Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 12, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:59

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #543

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast, The Load Seaters, for Monday, the 12th of December, 2022.
	I'm joined by Connor.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how Elon Musk is just effing going for it.
	He's just straight over the top, bayonets fixed.
	It's just brilliant to watch.
	Then we're going to address some recent, I guess, controversies that Dr Jordan Peterson has been involved in.
	Hopefully we will do that with great tact.
	And then we're going to be examining a debate Michael Knowles had with an abortionist.
	Which I found fascinating.
	I mean, it's always a pleasure to watch Michael Knowles talk to a leftist anyway.
	But this one was particularly good.
	But before we get going, if you would like to work for us and be a video editor, do go to lowseas.com forward slash careers and submit your CV. You will have to work in the office, but we would like to hear from you.
	Right, let's get on with it.
	So Elon Musk is just going straight over the top.
	Bayonets fixed, straight at the heart of the enemy.
	And I'm loving it.
	I'm loving every second of it.
	Every day, he'll essentially Sargon post on Twitter.
	And I'm just like, okay, Elon, I say this.
	These are the radical, crazy things that I say.
	And he's just like, yeah, so 120 million people basically need to know that Sargon was right.
	And it's like, okay, great.
	I have admitted to have had my reservations about Elon in the past.
	Especially because, you know, Chinese business deals, being a fairly absent father, etc.
	It's never been sure whether he's on our side or not.
	However, in recent weeks, he's definitely made the right noises, so it is encouraging.
	Today, I think he has categorically shown that he is on our side.
	We'll get into it.
	But before we do, go check out our book club of The Populist Delusion by...
	A noted scholar, Nima Parvini, talking about essentially Italian elite theory and how an organized minority is a very powerful thing, and you can't just expect the general wave of populism to dislodge them.
	I've come to the conclusion that it requires a kind of great man to come in and clear them out, and our great man is currently crushing it.
	So let's go back a bit and begin with the day in the life of the Twitter woman, who's just, you know, at Twitter, having a good time.
	And you can see just how luxurious things were before Elon's regime.
	But then, of course, he fired them all.
	And there were people warning.
	There were people like me saying, Elon, don't fire all the lazy people at once.
	You'll be sued for misogyny, Elon!
	You could hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the darkness scrape beyond.
	Because that's what's happening.
	He's being sued for misogyny, basically.
	If you go to the next one, John, you can see that they're suing Twitter, claiming women have been laid off more than men.
	But Elon said...
	Reply to this email saying, I want to work really hard at Twitter.
	And a chunk of them, a disproportionate chunk of people who didn't were women.
	He fired all the useless jobs and they just so happened to have women most affected.
	Weirdly, there are much fewer TikTok day in the life of Twitter employee videos.
	Because they're actually doing something now.
	I mean, it's crazy because it's not like Twitter isn't $20 billion in debt.
	So these people are acting like they're just, yeah, this is me forever now.
	It's like, no, this is obviously not you forever.
	Well, I was going to say briefly, if you've had a mass influx of half the population within about half a century, and you've had to create lots of different roles in the corporate environment, the market rises to meet demands, then of course, after a certain amount of time, there'll be roles which become superfluous to the actual functioning of company.
	And it just so unfortunately happens that lots of women seem to have occupied those roles.
	So I Trust and safety team meetings turned out not to be essential to the running of Twitter.
	I mean, I don't know whether anyone's noticed, but it seems to be working just fine after firing like two-thirds of the employees.
	At least they can always learn to code.
	I don't know if they can.
	Anyway, speaking of misogyny, though, Elon's being sued for firing all the women.
	The women.
	The women.
	Right.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Elon has done other good things, such as removing all the child porn from the platform.
	Good.
	This actually came as a total surprise to me.
	I had no idea that there was anything like this on the platform, whether there were hashtags for it or anything like that.
	There was hashtag maps when they came over from Tumblr when Tumblr banned it.
	Because I remember Jeremy Hambly, quartering, did a mass flagging event when they all came over.
	I think it was like 2018 or something.
	I tried banning some accounts myself.
	And you're just playing whack-a-mole because they pop back up with anime avatars all the time.
	So I know from some of Eliza Blue's stuff that they used hashtags and they used different accounts and soft puppets to try and spread materials and communicate.
	I don't know the level, but...
	Yeah, this stuff was pretty widely known as just a problem Twitter wouldn't tackle.
	Right.
	And he seems to have done it in one fell swoop, which means that it was easier to get rid of than we thought.
	Yeah, and it's weird how it didn't happen under Vijaya Gad or Yoel Roth.
	No.
	That's really weird.
	Because if you go to the next one, you can see that Sanovic is just like, look, there are in fact examples of Twitter refusing to remove Twitter.
	Child porn.
	Because apparently it didn't violate the terms and conditions of the service.
	It's like, that's really weird.
	I believe there was a man who said, here was a video of me at 14.
	That's great.
	That's what this is.
	Right.
	When I've been blackmailed into it.
	Here is my age verification of me now.
	Here is this being me.
	Repeatedly, he brought it to Twitter's attention.
	They refused to take it down.
	He then brought it to federal law enforcement, and then they decided to take action.
	Yes.
	Isn't that wild how that wasn't against the terms of service?
	And so, I mean, Elon just replies to this going, it is a crime.
	They refuse to take action on child exploitation for years.
	I mean, literally, it is a crime.
	But then Jack Dorsey's like, well, this is false.
	It's like, okay, now you're going to get lit up here, Jack.
	Because Elon replies with, They can afford women who are going into the sort of meditation booths and getting wine on tap,
	but they can't afford the staff to worry about illegal materials about child exploitation, right?
	And so he's like, I made it a top priority immediately.
	It's like, okay, great.
	Jack's like, well, I don't know what happened in the past year, but to say we didn't take action for years isn't true, blah, blah, blah.
	It's like, yeah, okay.
	But it should have been done on day one, right?
	It should have been something that was an ongoing, consistent policy that Twitter should have had since day one.
	Anyway, so how did Joel Roth end up in charge of trust and safety?
	That's a great question.
	That's a great question.
	Like, a lot of people started looking through his Twitter history.
	You can see from this in 2010.
	It's not so much the accusations of child abuse that'll do me.
	It's the site's god-awful Microsoft Publisher 97 layout.
	But I don't know who Brit down there is, but she's like, hi, from the future.
	It turns out it was the child abuse accident.
	But...
	I almost hate laughing at it, though, because it's so disgustingly perverse.
	But, like, Elon seems to be taking this quite seriously, and as a father, that's good.
