Stay Free - Russel Brand - November 08, 2022


Heated Exchange With Jordan Peterson On Gender Debate - #030 - Stay Free with Russell Brand


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 12 minutes

Words per Minute

160.35912

Word Count

11,610

Sentence Count

630

Misogynist Sentences

4

Hate Speech Sentences

13


Summary

In this episode, Dr. Jordan Peterson joins Russell Brand to discuss a wide range of controversial topics, including his new film Community, Elon Musk's takeover of the social media giant, and the problem of online narcissism in the 21st century. Russell also tells us about his new movie, Community, which is out now, and why he believes that we should all come together in real spaces to find new forms of social activism. He also discusses why he thinks the internet is a dangerous place, and how we can all work together to make it better for all of us, no matter where we are in the world. Russell Brand is a comedian, bestselling author, podcaster, and podcaster. His work has been featured in The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Rolling Stone, and The New Republic. He is the author of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F#ck, and is a regular contributor on the BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 5 Live. His new book, Narcissism on Twism: The New Generation, is out this week. is available now. If you're not yet a member of Stay Free AF, you can access it here. You're not alone! In this video, you're going to see the future - in this video you're gonna see the past, in this episode of Subcutaneous, you re not alone, in which Russell Brand talks about narcissism and online demons, and what we can do to stop them. . Stay Free. Stay free! - Russell Brand Subscribe to stay free - subscribe to stayfree.co.uk/subcutaneous to get 10% off your favourite streaming platform and receive 20% off of the next month's freebie of the entire month of your choice, plus free shipping throughout the rest of the month, plus a 20% discount when you sign up to the VIP membership offer, and receive a discount code of $50 or more! to receive a complimentary copy of the Stay Free F& VIP membership, plus we'll be giving you access to the next week's ad-free version of the Audible membership offer. and a free copy of his newest book, Stay Freebie, The Narcissistic Mindset Masterclass. Get all that and much more, plus the chance to win $50 and receive an ebook, too, plus all other VIP access to his book, and so much more. Learn more about the book, "Narcissism: How To See The Future? by clicking here.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 You're not alone.
00:02:57.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.
00:03:07.000 Hello, welcome to Stay Free with Russell Brand.
00:03:09.000 Subcutaneous, a very special episode.
00:03:12.000 Did you know that with the subcutaneous episode, we take a deep dive under the skin straight to the bone of a special guest.
00:03:17.000 In the past, we've had Vandana Shiva, Eckhart Tolle.
00:03:20.000 And today, I'm proud and excited to announce that we're speaking to Dr. Jordan Peterson, a controversial figure who some people deify and some people damn.
00:03:27.000 But today, we're going to speak face to face about a variety of exciting issues.
00:03:31.000 I'm also going to be telling you that our film, Community, is finally out.
00:03:34.000 And if you're a member of Stay Free AF, you can access it now.
00:03:37.000 We're doing the Community Festival again next year because I strongly believe that we should come together in live, real spaces so that we can commune together and recognise there is so much more that unites us than separates us.
00:03:50.000 Have a little look at this trailer of the film Community.
00:03:53.000 If you're a member of Stay Free AF, you've already got it.
00:03:55.000 You can get it right now by joining Stay Free AF, our members' community.
00:03:59.000 Have a look.
00:04:00.000 I think it's beautiful.
00:04:01.000 I've already died and been reborn once.
00:04:03.000 Nothing's happened yet.
00:04:05.000 Welcome!
00:04:07.000 Welcome to community!
00:04:09.000 Part of what community was about was creating something where I would feel at home.
00:04:14.000 Welcome!
00:04:15.000 Welcome, alright there.
00:04:16.000 Thanks for coming.
00:04:17.000 The idea behind this community festival was for me to be able to bring together some people that I really, really believe in.
00:04:24.000 Wim Hof is here.
00:04:25.000 You're going to be listening to Vandana Shiva.
00:04:27.000 She is, I believe, an Earth mother.
00:04:29.000 It's so beautiful to see something fulfilled in that incredible space.
00:04:33.000 Every single one of you, you are absolutely vital and beautiful.
00:04:37.000 It's amazing.
00:04:38.000 We've got talks, there's yoga, there's meditation.
00:04:40.000 My name is Beate Simkin, and it's a wild dream to be able to be together with you right now.
00:04:49.000 One of the reasons why I wanted to do community in the first place was to bring people together to talk about new forms of social activism.
00:04:57.000 Community to me means a loving connection, an opportunity to find truth.
00:05:03.000 New forms of spiritual progressivism.
00:05:06.000 The community feels really real.
00:05:07.000 New ways of awakening people.
00:05:09.000 It's happening.
00:05:10.000 Yes.
00:05:10.000 Because this thing is very powerful.
00:05:11.000 It's happening through us.
00:05:12.000 It's happening through us.
00:05:14.000 Bringing people together, no matter where you're from, Hello.
00:05:18.000 Hello there.
00:05:18.000 You look amazing.
00:05:19.000 Oh, thank you very much.
00:05:20.000 That you feel there's something here for you.
00:05:23.000 We all want to be loved.
00:05:24.000 We all want to be accepted and that we can create better communities together than would ever be possible with strong centralized force.
00:05:32.000 Everything that powerful men do can be undone by a revolution of the people.
00:05:41.000 So lovely to see you.
00:05:43.000 It's good to see you, man.
00:05:45.000 It's very beautiful to be in your company, Jordan.
00:05:48.000 I'm so glad you're here.
00:05:49.000 We have a small audience of a couple of hundred, I guess.
00:05:53.000 Is it a couple of hundred?
00:05:54.000 Oh, we have a small audience of 600 people that are sort of members to varying degrees, watching this conversation now.
00:06:03.000 The things that I wanted to start with, given Elon Musk's recent takeover of Twitter, is whether or not that would change your position on the platform.
00:06:13.000 How you feel about Elon Musk's power, Elon Musk's role on Twitter?
00:06:20.000 Whether he is a distinct and discrete category of billionaire?
00:06:25.000 How is he different?
00:06:26.000 How is he the same?
00:06:27.000 And how will Elon Musk's position at Twitter alter your position on Twitter?
00:06:34.000 Well, that remains to be seen.
00:06:36.000 I'm still banned, so that hasn't changed.
00:06:39.000 I mean, he's suggested that he might reinstate Trump.
00:06:43.000 Whether or not that means he'd reinstate me is a matter of question.
00:06:48.000 It isn't obvious to me that the people who run the social media networks know exactly how to regulate them with any degree of Utility.
00:06:56.000 I was talking to a psychologist this week, Jean Twenge.
00:06:59.000 She's going to do a podcast with me.
00:07:01.000 We recorded it.
00:07:02.000 She wrote a book on, a couple of books on Narcissism and on the iGen, you know, the new generation of kids who've grown up with the net and we talked a fair bit about pathological behavior online and we could start by talking about that a little bit.
00:07:16.000 You know, I've probably read a hundred thousand comments online or maybe more and I've tried to read them with a psychologist's eye and there are some things going on online that are, I think, that actually pose a threat to the integrity of the culture itself.
00:07:32.000 And so the biggest problem that I can see is that the large online platforms allow anonymous troll demons to rampage through society with no cost to themselves.
00:07:47.000 And I can identify these people quite accurately now.
00:07:50.000 This will make a number of the people who are watching and listening uncomfortable because they'll be in the list of people who do this sort of thing.
00:07:57.000 So the first thing is they have an anonymous name.
00:08:03.000 The second thing is the anonymous name usually has something psychologically significant about it in a very negative direction.
00:08:09.000 So it's self-denigrating or it's demonic or it's otherwise offensive and purposefully so.
00:08:17.000 And then the people who are utter cowards in my estimation, and I talked to Twangy about this too, likely to be narcissists and Machiavellians.
00:08:26.000 resentful people sitting in their basement at home, dwelling on their misery and doing everything they can to spew toxicity out into the world.
00:08:35.000 The thing is, alone in their bedrooms, what would you say, cowering in their anonymity, they're just isolated people who aren't causing any trouble.
00:08:46.000 But as soon as they multiply themselves millions of times using this incredible, powerful computer technology, they're not even human anymore.
00:08:55.000 They're like, in my estimation, they're literally a demonic force.
00:08:59.000 And I mean that in a technical sense, right?
