African slaves here, nor many Africans or people.

But you're still self-flagely. Oh, yes. And because when you talk about judging, you sort of go after Christianity, some, because that's where you say most of this don't judge others unless you be judged comes from, right? Right.

And you can really see part of the Lutheran heritage in our secular social democratic philosophy here now. Right. I mean, I've joked in the past, but I'm joking, but with the kernel of truth in it, I often state that Sweden is patient zero of ostrich parasitic syndrome, which is something that I discussed in chapter six. And so I'd like to think that maybe by my appearing on your show, the global vaccine known as the parasitic mind will really prove useful in your own country.

No, I hope so too. And also, because I don't have much hope for my country to tell you the truth. But I am hoping, because Sweden has been used, it hasn't been used in the last few years. I mean, things have changed, but it has been used for a very long time as a good example for the rest of the socialist movements of the world, regardless of if they're in a position of power or not.

So I'm hoping that Sweden will read it and maybe take it to heart. But as I said, I don't have that much hope for that. But you know, you have to keep fighting. Otherwise, what's the point of getting out of bed, right?

You're very optimistic. Narcissistic rage gets me out of bed. And well, also, I have this, you know, Messiah complex that a lot of small Jewish boys have. So I appreciate you saying that we're patient zero as well, because I think the rest of the West should take heed from our example and be warned, because we've been doing this for a long time now.

And now girls in Sweden are apparently better mathematics than boys in school. Right. Well, I've talked about in the past, there's data that shows that across all races and across all educational levels of the United States, women outnumber men in every single one of the cells. So despite the fact that the data could not be any clearer, we still have a victim of narrative that we have to help women in universities.

Yes. And I think because we're ahead of the curve, as you say, it's quite clear here now that we've been sort of abusing little boys for a long time. And to a certain extent girls as well, because we have finding suicide rates and depression rates, and our young male children cannot read more right. Right.

Well, you know, I've had a case where once my young son told me because we were watching something where it was really quite grotesque, how they were pathologizing masculinity. And he said, Daddy, are boys bad or something to that effect? And it broke my heart because he was this little boy who was asking a, you know, a question that really captured fully the current zeitgeist of pathologizing half of humanity and essentially reproducing species. That's never a good thing to do.

I guess not. So I don't really know where to go from here. I had so many questions. You'll have me back at some point, or I'll have you back on my show.

Or not back on my show. I never had you on my show. I'll have to invite you on my show. Well, I think I know it's been my show twice, hasn't it?

I can't remember if it's twice on your show once on mine or twice on your show and zero on mine. But if it's zero, we'll try to correct it. Well, I'm going to send you a copy of my book, regardless, because it deals with a lot of the same concepts that you touch on in your book. Because, you know, we've had a very large influx of immigrants from African and Middle East in Sweden for a very long time.

And that has affected things. The gender mainstreaming in school has also affected things. I mean, you talked about it extensively yourself. We have the world's first feminist army, for instance, and the world's first feminist foreign policy.

And also, you mentioned, you know, James Linci and his gang, they sent in four papers to academic journals on the 20 papers. Yes, but one of them was about dog yards. Wasn't it? Yes, right.

Yes. Dog rape at dog marks. Yes. And the funny thing is that if you Google, a Swedish woman actually raised that concern way before they did that as a joke.

She went out, you know, publicly in Sweden and said we have a problem with the dog parts. They should be separated into female dogs and male dogs because male dogs cannot behave. So, Sweden again is ahead of the curve. Yes, I think we are.

And I'd like to come on your show, sir. And I want to thank you once again for taking your time and appearing here on Deconstrative Criticism. Always a pleasure to see Aaron. Thank you so much for having me.

Thank you. Thank you for listening to Deconstrative Criticism and thank you to Dr. Goud Saad for talking to us. You can buy his book, The Percetic Mind on Amazon and subscribe to his YouTube channel on YouTube.

You can find links to both in the description of this episode on my webpage, AaronFlan.com, a link to which you'll find in the description of this episode, regardless what platform you're listening on. On AaronFlan.com slash merchandise, you'll also find my book, This is a Swedish Tiger, which is the reason behind my current legal problems. There's a version in English called This is a Swedish Tiger, and it's also available as an e-book on Amazon. But it's much nicer to own a paper copy.

So, please order yours today at AaronFlan.com. And this is a Swedish Tiger, about the Swedish culture of silence and analyzes a Swedish joke from World War Two. And that joke is, and I quote, a Swedish Tiger. Thank you for listening and thank you for supporting Deconstrative Criticism at patreon.com slash Aaron Flan.

That's patreon.com slash Aaron Flan, or on SWISH, 0046, 768943737. That's 0046, 768943737. Thank you for your support. I am Aaron Flan.

Until next time, please take care of yourself. and I'll see you next time.