	He, for some reason, went through your Roth's PhD thesis, which turned out that he was in favour of underage, well, you know, people under 16, accessing Grindr?
	Yeah, is the tweet above connected to this?
	Because I know Eliza Blue drew his attention.
	Yeah, Yol Roth tweeted out on November 20th, 2010, can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers?
	And Elon replied, well, this explains a lot.
	Yeah.
	And so, this is summarized by Liz here.
	How did a creep who wrote a PhD thesis about Grindr, says he hates kids, sympathized with teachers having sex with students, wanted to give kids access to porn, called Trump, GOP, literal Nazis, included with the FBI, banned only conservatives, becomes Twitter's chief censor, Elon Musk?
	And Elon just replies to this saying, good question.
	Because it is a good question.
	I hate to be conspiratorial, but could it possibly be that the intelligence agencies quite like people who have a lot of compromising material on them to be placed in positions of power because they know they will be the most compliant for fear of things leaking out?
	I couldn't even speculate.
	No.
	Couldn't even speculate.
	Anyway, so moving on, let's have a look at the update on the Twith file.
	So there have been people who are like, yes, there's been good, this and bad.
	It's fine.
	It's not, unfortunately, the set of bombshells we're looking for yet.
	But apparently there is more to come, because of course Elon's like, look, I'm just going to make everything public.
	So just to summarise, for if you haven't been paying attention to this story, part one is where...
	Matt Taibbi.
	Matt Taibbi, that's it.
	Showed how the Twitter executives just conspired to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, which of course turned out to be totally true.
	Part two, Barry Weiss showed how senior Twitter executives created secret blacklists to de-amplify favoured Twitter users, not just specific tweets.
	Dis-favoured, sorry, Twitter users.
	Obviously, we call this shadow banning.
	So that was true.
	And in part three, Matt Taibbi again showed how Twitter executives censored tweets by Trump in the run-up to the November 2020 election while regularly engaging with US representatives of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. So what did we learn so far from the three drops?
	Well, that Twitter executives are evil.
	But this probably isn't illegal.
	And what we see in the fourth drop of TwitFiles is that they were thrilled to be able to ban Trump.
	They were desperate to do it.
	And again, they coordinated and conspired with the FBI in order to make this happen.
	Despite Donald Trump repeatedly saying, don't go into the Capitol and things like this, despite him actively being against and not inciting a mob to go into the Capitol, they were thrilled to finally build the case for a permanent ban, as he says there, and remove him.
	But again, as awful as all of this is, and as much as this shows that there is a major problem with the social fabric of the United States, mainly driven by left-wing ideologues, none of this is technically illegal as far as I can tell.
	Well, there has been some stuff on Facebook that's definitely illegal because they've been, the FBI was handing over without, sorry, Facebook without a subpoena was handing over millions of messages from private accounts to the FBI for filtering because they were flagged as Conservative office January 6th.
	And then the Intercept piece did show that the Biden administration was directly targeting each account that they didn't like, including Anthony Fauci parody accounts for direct takedowns, while I believe Anthony Fauci's daughter was working at Twitter as well.
	So that would fall under suppression of the First Amendment and could be means for adjusting Section 230 protections and things like that.
	The main thing is, the reason these don't feel like bombshells...
	Well, Twitter was directly involved in the Intercept piece as well.
	Oh, right.
	Yes.
	So the reason there's some fill-up bombshells, though, is because we kind of already have receipts for this.
	Yeah.
	It's just we're kind of waiting for someone to do something.
	This is why your great man of history thesis on Elon is right, because he is doing things.
	Yeah.
	We've got a Republican-controlled Congress now.
	The Senate is...
	So we need a great Republican to come along and do something.
	Yes.
	Don't hold your breath, folks.
	John points out that actually Jack Dorsey did lie to Congress as well, under oath, because he said they don't shadow ban, and of course we now have the evidence that they shadow ban.
	So I suppose there is that, but again, like you say, this all requires a Republican to actually do something.
	Good luck with that.
	Requires testicular fortitude, which is in short supply.
	Yeah, but Glenn Greenwald, I think, sums it up pretty well.
	Oh, sorry, I forgot this.
	It's nice that, I mean, one of the good things about this is it forces places like The Hill to admit, yeah, okay, well, it wasn't just conspiracy theory.
	Actually, the thing that everyone could see that was happening was happening, and now we have concrete proof of it.
	So, you know, that's fine.
	But anyway, the main point, I think, to take away from it is that Twitter was a Democrat machine, and it was designed specifically, not necessarily designed, but it was weighted specifically to favour one side over another, which could be called election interference.
	I think that's a completely reasonable way of framing the issue from Glenn Greenwald.
	As Tom Fitton here points out, they deliberately suppressed Trump and his allies, which they did.
	And Elon just replies to this saying, unequivocally true.
	The evidence is clear and voluminous.
	Yeah, it seems that way.
	But the problem, I think, that we have is that the organized minority had taken over Twitter and Jack Dorsey was proven to not be one of the great men.
	This, in fact, is so evident because Trump was banned when Jack Dorsey was on holiday.
	Right.
	Can you even imagine taking such a momentous decision when the CEO wasn't even in the country?
	It reminds me of...
	Have you seen the last season of Black Mirror by any chance?
	I have, but I can't remember.
	So there's this episode where some fella takes a hostage to get his ex-girlfriend's Facebook account reinstated so he can have the memories of her.
	And the obvious parody of Jack Dorsey is getting this emergency phone call from his meditation retreat where he's meant to have no technology.
	Oh yes!
	Yeah, I do remember this.
	It entirely reminds me of Jack Dorsey's become parody unto himself out of sheer cowardice to just want to extricate himself from this dragon that he was unable to hold the reins of.
	Because, I mean, that character was so obviously Jack Dorsey as well.
	He even had the hair on the beard and looked like Rasputin.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And he's like a weird monk who goes on retreats, which is fine.
	But at the end of the day, you shouldn't be the CEO in charge of the company, if that's the case.
	But this is the point.
	We found out that they banned Trump when Jack Dorsey wasn't even in the country.
	And it's like, look, Jack, you should have really had a firm hand over Vijaya Gad here in your wrath.
	And it's like, look, you will take no action until I return and examine it in person because it is the President of the United States.
	It is a major allegation, and I'm the boss.
	But instead, of course, it looks like Jack simply wasn't in control.
	And Elon has pointed this out himself, saying, look, the Trust and Safety Council were basically the rulers of Twitter, the takeaway, basically.
	But anyway, so Twitter will begin unshadowbanning people.