00:09:03.000 You and I aren't exactly you and I in this conversation because we're amplified hundreds of times or thousands of times or hundreds of thousands of times.
00:09:11.000 And so we're not just human, we're androids in some sense operating in a virtual space.
00:09:17.000 And these online trolls have that power because they have access to an audience that they would never gather by their own merits.
00:09:26.000 And they are saying things that are derisive and Inflammatory and that would absolutely 100% get them punched if they ever said it in public and so what's happened imagine that there's a hierarchy of unconstrained people and There's a variety of people who are very unconstrained But in normal social discourse would be able to keep themselves under control Because of the controls that are there in normal social discourse you lift those controls and they just go they just go off
00:09:59.000 And so that's what we're seeing online.
00:10:01.000 And that has to be stopped.
00:10:05.000 I think the large tech companies should be required to put in know-your-customer laws.
00:10:11.000 They should ban anonymous accounts, but in this way.
00:10:14.000 Imagine that you have a section for comments where it's real human beings that are verified.
00:10:19.000 And you have another section underneath that's for anonymous troll demons.
00:10:23.000 And if you want to go visit their hell and see what their resentful minds are spewing into the public landscape, then you can.
00:10:30.000 Otherwise, you stick to the real human beings.
00:10:32.000 And I don't know if Musk and the other people who are running the big social media networks understand the pathology that's associated with this online commentary well enough to control it.
00:10:42.000 So we'll see.
00:10:44.000 Well, it's a newly emergent phenomenon, so it's difficult to acquire knowledge, and I note that at the beginning you said you're observing it and have observed, you reckon, 100,000 comments, so you're accumulating a database, I suppose, as you have done in your work in clinical psychology, psychiatry, up to now.
00:11:04.000 With your characterization of these individuals, or at least the expression of this tendency through these individuals, as potentially demonic, you mentioned a few things.
00:11:14.000 How in an ordinary and anthropologically sound space, there would be regulatory measures.
00:11:21.000 There would be the threat of violence, there would be other less extreme social controls that perhaps amount to a similar thing, or at least on a comparable scale.
00:11:31.000 The fear of judgment, the fear of rejection, these kind of sort of the basic palette of sociological tools and judgments would be available to us.
00:11:39.000 What I would like to draw your attention to, still sort of within the broad rubric of looking at Musk's acquisition of Twitter and how that may play out and how it may affect you personally, is that in your somewhat pejorative characterization, which I understand as a public figure myself, who's the recipient of attacking comments and the kind of attention that you describe, But when you said, you know, that there's sort of people in basements and so we characterize them as sort of somewhat wan, unpleasant, weak individuals.
00:12:11.000 How do we now, Jordan, compare that to Olivia Wilde's recent, I would say, cruel comments about you as like king of the incels or whatever it was that Olivia Wilde said and your response that the voiceless ought have a voice?
00:12:30.000 And in fact, I'd like to use this as a potential aperture, sir, if I may, to bring about what I consider to be the heart of our communication.
00:12:38.000 As I'm speaking for myself, I consider myself to be a man of God, a flawed man of God at that.
00:12:44.000 Deeply, deeply fallible.
00:12:47.000 When I'm trying to prioritize the order by which I want to live, how I want to define myself and define my interactions, I consider compassion and kindness to be paramount.
00:13:06.000 I don't want to be pushed around.
00:13:07.000 I don't want to be weak.
00:13:08.000 I don't want to not speak up for what I believe in.
00:13:11.000 But when we find out, like, in our... I know that there are people that criticize you anonymously and, like, get off on it.
00:13:18.000 And there are people that criticize you publicly, you know, and get off on it.
00:13:23.000 What I want to bring our attention to is, I was myself struck with, you know, I think the tweet that you were banned for was sort of like commenting on Elliot Page.
00:13:33.000 And I know that you are fascinated by Christ, and certainly not from a simplistic Christian perspective, but from a sort of a Jungian archetypal and personal perspective, you have a great love of Christ.
00:13:45.000 And to use that oldest of Christian adages, what would Christ do?
00:13:50.000 How might we imagine that Christ would handle the idea of Elliot Page and Elliot Page's identity?
00:13:58.000 These emergent ideas around gender identity.
00:14:01.000 How do we prioritise compassion, kindness, love?
00:14:06.000 And can't this basic palette of principles prevent us from getting into conflict around these ideas?
00:14:11.000 Well, it isn't obvious to me that love can be reduced to compassion at all.
00:14:17.000 Because for a variety of reasons.
00:14:19.000 First of all, I think love is a multi-dimensional virtue.
00:14:23.000 And there's many other virtues than compassion.
00:14:25.000 And compassion also has a devouring element.
00:14:29.000 And the devouring element manifests itself, I would say, in resentment, passive-aggressive behavior, and the facilitation of dependency.
00:14:37.000 And so that would be the Oedipal Triangle in some sense.
00:14:40.000 And so imagine that... think about it this way, Russell.
00:14:44.000 Imagine that the purest expression of compassion is the love of a mother for a true infant.
00:14:51.000 And we could really think about that as true compassion, 100% compassion.
00:14:56.000 And the reason for that is that if you have an infant from birth to, say, six months old, nothing the infant does is ever to be questioned.
00:15:07.000 The proper response to the infant is, whatever the cause of their distress, you immediately prioritize its reduction.
00:15:15.000 But then as the child starts to develop, and as soon as it becomes capable of its own voluntary movement, as soon as it becomes ambulatory, its nervous system starts to change, of course.
00:15:25.000 But then there are other elements that have to be introduced into the relationship to make it a relationship of proper love.
00:15:32.000 And some of that's judgment, which is often considered an Antithetical to compassion and some of its encouragement and encouragement has a fair bit of judgment in it because When you're encouraging someone you're not exactly being compassionate for who they are You're doing what you can to facilitate who they could be and what you're doing constantly when you're encouraging someone is Prioritizing who they could be over who they are and that's an element of judgment now you talked about the union take on this now Jung talked a lot about
00:16:05.000 The juxtaposition of the Book of Revelation with the rest of the biblical corpus, particularly the Gospels, the New Testament.
00:16:16.000 And he thought the psychological reason why the Book of Revelation was included was that the Christ that was portrayed in the narrative of the Gospels erred too far on the side of compassion.
00:16:27.000 And the necessity of judgment had to be brought in to balance out the divine image.
00:16:32.000 And so the Christ in Revelation is the man with the flaming sword, essentially.
00:16:38.000 And he's the one who separates the wheat from the chaff and who renders final judgment.
00:16:44.000 And that judgment, you might say, if you're not thinking about it precisely from the religious perspective, is your own ability to decide which parts of you should go.
00:16:54.000 And then the question is, are you compassionate for who you are, or are you compassionate for who you could be?
00:17:00.000 And the second is just as important, or maybe more important.
00:17:07.000 Well, if I... Please, Jo, you can put that down.
00:17:13.000 There's a few things, obviously, it's a lot of things.
00:17:15.000 It's you, so there's a lot to consider.
00:17:17.000 One, a mother's love.
00:17:18.000 To be able to transpose this idea of unquestioning, unqueering compassion to a whole population.
00:17:24.000 That seems like a pretty Christ-like idea.
00:17:26.000 Certainly seems like an idea that's sort of encompassed in the symbol of the Virgin.
00:17:31.000 Limitless, unbounded compassion.
00:17:33.000 How do we tally that with the idea of judgment or perhaps discernment and the significance of discernment and the ability to know, to be able to navigate these apparently binary spaces between good and evil, these liminal spaces?
00:17:47.000 But Jordan, when it becomes like the idea that the Christ's evident compassion in the Gospels required a balancing shadow or at least as a balancing component, I understand.
00:18:01.000 Otherwise, we have sort of this sort of boundless love in a bounded space.
00:18:05.000 You know, like, you know, we are in the world, but not of it, but we are in the world.
00:18:10.000 So we do need to discern.
00:18:12.000 We do need to recognize the boundary of the body.
00:18:14.000 We do need to have judgment.
00:18:17.000 And when that's applied to the self, I can see that the requirement for this judgment, the great success you've had in, you know, clean your room, stand up straight, these kind of edicts offered to young men or young people who require discipline, I can see the success of that.
00:18:32.000 But Jordan, I feel that when it becomes an Outward strike of like, this person should not have done this thing.
00:18:38.000 This is the impact of these actions will have on the culture.
00:18:41.000 This will lead to this kind of denigration.