	Elon says Twitter is working on a software update that will show your true account status, so you'll clearly know if you've been shadowbaned, the reason why, and how to appeal.
	I don't know why he's not just rescinding shadowbanning as a concept.
	There may be a reason for it.
	It could be about suppressing illegal content or bots or something like that.
	So I can understand there may be a use for shadowbanning.
	It might be so baked into the code at this point that it's difficult to get rid of.
	Absolutely.
	It might be so that it's intrinsic, and so this is the easiest way to fix it.
	Who knows?
	But I'm actually happy to give Elon the benefit of the doubt on this.
	But as he says, Twitter is both a social media company and a crime scene.
	So possibly...
	I'm hedging my bets on whether actual crimes have been committed here.
	I think that what's...
	Well, literally by the amount of child exploitation that was left to exist on the platform...
	Okay, that is obviously true.
	But I mean, from the actual actions of the executives in charge of the Trust and Safety Council, whether anything can be shown to be definitively a criminal act, who knows.
	But I like Elon's approach to all of this.
	Digging up Twitter's darkest secrets.
	Okay?
	I mean, this is good memetics for a start.
	You know, look at the rainy, dark, stormy nights and Elon just grimly with a shovel.
	It's good memetics, man.
	And so there have been a bunch of people like, well look, Elon, isn't it a bit of a mistake that you're getting too political?
	Isn't this a problem?
	It's like, dude, too political.
	Like, have you not looked at the political environment for the last decade or so?
	You know, Elon is a consequence of what they have done to the environment.
	And Elon just replies, no, for the future, this must be done for the future of civilization, without which nothing matters.
	It's like, Exactly, exactly my thoughts on it.
	I mean, that's just perfect.
	Yeah, and it seems like the fella even understands that because he just goes, yeah, thanks for all you do.
	Yeah, I mean, and I don't think that guy's a bad guy or anything.
	I think what it is is he's nervous, right?
	I don't even think it's...
	I don't know who this person is, but there is also the mentality of, I wish we could just return to the 90s when we didn't have to care, the sort of Gen X mentality you spoke to in Hangouts.
	I wish too, but that time is gone, we're in a new world now, and we have to win this new world.
	Yes, and that sort of post-war consensus was taken advantage of by these academics who were festering in the institutions that then wage capture on vital institutions to democracy, politics, whatever, like Twitter.
	Now we'd have to do a bit of counter-capture.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now we have to fight the war.
	The war is upon us, you know.
	Again, it's very Lord of the Rings, you know, when Frodo's like, I wish it wasn't me.
	He's like, well, so do all people who live in such times.
	All we can do is deal with the time that we have.
	And I say that because Elon begins Lord of the Ring posting.
	Well, The Ring's posting, which is pretty great, actually.
	There's another one I forgot to put in there, I guess.
	But he posts a link to the death of Saruman, and he just quotes it with, Saruman, your staff is broken.
	And it's like, well, Elon has certainly stormed Isengard by the taking of Twitter.
	Is this the scouring of Silicon Valley?
	Kind of, yes.
	He hasn't yet taken Mordor, but at least we're on the right path, right?
	We're fighting the war and we understand that it's going on.
	And at least we're taking some of their strongholds.
	Are we sure he isn't watching?
	Well, we're not.
	This is very strange now.
	No.
	But he just keeps going.
	So he's like, well, Twitter was worm-tongued to the world.
	Like, this is just great.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, he was.
	Like, it was keeping...
	And again, the metaphor is just so good.
	Because not that the king can't act, but if you've got the Wormtongue saying, you know, be passive, be weak, do nothing, then, well, that keeps everything in the control of people like Sauron.
	It gives them the advantage they need.
	And then the future drops are apparently going to be about Vauci.
	As he says, now things get spicy, as if they weren't spicy enough anyway, but let's carry on.
	Fauci's worm tongue memes, which I think is just...
	That's perfect.
	His name, I believe, translates to sickle in Italian.
	Yes, so the memetics of Fauci being synonymous with death go quite far.
	Interesting.
	But yes, one more lockdown, my king.
	It's excellent, right?
	And so he then afterwards tweets out, my pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci.
	It's like, right?
	I mean, don't go wrong, I totally agree.
	You know, Fauci has obviously lied to Congress multiple times.
	He's obviously been lying about how the lab that is probably somehow related to the coronavirus pandemic was funded.
	And he otherwise said, Twitter files on COVID are coming.
	It's like, right, that'll be interesting.
	That'll be very interesting.
	I'm not going to make any predictions, of course.
	I don't know what's going to happen.
	But he did invite a Stanford epidemiologist to Twitter to analyse the suppression.
	Jay Bhattacharya.
	That's really interesting, because Jay was not only one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, and has recently, I believe, met Reviva Reclaim or Reform to talk about their healthcare policy platform.
	But also, he was obviously one of the guys that was revealed to have been shadowbanned for a very long time.
	His first post got him shadowbanned.
	He was placed on the blacklist after he argued that COVID lockdowns would harm children.
	Which, I mean, don't get me wrong, godspeed to Jay Bhattacharya, but, like, you didn't need a doctorate to understand that, did you?
	No, it's remarkably milquetoast.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's obvious that the lockdowns harmed children, and that was evil.
	But it just shows you the level of censorship for even the most observable of takes would have you be blacklisted.
	Yeah.
	He says, Twitter placed me on the blacklist on the first day I joined, because I think it was my pinned tweet linking to the Barrington Declaration that triggered the blacklist based on unspecified complaints Twitter received.
	Amazing.
	So you have literally a tenured professor at Stanford who is an epidemiologist, so expert in the subject, and the ghouls at Twitter, the ringwraiths at Twitter are like, no, you need to be shadow banned.
	Unspecified complaints, though.
	I don't think...
	They're unspecified to us.
	I think we're going to find out, via the portals that The Intercept showed, and the meetings with the intelligence agencies, that the orders came directly from Morgoth itself.
	Yes.
	So, people are like, oh, you're just going after Fauci because of politics, or you disagree with him, meh, meh, meh, meh.
	And, of course, you get people like Viva Fraga going, no.
	It's obvious that it's Fauci lying under oath and funding gain-of-function research, jeopardizing the entire planet, and possibly contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people that has made Fauci something of a villain here, something of a worm tongue in this regard, for whatever reason.
	I mean, I would personally suggest that it's Fauci's massive ego that has led him to think, oh, if I can capture the spotlight, then I become important, because who cares what Fauci thinks otherwise?
	Did you just see the New York Times released an article by him saying, here is my advice to the next generation of healthcare experts.
	So he's already putting his puppets into place.