00:18:43.000 This will lead to decisions that are, in my view, palpably wrong.
00:18:47.000 I feel that this is where we have to redress an imbalance around compassion.
00:18:52.000 I don't think we're talking about some fanged vagina, damned matriarch, devouring compassion when it comes to A culture where people are entering unusual spaces around gender identity.
00:19:05.000 And when I say unusual, I mean literally that.
00:19:09.000 Let me tell you how I feel and then you can hit me up with all sorts of Jordan Peters and stuff.
00:19:16.000 Elliot Page should be able to do whatever Elliot Page wants to do, and my only role is to say, I recognise that I don't understand, and why would I understand?
00:19:26.000 There are less obvious things that you could never understand about me.
00:19:30.000 They're less evident and obvious.
00:19:32.000 For me, the basic principle of kindness and compassion is going to be my guide when dealing with Elliot Page and when posting something about Elliot Page.
00:19:41.000 Not even just for, like, maybe there's some cowardice in what I'm saying.
00:19:45.000 I don't want to incur the wrath of, in my view, pretty bloody persecutory online space.
00:19:52.000 But I do have, of course, the idea of What do I want Elliot Page to feel?
00:19:56.000 Happy?
00:19:57.000 Accepted?
00:19:57.000 That's what I want Elliot Page to feel, and if there are aspects of that I don't understand, then I'm willing to take the hit.
00:20:04.000 Yeah, well, I mean, we could approach that in two ways.
00:20:07.000 So, first of all, when you think about your behavior on your YouTube channel, you're spending a lot of time in public criticism, eh?
00:20:17.000 And going after large corporations, going after those who are engaged in fascist collusion, and I think rightly so.
00:20:23.000 I want to talk to you a little bit about economics at some point during this conversation, if you're inclined to do that.
00:20:28.000 But I think that you're an extremely useful voice in that regard, and you're a critical voice.
00:20:32.000 And, you know, you're a critical comedic voice, which is a good kind of critical voice, and not exactly compassionate, right?
00:20:40.000 Because you're also using creativity on the humor side to make your point, and you're doing it in a playful way.
00:20:46.000 And I think that playful criticism is the hallmark of the master critic.
00:20:53.000 And I think the joker and the jester in that regard are master critics.
00:20:57.000 But that's not compassion, right?
00:20:58.000 That's a different virtue, that creative comedy.
00:21:04.000 And often it's very, very pointed.
00:21:07.000 So I want to point out that you do act as a social critic in many, many ways.
00:21:13.000 And you do leave in it with comedy.
00:21:14.000 And I think that's extraordinarily appropriate.
00:21:16.000 It's part of what's given you such a broad voice.
00:21:18.000 And that criticism is absolutely necessary.
00:21:21.000 Now, let's speak about Elliot Page more specifically.
00:21:24.000 So the first thing I'd like to bring up is the fact that in the UK, the Tavistock Clinic was recently closed, and that was the biggest clinic doing gender transformation surgery that operated in the English-speaking or in the British world.
00:21:37.000 Now, 1,000 of the 19,000 kids who have been surgically mutilated by the Tavistock Clinic have now launched a lawsuit for medical malpractice.
00:21:49.000 And when Elliot Page went online and showed off his or her new chest, she or he got 1.7 million Instagram likes.
00:22:00.000 And my sense is that she or he enticed somewhere between one and a thousand very, very confused, neurotic, depressed, anxious, uncertain, juvenile females to sterilize or surgically alter themselves.
00:22:18.000 And so that's the border.
00:22:19.000 So then the question is, OK, compassion.
00:22:22.000 Well, you know, I think Ellen Elliot Page stepped over the line from victim to perpetrator.
00:22:31.000 So I knew perfectly well when the Canada introduced this gender pronoun bill back in 2016, I told the Canadian Senate, you people do not know what you're doing.
00:22:43.000 You're mucking about with a fundamental perceptual category, the category of sex.
00:22:47.000 And you're going to confuse thousands of young people and produce a psychogenic epidemic.
00:22:53.000 And that's exactly what happened, and I knew that was going to happen because I knew the literature on psychogenic epidemics.
00:22:58.000 They're almost always suffered by adolescent females.
00:23:02.000 The Freudians used to call it hysteria, and of course that's regarded as a sexist term now, but it doesn't matter, because when girls hit puberty, their negative emotion spikes, and they develop bodily image problems, because neurotic And that would be negative emotional experience for women is extremely tightly tied to body image.
00:23:24.000 And so if you're a girl who is undergoing the hormonal changes that are going to elevate your negative emotion, which is what happens at puberty, you're going to be focused on body image.
00:23:33.000 And if you're an unpopular girl, And you're awkward socially.
00:23:37.000 The probability that you're gonna think something's wrong with your body is almost 100% if you're female.
00:23:42.000 And none of the people who were engaged in this so-called compassion for those who have gender dysphoria had any idea about any of this.
00:23:49.000 And so I don't regret what happened with Ellen Page.
00:23:52.000 I think that what she did publicly was reprehensible.
00:23:57.000 I want to know why this makes you... I don't want to know because I can see what makes you angry about it.
00:24:02.000 It's your analysis and it's your opinion that it's a powerful influencer and it's going to lead people to make decisions that are going to be detrimental to their lives.
00:24:10.000 But the evident and palpable anger I feel If I may be so bold, sir, diminishes your position because now anger is in the conversation.
00:24:20.000 And you might think that this whole cultural debate or war or whatever the hell it is, is being conducted on the frequency of anger.
00:24:27.000 And I feel that my role, and I would not assume to tell you what emotional resources to draw from in your discourse, but what I'm telling you as a person that I think you offer a great deal that is valuable and necessary, but I feel that Beyond the value and necessity of honesty, authenticity, and information that is underwritten by data and experience, I feel that it creates more opposition to approach a matter like this in the manner that you have done.
00:25:00.000 Because I feel like I put myself in a room with Elliot Page, and I feel like, how do I want to feel when I am in that room?
00:25:09.000 And how do I want to approach this?
00:25:12.000 I've got young kids.
00:25:12.000 I've got a 4-year-old and a 5-year-old that are going to be growing up with these cultural influences.
00:25:16.000 How am I going to handle those conversations when even when playing a game of charades with them I see every time that one of them doesn't win how much it affects them and I've got to explain to them winning and losing and the complexity of social relationships.
00:25:31.000 What I'm saying is, if we love Christ, if we love God, if we love good, what are we going to anchor ourselves to ultimately, Jordan, navigating this space?
00:25:39.000 Are we going to be participants in creating more and more ossified and oppositional camps?
00:25:45.000 Or are we going to create cartilage between us?
00:25:47.000 So that we can move between the room that Jordan Peterson is in and the room that Elliot Page is in and say, look, I believe in love and I know it's complicated and I know we're going to disagree and I know in a minute we're going to get into economics and centralised power and what I believe is politically pertinent to our conversation.
00:26:04.000 But I feel sometimes when I talk to you, I think you're beautiful and full of love.
00:26:09.000 I really believe in that.
00:26:10.000 And then when I sort of hear people being dismissive of you, it upsets me.
00:26:13.000 It upsets me, and I see how you arm them.
00:26:17.000 I feel that you arm them by, in their language, deadnaming Elliot Page.
00:26:23.000 And I feel like, why would you do that?
00:26:25.000 It isn't necessary.
00:26:26.000 It isn't necessary.
00:26:27.000 Of course, the statistics you've cited about the Tavistock Clinic appear to speak for themselves.
00:26:34.000 Is there a way that we can handle this that would be more akin to how we might imagine Christ would handle it?
00:26:40.000 Otherwise, what's the point of Christianity?
00:26:42.000 What's the point of Christianity if we're not going to embody Christ in our behavior?
00:26:47.000 Well, I guess the question is... Look, everybody who's operating in the online space that we're operating is trying to get the tone right, right?
00:26:58.000 And you do that in part by paying attention to the audience.
00:27:01.000 You do that by trying to see how people are responding, and not in a way that's pandering, but in a way that's open and attentive.
00:27:08.000 You know, when I was down in Miami recently, I did a seminar on Exodus with a bunch of biblical scholars, and we spent hours arguing about my behavior, let's say, on Twitter and so forth, especially with regard to anger.
00:27:21.000 And it's a very difficult thing to get right.
00:27:24.000 When I'm reading articles I've written that are very critical, let's say, of the globalist utopians, exactly the sorts of people that you're going after, by the way, it's very difficult not to have the edge of anger seep in.
00:27:37.000 I mean, I look at what's happening on the UK front with these globalist utopian energy policies, and I see that Poor people across Europe, and certainly in the rest of the world, are going to pay a vicious price in the upcoming months.
00:27:55.000 And, you know, the World Bank has estimated that 220 million people have been pushed to the edge of starvation already.
00:28:04.000 And that's just getting going.
00:28:05.000 And so the question you're asking is, well, when is anger appropriate?
00:28:09.000 When is it not appropriate?
00:28:10.000 When is it only inflammatory?
00:28:13.000 That's a really hard question to answer, you know, to get that balance between judgment and encouraging acceptance right.
00:28:23.000 I mean, it's the same thing you struggle with constantly as a father, let's say, when you're trying to socialize your children properly.
00:28:29.000 Because, you know, you can't let your children get away with things that will make them deeply unpopular and despised socially, right?
00:28:37.000 You have to stop that.
00:28:39.000 And it's not obvious that there's no role for anger in that.
00:28:44.000 Because one of the things that anger does signify is that a vital social norm has been transgressed against and that that can't happen because it's dangerous.
00:28:54.000 Now, the problem is, I suppose part of the problem is, we don't know exactly how emotions scale in an online environment, right?
00:29:05.000 And definitely I found that even when I'm delivering very cutting material, as I just wrote an article for the Telegraph on the upcoming privation that Europe is going to be facing in the rest of the world in the winter, And I tried to read it as calmly as I possibly could, even though it's extremely cutting.
00:29:23.000 And the calm delivery seems to alienate fewer people and bring people in more, um, more generally than an angry delivery without any shift in semantic content.
00:29:38.000 And so I would say it's something like the right principle is probably something like minimal necessary force in your personal interactions and minimal necessary emotion in your online behavior.
00:29:50.000 But it's hard to know exactly what that means, and it's not as if I think I've done it perfectly.
00:29:55.000 I mean, you know, you move like this towards that central line that hopefully is moving uphill.
00:30:03.000 But it's also very difficult not to be upset.
00:30:08.000 I'm very upset, for example, about the transgender issue.
00:30:12.000 I mean, I think what's happened is absolutely appalling.
00:30:15.000 I think it's monstrous.
00:30:17.000 And I don't believe that there's one shred of evidence that all this so-called tolerance for gender confusion has resulted in any positive good whatsoever.
00:30:27.000 I don't think so.
00:30:28.000 I think it's done nothing but harm.
00:30:30.000 And I think it's based on an intense confusion about what constitutes identity.
00:30:38.000 So it does appear to be a bewildering issue and it does appear to be creating conflagration and conflict.
00:30:47.000 The difference between a conversation that might spur ire that has as its object Multinational organizations energy giants and and may have as its victims the impoverished people of the world Enduring a cost-of-living crisis and one where there are more evidently individual human beings given that it's about individual identity That's the nature of this topic and there is so much that is confusing about it and it feels like something that for me has to be whilst I
00:31:21.000 I admire, in many ways, your willingness to speak openly and explicitly.
00:31:29.000 I feel sometimes that it is inflammatory.
00:31:36.000 The debate becomes inflammatory.
00:31:38.000 And as we transition to speaking about the type of subjects that I concentrate on in my online work and videos, I feel that the reason I feel more comfortable when criticizing, for example, Emmanuel Macron or Justin Trudeau or now Rishi Sunak is because I feel like I can see that they are using the language of compassion, they are posturing, they are trying to appeal to social ideas around tolerance
00:32:10.000 While actually behaving in a tyrannical manner and operating at the service of powerful interests.
00:32:17.000 For me, I can see a bullseye very clearly there.
00:32:21.000 And I can see this is, I can attack.
00:32:24.000 And the energy of comedy can be very aggressive and it can be malicious.
00:32:28.000 But even when I'm talking about, say, Justin Trudeau or Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden, I try to remember, child of God, human being, what is my objective?
00:32:36.000 My objective is to awaken as many people as possible, to try to create conversations where people have vastly differing views, can connect with one another in a consensual space.
00:32:48.000 And the way that I do, one of the ways that I'm interested in doing that, Jordan, is by identifying what is the problem really.
00:32:53.000 And if we start to look at the crisis that you've just outlined, that this winter, millions of people in the country I live in, and presumably millions of people throughout the world, are going to be suffering because of inequity.
00:33:05.000 They're going to be suffering because of corruption.
00:33:07.000 They're going to be suffering because of dishonesty.
00:33:09.000 And the only way to end this suffering is if these people are somehow able to find a way to come together.
00:33:16.000 Come together.
00:33:17.000 There are certain areas of opposition that are going to have to be put to one side for now.
00:33:23.000 In order that we can focus on what I consider to be the absolute priorities.
00:33:27.000 Where is power?
00:33:29.000 Where is power?
00:33:30.000 And now it's becoming more and more bloody literal.
00:33:33.000 It's not even metaphorical anymore because we're talking about energy.
00:33:35.000 We're talking about the ability to turn on a light and to heat a home.
00:33:39.000 And it's clear to me, it's becoming clear to me that that power is able to circumnavigate ordinary democratic process because There are edicts delivered from, you know, whether it's the WB or the IMF or the WEF or the WHO or unelected national bodies.
00:33:54.000 Ordinary people are unable to intervene in the relationships between the state and the corporate world.
00:34:01.000 We've talked a little bit about decentralization.
00:34:04.000 And now I wonder if we can, and in a sense there is an easy elision, in this time of conflict around culture, how can people come together to oppose real power, real corrupt power at the level of the state and the corporation, to make them accountable and to create new models and systems?
00:34:22.000 Well, I think that one of the things that's happened is that people, ordinary people, let's say, have not fulfilled their civic responsibility in the proper manner.
00:34:34.000 So I think what's happening, Russell, is that we're transforming our society into a literal Tower of Babel.
00:34:42.000 And so a Tower of Babel is an abstract enterprise designed to replace God, to reach to the heavens, to become totalitarian.
00:34:52.000 And its fundamental nature is the aggregation of power and responsibility at the top and the atomization of the citizenry.
00:35:01.000 And that happens when the citizens abandon their intermediary responsibilities.
00:35:06.000 And so, in this seminar on Exodus that I just conducted, we talked about the principle of subsidiarity.
00:35:12.000 Now, this is what happens in Exodus, and it's very much worth delving into briefly, if we can do that.
00:35:18.000 So, Moses leads these slaves out of Israel.
00:35:22.000 And everyone in the modern world thinks that's a hell of a good idea, because you shouldn't be a slave, and you shouldn't be a tyrant.
00:35:28.000 And so we can think of that as a self-evident axiom.
00:35:31.000 In some sense, you should be free.
00:35:33.000 So you have to remove yourself from the tyranny of your own imagination, and you have to remove yourself from the tyranny of state actors.
00:35:40.000 But the problem is, when you remove yourself from tyranny, is you don't get to the Promised Land.
00:35:46.000 You go to the desert.
00:35:48.000 And that's because everything falls apart around you when you drop your tyrannical presuppositions.
00:35:53.000 And so then you're lost and aimless and fractionated.
00:35:57.000 And so that's the situation that confronts Moses when he leads his people into the desert.
00:36:01.000 They're not free.
00:36:02.000 Now they're in the desert.
00:36:04.000 They're just wandering aimlessly.
00:36:05.000 And that's the position we're in right now.
00:36:07.000 Now, what happens is that because the Israelites have no tradition of freedom and no internal order, they start fighting amongst themselves.
00:36:16.000 And that's also what happens in the Tower of Babel.
00:36:19.000 When people are too fractionated, they become unable to communicate and they all start speaking a different language.
00:36:24.000 And that's certainly happening at the moment.
00:36:26.000 And so Moses sets himself up as judge to adjudicate all the conflicts that the Israelites find themselves embroiled in in the desert.
00:36:34.000 And so now he's sitting from dawn until midnight every day, doing nothing but listening to people fighting.
00:36:42.000 And he does this for years.
00:36:44.000 And then his father-in-law comes along.
00:36:47.000 He's a Midianite priest.
00:36:48.000 So he's the archetype of the ethical outsider, a very common kind of character in the Old and New Testaments, like the Good Samaritan.