	Yeah, no, I haven't.
	I just recall Fauci's picture of Fauci sitting in his office with a giant poster or painting of Fauci on the wall.
	There was a candle of him being depicted as Jesus on the shelf behind him.
	I'm just saying, I think it's the man's ego that's gotten out of control.
	But anyway, so a former astronaut replies to Elon Musk, Elon, could you be more progressive, please?
	Elon, please don't mock and promote hate towards originally marginalized and at risk of violence of the members of the LGBT plus community.
	They are real people with real feelings.
	Furthermore, Dr.
	Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives, says one man who's firmly trapped within the narrative of the current thing.
	And Elon's replies to this was just brilliant.
	Not awesome, in my opinion.
	That is just perfect.
	That is such a great and concise rebuttal to everything.
	No, the pronoun brigade are actually tyrants, and they're acting in a tyrannical way.
	Also, Fauci seems to be an evil manipulator who is a liar.
	Also, considering who this is responding to, Scott Kelly is the brother of Mark Kelly.
	Mark Kelly is also a former astronaut.
	Currently the senator for Arizona, Democrat senator, who, if you watch Razor Fist's videos on the Arizona elections, they have, of course, been the most safe and secure in history, mainly starting with Mark Kelly.
	So Mark Kelly is a real protector of democracy.
	That's very interesting, and I did not know that.
	But I'll finish this bit on just this one tweet that Eon put up just before we went live, actually.
	He tweeted out, the woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters.
	So he has explicitly come around to my position on social justice.
	I mean, that is just...
	What more do you need?
	Okay.
	That's a hell of a...
	I'll pay my $8.
	Yeah, exactly.
	When he allows us who don't use Apple products to pay $8, I will pay my $8.
	You have my allegiance, Elon.
	You've done very well.
	I'm very impressed.
	Lead the way.
	Okay.
	I'm white-pilled.
	Fine.
	I know.
	I'll accept it.
	I'll accept it.
	Some good news on a Monday morning or Monday afternoon.
	Okay.
	On to a more tepid pill, shall we?
	Yeah.
	But it's...
	Oh, man.
	I don't want to presage this, but, like, just say, you know, we really like Jordan Peterson.
	We really like everything he's done, everything he stands for.
	And I genuinely worry that he's trapped in a sort of filter bubble that is doing damage to his perception of the world.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So, Dr.
	Jordan B. Peterson often talks about how men have approached him everywhere he goes to tell him how much of a positive influence his message, his work, his preaching of personal responsibility and existentialism and the pursuit of meaning has had on their lives.
	And I would sincerely like to say that I am one of those men.
	I... At 15, 16, I struggled pretty badly with depression, I didn't eat properly, I was referred to counselling, I was politically uninformed, pretty nihilistic, and had a series of difficult relationships.
	And I would say, Jordan, yourself, Carl, and my own dad were probably three of the most prominent men in my life, weirdly enough, that have made me who I am today.
	So, cheers to my dad, cheers to you, and thanks, Jordan Peterson.
	However, recently, I will say that Jordan's tone, the scope of his content, and some of his most recent frustrations with the sorry state in the modern world have, it felt like it's made him stray from his message.
	and we say this sincerely both from the fact that he congratulated you coming back on Twitter to the fact that I'm a great admirer of his we say this with all the love and best intentions in the world I think what I'd like to do today is point out a few areas where Prest Peterson has misstepped and hopefully if his audience see this and pull them up on it or even if Jordan, if you're watching, thank you for all you've done.
	If you do see this, please understand that these are meant to be constructive critiques.
	I did want to start off first, specifically with a piece you did a couple of months ago now, after he released his Conservative Manifesto, and I felt very much the same as you.
	This is available for everyone to watch on our website and our second channel as well.
	You specifically picked apart the philosophical missteps of it, because I think you can obviously explain it a little better than me, but it did seem like materialist libertarianism, which wasn't as metaphysical as his usual stuff was as well.
	Yeah, and the thing I have at the moment, I can understand...
	Peterson is so angry about the way he's been treated.
	Yeah.
	Because he's obviously a very empathetic man and he has been abused, frankly.
	I see what has happened to him as abuse.
	And, okay, well, you know, that happens to all of us, really, because we oppose left-wing politics.
	And so, obviously, what they do is just abuse and abuse you as much as they can.
	That's fine for someone like me, who isn't nearly as sensitive as Dr.
	Peterson.
	But I think that maybe he needs to take a step back and be like, oh, hang on a second, you know, I've got some healing to do, or something like that, because it seems to me that he's created a very hard shell around himself, which is an understandable reaction to the way he's been treated, but not necessarily something that he wants to have permanently on.
	I think to precede the conclusion of why I'm doing this is there is definitely time for war and for conflict.
	There are, unfortunately, enemies all around us who have taken his kindness for weakness and have denigrated all of his noble efforts to help men like me, like some for audience.
	But I think, in many respects, Jordan doesn't have to be everyone all at once.
	He doesn't have to be the kindly paternal father who speaks meaningful things to individuals and also tackle every grand-scale political issue with the fire and fury of an impassioned preacher.
	And for me, I agreed with your points about the at-odds philosophy in this that wasn't what you normally would, but mainly just as a former English literature student and knowing about language and that, I felt like his tenant, which I really resonated with when I was younger, I felt like his tenant, which I really resonated with when I was younger, before I got into media and things, be was lost here, actually.
	And I felt like he was partially because he was reading off the teleprompter, but also because his intonations were a lot more forceful and angry.
	And he had quite a few unnecessary adverbs in there as well.
	Yeah.
	And it was almost, I don't like a lot of what Stephen King does, but one of Stephen King's writing tenets was always, if you want language that has meaning, one, don't lead your audience by the hand and tell them how to feel with what they're reading with loads of adverbs, because they're often redundant.
	And two, with your sort of treats and thick concepts...
	Within the language itself, if you want to be precise, it should contain what you're trying to connote anyway.
	You shouldn't need so many superfluous adverbs.
	So it felt like it needed a couple more drafts, and it felt like maybe a couple of years ago, he wouldn't have spoken that poorly off the cuff, and also he wouldn't have released something like this that was only halfway done before.
	He wouldn't have rushed it out the door.
	He would have gone through a couple more drafts.
	So it didn't feel as polished as a lot of his other work has done before, which has really struck a chord with people.
	So I think patience and paternalism does a lot more than...
	What I'm sure Jordan is trying to connote as passion, he's trying to convey some sort of frustration with the leftists who are attacking us, but sometimes it just comes across as misplaced, because he's still talking to us, and it just feels a bit angry.