00:36:56.000 And Jethro comes to Moses and he says, look, man, you got to stop doing this.
00:37:03.000 And Moses says, why, essentially?
00:37:05.000 And Jethro says, look, there's two reasons.
00:37:07.000 First of all, you're wearing yourself to a frazzle.
00:37:10.000 Nobody can take on that much responsibility and live.
00:37:13.000 And second, you're denying the Israelites their destiny and basically you're setting yourself up as an alternative Pharaoh in the desert by taking all the responsibility onto yourself.
00:37:24.000 And so then he says, well, they decide, well, what should we do as an alternative?
00:37:29.000 So this is the question is, what's the alternative to tyranny and slavery?
00:37:33.000 And Jethro tells Moses, divide the Israelites into groups of 10 and have each of the 10 nominate a leader.
00:37:40.000 And then group the leaders together and have them nominate a leader and make an intermediary hierarchy up to tens of thousands.
00:37:48.000 And then allow them to adjudicate their own disputes at the most local level possible.
00:37:55.000 And any disputes that can't be intermediated at those local levels that eventually trickle up to you, you can decide.
00:38:02.000 And so this is a hierarchy of responsibility as an alternative to slavery and tyranny.
00:38:07.000 And it's also the model for the It's the model for the later establishment of religious institutions.
00:38:14.000 And so, what do people have to do?
00:38:17.000 They have to find a mate.
00:38:19.000 They have to get married.
00:38:20.000 They have to have a family.
00:38:22.000 They have to engage in civic activity.
00:38:24.000 They have to sit on their school boards.
00:38:26.000 They have to run for local office.
00:38:28.000 They have to join a business organization.
00:38:30.000 They have to join a political party.
00:38:32.000 Because imagine this, every bit of social responsibility you abdicate will be vacuumed up by a narcissistic tyrant.
00:38:42.000 That's what will happen.
00:38:43.000 That's what will happen.
00:38:44.000 Those people are just waiting for that responsibility to be transferred into their power.
00:38:50.000 Brilliant!
00:38:51.000 What an incredible piece of analysis.
00:38:54.000 Now, I've got questions, Jordan.
00:38:57.000 There's a shark.
00:38:59.000 Desert pharaoh.
00:39:00.000 Wow.
00:39:01.000 What an amazing phrase.
00:39:03.000 What an amazing phrase.
00:39:04.000 Now, In this anarcho-syndicalist utopia where there is confederacy and consensus around some universal inverted commas principles about autonomy wherever possible, smallest viable social models, where we're all
00:39:20.000 We're civically engaged in our communities, where we're running our workplaces, we're running our schools, we're running our communities.
00:39:26.000 We're preventing corporate tyrants, unelected pharaohs, you know, in whatever guise of whatever hue, entering these spaces and narcissistically hoovering up power.
00:39:37.000 In this model, I believe it might be possible to have a tribe that has extraordinarily particular views on gender and on sexuality and on bodily autonomy.
00:39:52.000 And another tribe that has, for the sake of brevity, very traditional ideas on what a man is, on what a woman is, and how children ought be raised.
00:40:04.000 And neither of those two tribes need to come Into a conflict with one another as long as there are certain universally agreed principles around the autonomy and the group authority of those particular tribes.
00:40:20.000 Would that is firstly beautiful piece of analysis on on Exodus and because you know like you know if it don't matter now it don't matter at all is basically is like basically my action.
00:40:31.000 If you can't apply it to right now, then what is its application?
00:40:35.000 And for this, as I've heard you describe it beautifully many times, for this library of books to have succeeded, they must have some deep archetypal power that continues to play out.
00:40:44.000 And in the analysis you just gave us, I see how it plays out.
00:40:47.000 Now, how do we map that onto soothing and solving the cultural war that you have found yourself continually at the forefront of?
00:40:58.000 Look, as far as I'm concerned, and I said this right when I opposed the initial Canadian legislation, I don't have an issue with a wide range of opinions, let's say, about how people should conduct themselves.
00:41:12.000 In their private and their creative lives, and I know that a plethora of alternatives is desirable, partly because the environment shifts and turns, and you never know what's going to be useful.
00:41:24.000 I also know that there are, in some sense, as many different so-called gender identities as there are individuals, although I think it's conceptualized in an extremely unsophisticated manner, and I put a lot of the responsibility for that at the at the feet of dim-witted academics, particularly on the radical left, because they just don't understand what they're talking about.
00:41:47.000 So, you know, people's temperament varies in five dimensions.
00:41:51.000 And some of those temperamental dimensions are linked fairly tightly to, well, are linked, let's say, moderately tightly to biological sex.
00:42:01.000 And so women tend to be more agreeable, and they tend to be higher in negative emotion.
00:42:05.000 Those are the biggest two differences between men and women temperamentally.
00:42:08.000 They also tend to be interested in people versus things, and there's a powerful biological undercurrent to that.
00:42:18.000 But by the same token, there's no shortage of men who have an average feminine temperament, and there's no shortage of women who have an average masculine temperament.
00:42:28.000 It depends on where you put the cutoffs, obviously, but you could easily say that it's 10% on each side.
00:42:34.000 Humans vary widely in their temperamental proclivity, and some of that's biological, genetic, even though it's not linked directly to sex, and some of it's a consequence of socialization.
00:42:46.000 So you could say, with some real truth, that there are 7 billion different gender identities.
00:42:53.000 But that doesn't mean that there's 7 billion different forms of sexual identity.
00:42:58.000 And the problem I have with the sexual identity issue is that I don't think there is a more fundamental cognitive category and a perceptual category than the distinction between man and woman.
00:43:10.000 And that's primarily because if you fail to make that distinction properly, you don't reproduce, to get cold and scientific about it.
00:43:19.000 And that sexual differentiation emerged hundreds of millions of years ago.
00:43:23.000 It might be more fundamental that perceptual category than up and down.
00:43:28.000 It might be more fundamental than night and day or darkness and light.
00:43:32.000 It's certainly in the same In the same domain of depth.
00:43:40.000 Now, I just read an interesting scientific paper that one of my friends sent me on genetic mutation.
00:43:45.000 And there is this idea that mutation is random.
00:43:50.000 But this paper disputed that.
00:43:51.000 So imagine that there's a hierarchy of genes that code for a given organism.
00:43:56.000 And some of those genes are really, really old, and they code for vital elements of that species' survival.
00:44:04.000 If there's a mutation at that level, in all probability, the organism will die.
00:44:09.000 Those bloody genes do not mutate.
00:44:14.000 They repair themselves.
00:44:15.000 And so it turns out there's a hierarchy of genetic mutation, so that you're allowed to play around on the fringes, but not at the core.
00:44:25.000 Now, I'll tell you something else I learned in this Exodus seminar.
00:44:28.000 So there's a rule, there was a rule among the Hebrews that if, imagine five farmers have adjoining fields, and there's some dispute about the boundaries, because of course there would be, unless you marked about exactly on the ground, Right at the edges, it isn't obvious whether it's Category A or Category B. And so you could call that the fringe.
00:44:51.000 And the fringe is multiplicitous.
00:44:52.000 Now, the ancient Hebrews had a rule, was that the poor and the dispossessed were allowed to glean on the fringes.
00:45:00.000 And so there's an idea that a cognitive category has to have a center and it has to have a fringe, and both are necessary.
00:45:07.000 And the fringe has to be there because the categories overlap and because there's doubt and confusion, but the center has to be there because otherwise everything becomes fringe.
00:45:17.000 And if everything becomes fringe, it's chaotic.
00:45:19.000 And so, I do believe that there should be discussion about the fringe.
00:45:25.000 I do believe that people should be allowed and encouraged to exist on the fringe if that's their natural habitat.
00:45:31.000 And that's generally the natural habitat, by the way, of creative people.
00:45:34.000 But I do not believe that it should be mandatory for the fringe to be center.
00:45:38.000 And so when the government says, you have to use pronouns of a certain type, that's compulsion.
00:45:45.000 I think, no, the fringe is trying to occupy the center.
00:45:47.000 And all that's going to do is destroy the center.
00:45:50.000 Beautiful, beautiful.
00:45:52.000 Now, though, it seems to me that we have to recognize that of all the things we're discussing here, some things seem fundamentally important, at least to me.
00:46:03.000 We must find ways of allowing communities to have as much self-regulatory power as possible.
00:46:08.000 And in order to do that, we're going to have to accept that there are aesthetics and flavours and customs and manners and means that are highly, highly diverse.
00:46:20.000 And the only principles that we might lean into are things, to return to an earlier comment I made, like kindness, like compassion.
00:46:27.000 I'm not throwing discernment out of the window, but I'm trying to recognize where that discernment might be better be reserved for myself.
00:46:34.000 To your most recent point, how am I being Christ-like?
00:46:37.000 How am I?
00:46:40.000 It is better generally reserved to yourself.
00:46:42.000 And may I say, sir, that with regard to this sort of what seems to be forming the center of our conversation currently, can we focus this propensity for judgment and this requirement for accountability towards where I regard real power to be residing?
00:47:01.000 Where is power actually?
00:47:03.000 Who is determining outcomes?
00:47:05.000 Who is acquiring land?
00:47:06.000 Who is acquiring resources?
00:47:08.000 Who is pushing an agenda for surveillance and the capture of data?
00:47:13.000 And for me, this cultural issue, whilst I recognise that from your Jungian perspective, that for in the matter of polarity in the matter of
00:47:21.000 absolute taxonomy is significant it seems to me of more immediate importance
00:47:26.000 that we say how are Pfizer able to like redact countless pages
00:47:32.000 how are how is the CIA able to infiltrate twitter and facebook and
00:47:38.000 determine their policies how are the democrat party and Justin Trudeau
00:47:42.000 able to pose as a socially tolerant while ultimately legislating and regulating on behalf of
00:47:51.000 transnational corporations this is the trans issue that I want to see
00:47:56.000 addressed These are the people and institutions that I want to see in the crosshairs because this is what I think will meaningfully affect the lives of as many people as possible, will impact poverty, will create opportunity for collaboration and collusion.
00:48:12.000 Can we attack these institutions that are not being subject to the level of scrutiny that you're applying in issue A to issue B?
00:48:22.000 This is why I like talking to you.
00:48:24.000 I think the work you're doing on the anti-fascist front, you're like the only Antifa person I've ever met that I really think is doing a credible job in some real sense because The definition of fascism is to bind together.
00:48:38.000 Fascist means to bind together.
00:48:40.000 And what's happening, and what you object to constantly, is collusion of the powerful at the highest level.
00:48:47.000 Background collusion of the powerful at the highest level.
00:48:51.000 And that is your area of expertise.
00:48:55.000 I would say my area of focus is more something approximating the integrity of individual identity.
00:49:02.000 I make forays into the political realm, but only unwillingly in some real sense.
00:49:08.000 I'm much more concerned with what stabilizes people and gives them hope individually, and a huge part of that is conceptualization of identity.
00:49:18.000 So the trans issue is actually extremely relevant here, because it's predicated on the idea that you have the right to impose your subjective sense of your identity on other people.
00:49:30.000 And I don't believe that's true, psychologically or socially.
00:49:33.000 And the reason for that, imagine it this way, Russell, part of what we're doing right now, obviously, along with everyone who's listening, is negotiating our identities, right?
00:49:44.000 You have some questions about what you're doing, You have some questions about what I'm doing, and vice versa.
00:49:50.000 And we're trying to hammer that out.
00:49:52.000 And as we hammer that out, little bits of us, you and me both, are dying and coming back to life in a new form.
00:49:58.000 And that's because we're allowing our identities to be shaped by social discourse.
00:50:03.000 And you can't have an identity that's subjectively defined.
00:50:06.000 It's not possible.
00:50:07.000 That's what a two-year-old wants.
00:50:09.000 What you're doing when you're engaged with your intimate partner, what you're doing when you're engaged with your family members, and then in the broader civic community, is exchanging information and allowing parts of yourself to die, that tyrannical parts of yourself to die, to go into a micro desert, and to try to reformulate yourself in a better manner.
00:50:30.000 And this idea that identity is subjectively defined is antithetical to that concept and it's wrong and so it's a primary concern of mine because I know it makes people miserable and lost.
00:50:42.000 I know but you're getting pulled into some very painful arguments and I would say like it was only you know 50 years ago 100 years ago you have these titles doctor professor now may they may not have been mandated and I would say that I don't want to be told what to do at all on any subject you should see how I drive you should see how I park But if someone wants to be spoken to, if someone says to me, this is how I want you to refer to me, you got it.
00:51:04.000 You tell me to call you Professor Jordan Peterson, no problem.
00:51:07.000 You say to me, I like to be called they, her, no problem.
00:51:10.000 I'll do it because kindness.
00:51:12.000 I've already got that covered.
00:51:14.000 So first of all, generally speaking, that's what I would do.
00:51:18.000 Now, I wouldn't invariably do it because I'm not going to address someone in a manner that I don't think is good for them.
00:51:24.000 But I only objected.
00:51:26.000 You can't make that judgment.
00:51:28.000 Yes, you can, you can.
00:51:29.000 I don't think you should.
00:51:31.000 Yeah, but you do it all the time when you're a clinician.
00:51:35.000 And, you know, and I do it very judiciously and most of the time I, because I am fundamentally, despite myself, in many ways a very compassionate person, I'm very willing to do precisely that.
00:51:46.000 But that wasn't the issue for me.
00:51:48.000 The issue was that it became mandatory.
00:51:50.000 And that was the first time in the history of the English common law that the manner in which you had to craft your own conversation had been, what would you call it, crafted by mandatory edict by a government agent.
00:52:04.000 Now, there was exceptions on the commercial side, so if you were selling cigarettes, there was a certain way you had to talk about them, but it was never the case in an English common law country, and the Americans specifically prohibited this mandatory use of subjective
00:52:21.000 identity terms.
00:52:22.000 It's like for me that was a line in the sand.
00:52:24.000 It's like you do not get to say what I'm going to say.
00:52:27.000 But I think that line in the sand is very particular to your position
00:52:29.000 because I think people would say that authority and power have been imposing conditions in more diffuse ways for a
00:52:35.000 lot longer.
00:52:36.000 That there are places where you are deferential, that when you're speaking to a police officer you speak in
00:52:41.000 a particular way, if you come from a particular community you're presumed to,
00:52:46.000 you are going to be perjured, you're considered to be in a different caste.
00:52:49.000 They may not have been instantiated by law because they didn't need to be instantiated by law
00:52:54.000 because they were understood to be true.
00:52:56.000 And, you know, I don't, you know, I'm white, male, etc.
00:52:59.000 So I'm like, you know, not banging a drum for let's condemn, you know, particularly working class white male people.
00:53:05.000 But what I am saying is that it appears that...
00:53:08.000 I reckon, I feel that generally speaking, centre-left liberal democracies are using this stuff nefariously.
00:53:17.000 I don't think they care about the feelings of trans people.
00:53:20.000 I don't think they care.
00:53:21.000 I care.
00:53:22.000 I don't think so either.
00:53:23.000 I care.
00:53:24.000 I care.
00:53:25.000 And I care about white working class people, black working class people, brown people from across the all class spectra.
00:53:32.000 And what I feel like is that in order to not engulf ourselves in a sort of a semantic pyre, we ought refocus our attention on the real giants, the oligarchs, the tyrants, whether they're bureaucratic or personal, that are using, that are narcissistically hoovering up the power while we're fucking around with Well, this is also partly the danger of elevating compassion to the ultimate virtue, because you also enable the narcissists of compassion to garner power to themselves by claiming a compassion they don't have.
00:54:10.000 And I've really seen this make itself manifest, I would say, in most recent months on the left.
00:54:17.000 Because what I've watched happen, especially in Europe, is that if you If you look at how especially the green leftists have reacted, if their option is starve the poor to save the planet, they'll starve the poor.
00:54:37.000 And so that makes me wonder, well, is your goal to save the planet, which by the way is a very difficult thing to do, or is your goal to starve the poor?
00:54:45.000 Because you're not saving the bloody planet, and you're definitely starving the poor.
00:54:52.000 I would say, to some degree, that's where our viewpoints dovetail, and I think it's why we can talk.
00:54:57.000 Like I said, I'm a big fan of the fact that you're going after the fascist collusionists, and I think it's absolutely necessary.
00:55:04.000 It isn't obvious to me that the destabilization of identity is a less significant problem.
00:55:10.000 Than the collusion of the fascist overlords.
00:55:14.000 I think they're the same thing, Russell, because if you destabilize the identity of local individuals so they're confused and aimless, it's a hell of a lot easier to hoover up all the power.