	Yeah, I thought the tone was wrong, because if he was berating some leftist about how Marxism is nonsense, then fair enough, okay, I can understand a harsh tone.
	But that wasn't what this was for, so I was bemused by the tone.
	I expected him to come across as, like you say, more paternalistic and more fatherly in presenting this, and he really didn't.
	Anyway, I'll let you carry on.
	No, no, please.
	So one of the main things where he seems to be going off as well is his recent frustration with anonymous accounts on Twitter.
	Yeah.
	And this again seems to be a bit of a misstep where he is acting off an empathetic gut reaction to the way that this new development in technology can be used by people who are disingenuous, who are narcissistic, who have dark designs.
	But much like his critiques of the original C-16 bill, which launched him into academic and global social media stardom, He's saying that back then, okay, they were doing something censorious under the guise of compassion, and that could be used to...
	Much like this, where you're trying to revoke this to stop the worst excesses of humanity exploiting anonymous accounts, you will end up having unintended consequences, and it is worth exploring that.
	So, this all started because he said, by failing to separate the anonymous cowardly troll demons from real people in the comments section, YouTube and other social media platforms are enabling sadistic Machiavellian psychopaths and narcissists.
	And he put up a poll.
	And Jordan lost the poll.
	And I say lost because he has demonstrated since his commitment to saying that we should have segregated social medias for those who want to verify their identity and those who don't.
	I have no...
	Objection, conceptually, to that as a platform, but when you start enforcing that across all the platforms, then you create a digital identity infrastructure which, if co-opted by the elite, will create the exact kind of ESG score social credit system that Jordan is also arguing against.
	Just as a quick thought of my own, I've got no interest in anonymity online.
	I'm not anonymous.
	Everyone knows who I am.
	So I'm not invested in protecting anonymity.
	But I think that what's happening is that because he's interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu and he's part of Daily Wire, there are anti-Semitic trolls online who come out and say these things.
	And I think that's what he's responding to.
	But the thing is, I think calling them sadistic Machiavellian psychopaths and narcissists is giving them too much credit, frankly.
	I think they're desperate people who don't have any leverage or power in the real world.
	And so enabling narcissists usually requires they are able to take credit for their actions and to get public kudos from it, which obviously they can't.
	And psychopaths, well, maybe.
	But I feel like it's actually desperate people speaking from a position of profound weakness.
	Even if I don't agree with their perspective...
	I think ruining their lives for holding a wrong opinion.
	I'm actually on the Mark Zuckerberg trade when it comes to this.
	Mark Zuckerberg, before he was forced to remove Holocaust denial from Facebook, I don't agree with it.
	But I don't think that they are lying.
	I think they have just a true conviction that is wrong.
	And so I don't want to persecute them for it.
	And I actually agree with that.
	I think they hold a true conviction that is wrong.
	And I don't think they're nearly as important as Dr.
	Peterson is making out.
	No, and nothing in recent weeks has made the alt-right, I suppose, look more ridiculous than some of the stupid stuff that Kanye has said.
	And Kanye, despite wearing a Balenciaga mask, is hardly anonymous.
	And also, if he's talking about narcissists, I don't really think you can call anonymous accounts narcissistic when...
	Lots of people, specifically on Instagram, are not anonymous, and that is the main vector of transmission for narcissism that is damaging young women today.
	And unfortunately, as we'll go on to later, and I'm glad you brought up the point about antisemitism possibly being a driving motivator for this, Jordan's noble crusade to reduce antisemitism by bringing the Muslim and Jewish religions together, despite generations of conflict...
	It's like centuries of conflict.
	Exactly.
	Is leaving him open to manipulation by Machiavellians who are not anonymous and don't hide their intentions, but they do off the platforms outside their engagement with Jordan.
	And so Jordan may need to be careful that his compassion is not again being exploited as a form of weakness.
	So if we can just go on and go through the next couple of tweets, please.
	So Jordan then starts replying to some of the anonymous accounts.
	I think this is the first misstep, because if he truly does believe that these people aren't worth engaging with, why give them oxygen because you're only going to frustrate yourself?
	I believe he has said before that Twitter has been addictive, and...
	He did speak to, I think it was Rex Chapman before, and he said, imagine waking up to a mob of angry neighbours outside your house.
	That's how it feels like being on Twitter.
	And he did break down in tears from that.
	And this isn't to make memes and mock Jordan for crying.
	You can see that the man is sincerely affected by all the evil in the world, and...
	I admire him for his ability to feel compassion, but if it does affect you in this way, Jordan, maybe limit your own usage, because these people, some of them really do hate you.
	Some of them are engaging on good faith.
	For example, he's saying, think for a second, why would we mix the trolls in with the real people?
	Think about what that enables.
	I didn't say they should be banned, I said they should be separated from verified people.
	But that does create a class of distinguished speakers, the same problem with the check marks all over again.
	But the problem with the formulation here is trolls are real people.
	Yes.
	You just don't know which real people that they are.
	Yes.
	If we can go to the next one, please.
	He then has a very good faith engagement with Eliza Blue.
	He later then told her to try out the self-authoring suite because she couldn't meet a fella because of her background.
	She made a good joke about it, saying, oh, the good doctor's shaming me for my love life.
	So there is still some wholesome interactions on Twitter, Jordan.
	And she said...
	Dear Jordan Peterson, political distance, survivors, activists, journalists, and whistleblowers globally deserve an opportunity to remain anonymous online and be heard.
	History has shown us why this is important.
	This is a perfect example.
	Especially if Jordan keeps talking to members of the Muslim world to try to moderate, then who would possibly be using anonymous Twitter accounts and VPNs to circumvent the bans that those countries have?
	It also happens in the West.
	There are political opinions you can voice that will get you arrested in the West.
	Including in Canada.
	Yeah, including in Canada.
	So I'm not surprised that people do want to commit to the existence of anonymity.
	Not at all surprised.
	And Eliza's heart is in the right place.
	Unfortunately, Jordan takes a less compassionate interpretation.
	He just says she's missing the point.
	And this doesn't feel like something Jordan would have said in a Q&A from a frustrated student quite a while ago.
	He would have heard them out.
	He would have been a bit more Socratic about it, rather than just tell her and lots of the other critics, no, they're wrong, you don't get what I'm saying.
	I think it's more so that, sure, I agree, these mechanisms can be exploited by people with dark tribe personality traits.
	Josh and I have done plenty of coverage of that on the website, for example.
	With my strange fascination with serial killers.
	But I think that if everyone is telling you you're making the point either inarticulately or you may have overlooked a factor, it may not be that everyone is wrong, Jordan.