00:55:26.000 You need slaves to be a tyrant.
00:55:28.000 And maybe I'm more concerned about individuals on the slave level, and you're more concerned with delineating the nature of the tyranny, and that's perfectly fine.
00:55:38.000 But I think they're the same problem.
00:55:40.000 Because if people, if individuals have a cogent sense of identity, and that sense of identity is nested inside functional social organizations in this hierarchical manner we discussed, they're a hell of a lot harder to push around.
00:55:54.000 I understand.
00:55:55.000 But your pivotal and initiatory conflict, the matter that brought you into this space, was your, I don't want to be told what to do.
00:56:05.000 And I think a lot of people feel like, I don't want to be told what to do.
00:56:09.000 I don't want to be told what to do by 10,000 years of post-agricultural history.
00:56:14.000 I don't want to be told what to do.
00:56:16.000 You know, like, I suppose, who is your God?
00:56:18.000 Is biology your God?
00:56:19.000 Is evolution your God?
00:56:21.000 Is Christiana, is it a Christian God?
00:56:23.000 And, like, if by your definition we are talking about a peripheral issue, then I feel that God, won't this God that we love take care of this?
00:56:33.000 You know, is WB Yeats right?
00:56:36.000 Can the centre not hold?
00:56:37.000 Who is slouching towards us?
00:56:40.000 Because if there is an absolute God, if there is an absolute God, I think by behaving in accordance with our own principles, the rectitude will come to the forefront.
00:56:50.000 Righteousness will triumph.
00:56:54.000 And I feel that, like, So that I feel like, you know, if you're saying that where your role is, is you want people to have stable identities, you believe in personal autonomy, people you shouldn't be told what to do, they shouldn't be told what to do.
00:57:07.000 This I feel like, for me, I feel like actually there's so much agreement.
00:57:10.000 It feels like I can see a place, you know, you don't want some centralized order telling you what to do.
00:57:16.000 You don't want some centralized order telling you what to say.
00:57:19.000 If people want to live one way, you know, in what are regarded as the extremes, although I would you know, query the framing, then allow them as long as
00:57:28.000 they're not hurting other people.
00:57:29.000 And there seem to be some pretty basic principles around the way we raise young and all those kind
00:57:33.000 of things. I don't feel like there's that many people would dispute. So yeah, I guess what I'm
00:57:38.000 saying Jordan is that I feel like, I don't feel that you should be lost to this culture war and
00:57:45.000 I don't think that any of us should be.
00:57:47.000 I feel that we should find ways of forming truces and agreement that are about the empowerment of individuals and the rights of individuals to be whoever they are.
00:57:57.000 And I recognize what you're saying about, you know, the subjective can't be bureaucratized or, you know, instantiated externally.
00:58:06.000 Sorry, I don't want to be on this carousel forever because we've got a lot of audience questions.
00:58:12.000 Look, you and I are both stumbling along trying to find our proper voice and our proper audience and we're paying attention to the way people are reacting to us and that seems to be going pretty well.
00:58:22.000 It's not like either of us can sit here and decide a priori how it is that we should act or what we should say, right?
00:58:29.000 We're trying to figure it out as we go along and we're going to make mistakes publicly while we're doing that as we stumble forward.
00:58:35.000 But, and I think that's fine.
00:58:38.000 I mean, for me, like I said, the line in the sand was, I'm not letting anybody tell me what I have to say.
00:58:45.000 They're not going to use compulsion in law.
00:58:47.000 I don't care what your bloody reasons are.
00:58:49.000 And the fact that you're saying, not you specifically, but you're saying, well, you have to act this way because I'm so compassionate, I'm going to force you.
00:58:56.000 It's like, Yeah, you're so compassionate, you're gonna force me, eh?
00:59:00.000 That's your bloody argument, is it?
00:59:02.000 I agree with you, but I think by the same... I know you do, I know you do.
00:59:04.000 By the same argument, Elliot Page... Okay, cool.
00:59:08.000 By this very same argument.
00:59:10.000 Can we do some of the... No, no, it's not cool, because she was in a position of influence.
00:59:15.000 And you're in a position of influence.
00:59:17.000 I know, I know.
00:59:17.000 But I'm also not encouraging kids to sterilize themselves.
00:59:20.000 But you are encouraging people to believe so.
00:59:24.000 Like, not everyone has your faculties, but a lot of people can mimic your rhetoric.
00:59:30.000 Well, so and fair enough, you know, and it's not it's not easy to engage in discussion of issues like this without inflaming without simultaneously inflaming the background cultural war.
00:59:43.000 You know, and it's a difficult line to tread, as you know well, and so no doubt there's errors made on as we move towards attempting to do that.
00:59:53.000 So as I mentioned to you at the beginning of this, there's some people watching along and one of the things we offer to our community members here at Stay Free AF, that stands for Stay Free As Fuck, edgy hey Jordan, is the right to ask you questions live.
01:00:08.000 Subhi runs our social media and Subhi will be relaying some of those questions.
01:00:13.000 Dr. Peterson, this is Subhi.
01:00:14.000 Subhi, Jordan, work out your own language.
01:00:18.000 So Subhi, would you pass on those questions for us?
01:00:20.000 Yes, so we've got a couple for you, so I'll get started.
01:00:22.000 Vastishi asks, are you able to move beyond the left and right of politics?
01:00:30.000 I don't... by you, do you mean me, or is it possible for someone to do that?
01:00:35.000 I reckon someone.
01:00:38.000 A human.
01:00:40.000 Well, you do that every time you have a conversation across political lines, right?
01:00:44.000 And the left generally speaks for the creative and the fringe, and the right speaks for the center and stability.
01:00:54.000 And we have to all mediate between those two things, because sometimes the center needs to be adjusted, and sometimes the fringe needs to stay in the fringe.
01:01:04.000 And when that's necessary isn't obvious, and that's why we have to talk and think.
01:01:09.000 If you could only reside in the left, or you could only reside in the right, and that was a 100% solution, we wouldn't have to think or talk.
01:01:17.000 It's a constant dialogue, and that's why politics is the art of dialogue, fundamentally.
01:01:24.000 Not only can you move beyond left and right, if you don't, we're doomed.
01:01:31.000 Jordan Peterson said that it says there's a sort of a polarity and we sort of exist within the tension of this polarity of this ongoing negotiation.
01:01:39.000 Is there another question?
01:01:40.000 Yeah, well we also we also want to do that, Russell, because one of the things this is something that's really cool to to realize and understand is when you're engaged in a meaningful discussion One that's compelling and that makes time disappear.
01:01:55.000 You are in fact balanced on that edge of polarity and you're updating yourself optimally and that's why you feel engaged.
01:02:04.000 Your own nervous system is telling you you're allowing just exactly the right amount of death and rebirth to occur to keep you current, updated and healthy.
01:02:14.000 And so, yes, you live on the edge.
01:02:18.000 You live on the edge of order and chaos.
01:02:20.000 And in some sense, that's analogous to the edge between left and right.
01:02:26.000 Alex asks, how do you help someone heal when their unconscious and harmful habits are used as self-soothing methods?
01:02:37.000 Yeah, well that's a universal question, too, because we all take what you call respite in our terrible habits.
01:02:45.000 Look, the most effective thing you can do to help someone change is to listen to them and encourage them, and there's no universal There's no universal pathway to doing that, except that you can learn to listen.
01:03:01.000 And the reason listening works, as the Freudians originally discovered in some clinical sense, is that there isn't any difference between talking honestly and thinking.
01:03:14.000 And there isn't any difference between thinking and generating new variants of yourself and testing them out.
01:03:20.000 And so most people think by talking.
01:03:24.000 And so if they don't have anyone to listen to them, they can't think.
01:03:28.000 And then if they can't think and don't think, because they're not talking and being listened to, then they get outdated and trapped in their own tyrannical presuppositions.
01:03:39.000 And so, listening is unbelievably useful.
01:03:43.000 And so, that's a good place to start.
01:03:45.000 And you can tell if you're listening, because if you listen to someone, first of all, they'll talk to you, and they'll be interesting.
01:03:51.000 Because everyone is interesting if you listen to them hard enough.
01:03:54.000 And second, you can tell them back what they've said, to see if they agree with your formulation.
01:04:02.000 And if they do, then they know you're listening, and you know you've got it right, and that's extremely helpful to people.
01:04:08.000 We're going to do one more question, Subs, and then we'll wrap stuff up.
01:04:14.000 Ritak would like to ask you if you acknowledge the existence of the devil.
01:04:18.000 Well, the right answer to that is you should acknowledge the existence of the devil in your own heart.
01:04:31.000 And you can watch that.
01:04:32.000 Like I can see, for example, when I'm reading online comments, let's say, I can feel the upswelling of a tremendous rage.
01:04:42.000 And I watch the fantasies that go along with that.
01:04:44.000 And they're extremely destructive.
01:04:46.000 And I'm not saying that because I'm trying to draw moral attention to myself.
01:04:51.000 I see that as an indication of the degree to which we're close to conflict in the social arena.
01:04:59.000 I know it's terrible, but I can see it working inside me.
01:05:02.000 And I think in the final analysis, you know, René Girard, the great sociologist and psychologist, believed that Everybody needs a place to put Satan in some real sense.
01:05:14.000 And why is that?
01:05:16.000 It's because we all have to contend with the reality of evil.
01:05:19.000 And so then the question is, well, where is evil located?
01:05:22.000 And the answer is, well, it's pretty widely distributed.
01:05:25.000 And then the issue is, well, do you go after the evil that you see around you?
01:05:29.000 Or do you go after the evil that's in your own heart?
01:05:32.000 And the problem with going after the evil that you see around you is, well, you're not a transcendent judge and you might be wrong.
01:05:40.000 It's a pretty good idea to start with yourself.
01:05:44.000 It's a lot safer.
01:05:45.000 It does a lot less harm.
01:05:46.000 It's much better for you.
01:05:47.000 And then maybe if you can do that, then your eye for what constitutes genuine evil in the world gets sharper and sharper.
01:05:56.000 But basically, and this is a Christian conception in some real sense, is that the most fundamental and devious locale of that which is evil is internal.
01:06:07.000 That's a hell of a thing to contend with, because it means that the possibility for hell is within.
01:06:12.000 But I think that's right.
01:06:14.000 Sorry, go ahead.
01:06:17.000 Where I live is where I feel continually is my...
01:06:20.000 that this tension is within me, Jordan.
01:06:25.000 That I'm continually identifying my own sin.
01:06:29.000 I continually see what is the motivational force that I'm listening to.
01:06:35.000 Avarice, the need for power.
01:06:38.000 And again, biological forces, status, sex.
01:06:44.000 And as you say, the propensity and potential for conflict.
01:06:48.000 I find that in my own negotiation with myself, you know, that for me is at the forefront continually.
01:06:55.000 I struggle to find time to judge other people, but I find it!
01:06:59.000 I find it in my videos!
01:07:01.000 I make time!
01:07:02.000 Yeah, well you're basically doing, when you're doing that, you're doing an inquiry into the gods that you worship.
01:07:09.000 Or that control you.
01:07:10.000 That's perfectly reasonable way of thinking about it.
01:07:12.000 Because you can be run by envy.
01:07:14.000 You can be run by rage.
01:07:15.000 You can be run by lust.
01:07:16.000 You can be run by the desire for public acclaim.
01:07:20.000 And those are all transcendent forces.
01:07:22.000 And in some real sense, the reason they're properly Uh contemplated as deities is because they're they're active forces that guide your perceptions and your actions They're not statements of facts.
01:07:34.000 They're beings their personalities in some real sense And because you and you know this because imagine you're you're you're feeling resentful or envious Well, what does that mean feeling?
01:07:45.000 Well, it means you're viewing the world from the standpoint of domination by resentment And you're allowing that to guide your actions.
01:07:54.000 And so it's a personality And we see the world through personalities and many different factors buy to take control of our personalities.
01:08:03.000 When you're looking at the highest good, let's say you're trying to contemplate the highest good in some sense, and this is, Russell, why I think it shouldn't be reduced to compassion, is that What you're trying to do is to provide, you're trying to bring all those underlying motivational forces, that polytheistic structure, into a higher unity of deity.
01:08:22.000 And the question there is, well, what's the ultimate God?
01:08:25.000 And it's not the prohibition of envy, it's not the prohibition of lust or anger, any of those, because those things are useful in their place.
01:08:33.000 It's the integration of that polytheistic domain into a single overarching unity.
01:08:40.000 And then you might say, well, what's the nature of that unity?
01:08:42.000 And I would say, well, the whole religious enterprise is about determining the nature of that transcendent unity.
01:08:48.000 I'm so glad that you alluded to the unitary nature because initially at the beginning of our conversation, Jordan, I said love and you said that like, you know, we wouldn't assume that compassion is the primary component of love.
01:08:59.000 And I don't assume that because love is duty.
01:09:01.000 Love is sacrifice.
01:09:04.000 And I think this idea of... They say in drama that if you want to convey love, the only way in drama is through sacrifice.
01:09:13.000 All else on the page or on the screen appears as affection.
01:09:17.000 Until the hero is willing to lose something of their selves, then you cannot dramatize it.
01:09:26.000 And the reason I like this metaphoric system is because dramatization is about action.
01:09:31.000 You need to be able to observe it.
01:09:32.000 Is it real?
01:09:33.000 It's not contemplative or reflective or theoretical.
01:09:36.000 This is it.
01:09:38.000 This is what love looks like.
01:09:40.000 So in a sense, the compassion for me is only valuable in the assumption of a unitary undergirding.
01:09:48.000 That there is a non-separateness.
01:09:50.000 This is why compassion.
01:09:52.000 This is why love.
01:09:53.000 Because love is the felt experience of unity.
01:09:56.000 Love is the felt experience of God's oneness, that there is no separation, so that conflict is antithetical to a deep, deep truth.
01:10:04.000 And I know we have to live with discernment, and I know we have to live with order, and I know that, you know, there are a few people that I could... would feel more...
01:10:11.000 Confident entering into a conversation about the relationship between order and chaos with.
01:10:16.000 They're new because I know this is right where you live.
01:10:19.000 I know this is right where you live.
01:10:20.000 JP, I've got to jump, man, because it's school time.
01:10:24.000 I really want to have a conversation about the 12 steps and the principles of them with you at some point.
01:10:33.000 I know there's loads of stuff we're planning, man.
01:10:35.000 There's loads of stuff we're planning and we'll have to get it done.
01:10:37.000 Yeah.
01:10:38.000 Yeah.
01:10:39.000 Yeah, well a continuing conversation, Russell.
01:10:42.000 It's a good useful thing, you know, because we we do come at these issues from an interestingly different perspective, although I would say in some hopefully aiming for something common, right?
01:10:55.000 And hopefully for something good.
01:10:57.000 Yes.
01:10:57.000 As much as that's possible and and it's useful to hammer out the distinctions because that's where you change and transform.
01:11:06.000 So Like, you know, when we are not satisfied with the order, we must have a negotiation with chaos.
01:11:13.000 We must have a negotiation with chaos.
01:11:15.000 And I feel like I live in this negotiation sometimes, man.
01:11:19.000 Alright, people are telling me I've got to wrap up.
01:11:21.000 Thank you so much for your expertise and for your time and for the immense suffering that I know you incur to be who you are.
01:11:29.000 It's really good to talk to you, Russell, and thank you to everybody who's watching and listening.
01:11:33.000 And, uh, yeah, keep it up, everyone.
01:11:35.000 I'm going to be texting you.
01:11:36.000 In fact, I've already texted you before.
01:11:38.000 I'll be, I'll reach out.
01:11:39.000 Yeah, I got some things I want to talk to you about too.
01:11:41.000 So good, good, good, good talking to you, man.
01:11:44.000 And good luck with your continued endeavors.
01:11:46.000 Thank you, sir.
01:11:46.000 You too.
01:11:47.000 Thanks.
01:11:47.000 Thanks. Bye bye. Bye bye. Bye bye. So if you're a member of the Stay Free AF community, you can be with us live while
01:11:58.000 we conduct those interviews.
01:11:59.000 There is a link in the description.
01:12:01.000 You can also watch full interviews with Jocko Willink, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Maté, and join me for my weekly meditations.
01:12:09.000 You can also learn real skills with people like Wim Hof and Beate Simpkin.
01:12:13.000 They're all there, and of course, you can watch our community film.
01:12:15.000 Later this year, my stand-up special, which I've already made, 30 Free, will also be available on this platform.
01:12:21.000 Thank you very much for joining me for my conversation with Jordan Peterson.