	That sounds condescending, but sincerely, it may be that you're not putting the point across you've missed something.
	But also, okay, so let's assume that a bunch of anti-Semites online are anonymously in your comments and they are exhibiting the dark triad personality types saying, well, they pose an extreme threat to social integrity.
	It's like, well, I mean, we seem to have a problem with social integrity anyway.
	It seems that there isn't much of it.
	You know, closing the stable door after the horse is bolted.
	But I think Jordan, with his prior tact, before his illness and before the pandemic and essentially coming out of a coma to realise the world's gone mad, so I don't blame him for being quite angry, he was an architect of the reformation of some social cohesion and I think changing your tact back to that would do us all a great favour.
	So we can go to the next one.
	Again, I just want to say to him, just stop replying to these sort of anonymous accounts, because one account says, anonymity lets ideas stand on their own, not to be cloaked by deference to authority.
	And Jordan just says, cliche.
	Sure.
	He's not wrong, though.
	I mean, you can extricate ideas from the people posing them.
	I think it's a profoundly postmodern position to only say that the idea is...
	Unable to be removed from the person arguing it because it is always only being argued not from point of principle but to service their own pre-existing power ambitions.
	And Jordan would have criticised that position from before.
	I don't disagree with that.
	We're going to have to debate this at some point because ideas are very clearly a product of a time and a place.
	I would agree that many ideas are posited to service people's own ambitions but some ideas are not purely to supplant yourself in power.
	And That point is made here, but rather than engaging with the point, he engages with an anonymous account, which he says you shouldn't do, and then just dismisses it out of hand as a cliché.
	And this isn't, again, something Jordan would have done quite a while ago, I don't think.
	I think he would have added to the constructive dialogue.
	You can see this isn't exactly resonating with people either.
	343 likes.
	He is getting ratioed.
	Yes.
	And that's not necessarily an indicator of the highest academic bar of discourse.
	No.
	But it is showing that his own audience aren't big fans.
	Just go to the next one, please.
	He's then someone saying, this is getting old and tedious.
	I'm sorry, you're a boomer, but these takes against anonymity are completely off the mark.
	And that is a little bit rude, just saying, sorry, you're a boomer.
	But then Jordan's saying, saying the anonymous coward ignoring the research.
	Again, don't engage with the anonymous accounts.
	If we can go on.
	But also, like, okay, yeah, don't engage with the anonymous accounts, but also, again, you don't know about the political situation that person's in.
	They're like, well, okay, my boss will fire me if I say something conservative on the internet, which lots of people have found themselves in this position.
	Well, like Eliza Blue pointed out, there are political reasons for anonymity.
	Yeah, and the environment may not be there yet, but Jordan was playing a very crucial part before his absence in getting us there, and I think he could go back to that.
	Then he's releasing more threads on why these are counterproductive.
	He's saying they shouldn't be banned, but they should be segregated.
	Can we go to the next one, please?
	And then, I actually am not sure what he's saying here.
	So, I think he's making a point about schadenfreude, but this is where I'm saying, like, he's clearly got something he's thinking through, but it's just not translating properly.
	He's saying, make sense of the phrase, lulz, all you advocating single-mindedly, and he's misspelled mindedly as well, so you can tell he's typing this out quite frustrated, the virtues of anonymity, keeping in mind the fact that outright sadism is now included in the dark constellation of personality traits associated with trolling.
	So he's saying lols is a form of schadenfreude or laughing at someone else's expense, but he has spoken repeatedly before about how the jester is an archetype adjacent to the hero.
	So we should be able to mock those in power and that comedians are canaries in the coal mines.
	Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it?
	He could take a different frame on this and say, well, this is the archetype of the jester speaking truth to power.
	Yeah, and this is exactly what the regime most fear, hence why they're trying to censor you and comedians, Jordan.
	So you should actually allow for these anonymous accounts to at least punish your enemies and make them look ridiculous with memes.
	And again, you are a verified account.
	You can only interact with verified accounts.
	And it's probably wise if you did.
	Yes.
	So you do have the tools to segregate yourself and extricate yourself from the anonymous accounts if they're frustrating you that much.
	But it's not like they aren't without utility politically and also just for the expression of suppressed freedoms.
	There is something undignified about abrading the peanut gallery for being insufficiently virtuous.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Because you don't actually...
	Again, you don't even know who you're speaking to.
	When he's addressing a room full of men who have showed up self-selectively to hear him speak, there's something really noble to that.
	And he always says, oh, they came dressed in their Sunday best.
	They were really engaged.
	Yeah.
	Now you are just talking to people on the internet whose intentions, they're nebulous and you don't actually know at what stage in the journey they are of bringing yourself on board.
	That's why it seems like you're overcorrecting by being too angry to try and drag them along with you rather than having a compassionate hand extended out and they take it.
	And the way that I look at things like Twitter is it's essentially a coliseum and the unverified and anonymous accounts are just the crowd throwing bits of food and stuff like that.
	Don't take them seriously.
	If we can go to the next one, please.
	So this is the sort of frustrating part of where he seems to be going down a bit of a trust the experts line here.
	Right, right.
	And someone's pointed out as saying that sadism is a bit of a hyperbolic term.
	Trolling has a range of intents.
	It can be, and usually is, an often clever ribbing or teasing similar to the way healthy males interact.
	And he's saying, wrong.
	The emerging psychological literature indicates that clinical sadism itself is a significant contributing factor and the effects are not small.
	Given that psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism also contribute, this problem should not be hand-waved away.
	And he's saying, because the literature has determined That this may be an exploitable tool by the darkest possible people.
	We have to revoke this as a potential.
	It seems very managerial to me, very unlike the take-personal-responsibility approach his messaging was had.
	Also, it's given way too much credit.
	I just don't think they're that clever and that well-thought-out, frankly.
	Yes.
	So I actually agree with one of Jordan's other posts, which was very recent as well.
	Is it time to ubiquitously start spray-painting the lenses of our CCTV cameras?
	Because this was after a story where the Canadian government has been hiring the facial recognition cameras from the Chinese government.
	If you're happy to stop public surveillance, Jordan...
	Public anonymity, as it were.
	Exactly.
	Online digital surveillance, which will be co-opted by the regime, is not the best idea either.
	Now, just before we finish up, I'd like to say...
	Beware what the compassion of your crusade may be being exploited by cynical actors for.
	Because if we go to this, as we've already alluded to, Jordan is trying to cross the aisle and speak to both Muslims and Jews, especially ever since starting working at the Daily Wire with Ben and speaking to Netanyahu.
	He's been speaking to Muhammad Hijab on more than one occasion.
	Of all the people on earth, why him?
	I don't think Jordan knows who Muhammad Hijab is.
	Right.
	He seems to be thinking of himself as a prominent representative of the Muslim community in Britain.
	And during this interview, Muhammad Hijab comes across very reserved, very subdued, and very reasonable.
	Same with his interaction with Jonathan Paget and Jordan.
	This is the dark triad of traits that we were speaking about, Jordan.
	Yes, chameleonism, Machiavellianism.
	And if you would like, Jordan, to look at what Muhammad Hijab was doing around the time that you release this interview, we have some clips here, because...
	I'm going to use something you said today.
	Know them by the friends they keep regarding the Palestinian and Iranian anti-Jewish coalition.
	If we go over to what Mohammed Hajar was doing in Leicester around the riots between the Hindus and the Muslims over here, he was gathering Muslims together in masks to, and the quote was, to tell all the so-called Hindufar gangsters don't ever come out like that again.
	And if you aren't aware, there was a cricket match and pre-existing ethnic tensions were inflamed and it led to nights of fiery violent riots between Muslim men and Hindus in the city of Leicester, which I believe is the UK's largest minority share.
	Yeah, it is.
	33% English.
	Yes, diversity is not doing its wonders here for community cohesion, and it seems that this is an insurmountable divide that even you, Jordan, with your best of intent, can't quite overcome yet.
	And if you don't quite believe me that these are the words from Mohammed Hijab's mouth, specifically regarding the Jews, Jordan, which you've also been speaking to and trying to create peace with, I'm going to play this clip, which is quite inflammatory.
	Let's listen.
	The boys had to be rescued by the police as bottles and eggs rained down on them.
	Mohammed Hijab then threatened a police officer that he'd kill the boy's dog if he saw it again.
	However, when those Zionists came in with their dogs, that was an act of provocation.
	So what we're saying now, and I'm making it very clear so everyone understands, if those dogs come close to us again, we will see it as an act of aggression, and we will kill those dogs, we will put them down.
	Hijab and Dawa then led the crowd to Speaker's Corner, and as the mob marched through London's streets, screaming, we'll find some Jews, we want their blood, the police did nothing.
	Let that sink in.
	They're calling for our literal blood and the police are just strolling alongside them.
	We'll find some Jews there!
	We're on the Zionists, not on the blood!
	This is the next anti-Jewish edition.
	A couple of hours later, we were violently assaulted leaving a kosher restaurant in an anti-Semitic attack.
	I hate to say this, but I'm not sure there's a future for Jews in this country.
	We're being attacked on the streets by extremists, and the police do nothing.
	The difference between us and them is that for them, they think life begins.
	For us, we believe that death begins.
	We believe that life begins at death.
	We don't care about death.
	We love death.
	And if you think that our people in Palestine or across the Arab and Muslim world will let go of this struggle and our sacred places like Al-Aqsa, you are grossly mistaken.
	You'll never ever, and I say this to Netanyahu, I say this to all of the powers, we will never allow you to put your gross hands on Masjid Al-Aqsa.
	It will never happen.
	We love death.
	Yeah.
	Netanyahu's gross hands, said by the man who Jordan interviewed in good faith, believing he was an accurate representative of British Muslims, shortly before he then...
	God, I hope he's not.
	No, neither do I. Shortly before, if we go over please, John, Jordan then obviously interviewed Netanyahu recently, and so I think, unfortunately, Jordan's Best intentions are being exploited by the most cynical possible people.
	I just want to be clear.
	I think Netanyahu's a cynical person as well, because I watched the first 20-30 minutes of this, and Netanyahu totally lied about the history of the region, actually.
	I could go into...
	He says it's the Arabs that first began...
	Chucking the Jews out of Palestine.
	That's not true.
	That's absolutely not true.
	His role also in the on-starting of the Iraq War was not particularly noble either.
	And he has been accused of corruption in the past.
	And so, unfortunately, again, Jordan's best of intentions...
	Being taken advantage of by bad people on both sides.
	By people who are not anonymous, but still just as Machiavellian and power-hungry.
	And that's why I'm...
	Definitely sadistic.
	Yeah, I'm saying...
	Essentially, we'll finish with the next clip, just so Jordan, I advise you to take some of your own advice, which I really took to heart a couple of years ago, but maybe rein in the anger, rein in the frustration.
	I know it's difficult.
	Even this job's blackpilling sometimes, you know?
	We read so much bad news all day.
	But I know I and many other young men would find that a lot more helpful if you didn't try and tackle all the world's political issues at once and instead focus back on your message of personal responsibility and being strong family men.
	So if we can just play this last clip, please.
	So what is your advice to young people when you talk about you need to be individually responsible, but when there are things that are so far out of our control, like climate catastrophe, like the precarious job economy, like the climate crisis, what is your answer to people who are facing these questions?
	Do you think that you're worse off than your grandparents?
	I think there are different challenges.
	Do you think you're worse off than your grandparents?
	Jordan, once again, we're not going to cross-examine our questions.
	So try answering the question about collective responsibility on climate change, for example.
	Pick one part of that.
	Because the argument, I think, is that individual responsibility does not change the climate, does not fix the problem that needs global collective responsibility.
	So I think that's the core of the question.
	Do you have a theory about that?
	Well, fundamentally, I'm a psychologist and my experience has been that people can do a tremendous amount of good for themselves and for the people who are immediately around them by looking to their own inadequacies and their own flaws and the things that they're not doing in their lives and starting to build themselves up as more powerful individuals.
	And if they're capable of doing that, then they're capable of expanding their career.
	And if they're capable of expanding their career and their competence, then they're capable of taking their place in the community as effective leaders.
	And then they're capable of making wise decisions instead of unwise decisions when it comes to making collective political decisions.
	I'm not suggesting in the least, and I've never suggested, that there's no domain for social action.
	I'm suggesting that people who don't have their own houses in order should be very careful before they go about reorganizing the world, which happens in many ways...
	What's she shaking her head for?
	Because she is an imperialist ideologue who just wants the airtime.
	And unfortunately, more and more people may be trying to use Jordan's platform for that.
	So I would urge just one final word from a man who's always found your books, your lectures, everything very encouraging, Dr.
	Peterson, that perhaps you may be exceeding The domain which you are most effective, venturing outside your bedroom and trying to reorder too much of the world at once, we would find it most helpful if you went from being a very frustrated man at the moment, back to being, well...
	The wise man.
	Yeah.
	The loving father figure that we would appreciate.
	So, if you did watch this, thanks for sticking through it, and God bless.
	Right, let's crack on with something a bit more fun.
	Michael Knowles recently debated a leftist who's pro-abortion, so I'm going to call her an abortionist.
	Someone in favor of abortion.
	And man, I like Michael Knowles and I always love it when he gets to talk to a leftist.
	There's something about his demeanor and the way he speaks to them.
	He's very charitable and he's very polite, but there's something about the tone that underlies it that's just perfect.
	Can I say thank you to Michael Knowles as well?
	Because as soon as you came back on Twitter, he did acknowledge you'd returned.
	And you said, oh, I'm not quite a Catholic yet.
	And I said, yet?
	My subversion attempts are working.
	And Michael did like it, so we're working on magic.
	He thinks I'll become a Catholic one day, yeah?
	Well, he doesn't realize that I'm English, so I'll never become a Catholic.
	Anyway, so Michael Nails had a debate with a lady, a medical student, she's doing a PhD, I believe, called Bronte Remsik.
	And in this, I feel that a lot of the points that I was making in the Thick Concepts podcast were totally validated.
	And I think this really brings out and highlights basically everything I was saying, is that some concepts have moral judgments and moral weight attached to them, and one of the things that leftists try to do is strip away these moral judgments by adopting thin concepts, such as In fact, the example is Michael uses the term mother for a pregnant person, and she uses birthing person or pregnant person.
	You can see instantly the mother has deep attachment to it.
	Pregnant person, well, doesn't really mean anything.
	It's just very narrow, very thin concept.
	This was the crux of his book Speechless as well, which Harry and I reviewed.
	Yep.
	And I have noticed one of the first forefronts of this linguistic ablution was feminists subjecting to the word spinster, probably because they resembled the remark too much.
	Oh, yeah.
	But the judgment that you are an unmarried woman late in life is inextricable from the word itself, because you can't have a married spinster, or in many respects, a happy spinster.
	So you had to get rid of those judgments.
	Instead, you were a strong, independent woman.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, let's begin with a few clips.
	We've got a lot of clips to go through, but I think it'll be worth it.
	So let's begin with clip one.
	What Bronte stands for.
	We are not sitting here having a discussion about our personal disagreements.
	I am here to educate you and your viewers on the guidelines of proper medical practice that have been established by our country's leading medical experts, and they have stated publicly and unequivocally that abortion access is essential to comprehensive, evidence-based health care.
	Right.
	Evidence-based, so the science.
	There is nobody in Alaska which can convince me that killing a baby is a good thing.
	We're going to try not to get too preachy during this segment, but you can see where she stands.
	Her philosophical perspective is purely utilitarian, as we can see in clip two.
	A pregnant person gets to consent to continue with their pregnancy and must consent to the use of their body because they are the one that understands their body and their life and their finances and everything that makes up the complexities of human life.
	They're the only ones who are able to decide and understand what is best for them with the guidance of, you know, proper modern medical practices.
	Clean needle programs, they reduce disease transmission.
	And so even though someone is going to choose to do drugs, it is the responsibility of medical experts and health care providers to ensure that we cannot We cannot change someone's choices and behavioral patterns, but we can ensure that we provide them resources and able to ensure that their decisions and the impact of their decisions is minimized in whatever way that we can.
	Right.
	So I spliced two clips together there just to make the point.
	So her...
	As you can see from the second clip where she's talking about California handing out clean needles to drug addicts, it's purely utilitarian, completely consequentialist.
	There's no normative moral judgments here.
	It's all just, well, who can say?
	And then the first half was her talking about who knows best.
	And that's a very interesting and complex philosophical discussion because she takes the utilitarian position as...
	The person themselves knows their interests best.
	This is literally Bentham's dictum.
	You know, you are the person who knows what's best for you.
	It's like, no.
	That's a very, very disagreeable philosophical statement.
	There are many, many, many other different philosophical views that take complete exception to that.
	And in fact, Bentham is kind of unique in thinking this.
	This is unique to utilitarianism, that actually what my interest is, is purely how I feel about something.
	No, this has been a long-running discussion since Aristotle up until this present day.
	Are there true or objective interests that a person has?
	And we covered this in the concept of representation that I did with Beau, actually, because the concept comes up.
	It's like, well, is a representative's job to just do what the represented want, or is it their job to serve what he considers to be their objective interests?
	Because, of course, if your constituency is one of majority heroin addicts, like any San Francisco politician, joking, They're going to be like, well, give us as much heroin as you can.
	And it might be your job as a representative to say, no, that's actually not good for you.
	No, it's not compassionate to allow you to indulge in something which is killing you.
	Exactly.
	And so all the way back to Aristotle, we have the concept of true interests, as in what makes you a good and healthy, flourishing human being.
	And Bronte here doesn't accept that.
	Well, I was going to say as well, it's interesting you splice those two together specifically because, and she later calls herself a leftist, so we can assume that she buys into the conceptualisation of capitalism as coercing people to work when they need not otherwise work.
	In order to earn a living.
	Things like that.
	So, let me just understand one thing, right?
	It is a coercive false consciousness to force someone to work to earn a living.
	However, it is not a false consciousness to be under the thrall of a drug addiction, and therefore you can consent to using drugs as much as possible, and your consent is not inhibited in any way by your dependency on that drug.
	To suggest that there is no kind of coercion when it comes to heroin addiction, I think is absurd.
	Yeah, and that's why, in many respects, consent is not a reliable foundation for moral legitimacy.
	Yes.
	I mean, yeah, no, that's, in fact, leads us nicely to part three, where we talk about bodily autonomy and consent.
	Clearly, I am restricting your bodily autonomy here, and that has been done throughout civilization, that remains on the books in the United States.
	So are you saying that drug laws are basically some sort of travesty?
	No, of course not, because it's a matter of public health.
	Now when we talk about pregnancy and abortion, Essentially, what causes pregnancy is sex, correct?
	And we cannot outlaw sex.
	You say that we can't make sex illegal.
	I don't think anybody wants to make sex illegal.
	But historically, all sorts of sex has been illegal, and all sorts of sex remains illegal today.
	Well, when you talk about things like, you know, having sex with children or animals being illegal, that's because they can't properly consent to have sex.
	That is not the only reason.
	No.
	That's one reason, but it's not the only reason.
	Again, as you can see, consent is literally the only metric that she can use.
	Yes.
	Which is not good, because, of course, like someone who believes in some sort of metaphysic, kind of true objective, what C.S. Lewis might call the Tao, look out for our book club, On the abolition of Mansoon, he would say that it is wrong in principle, even if you could show that an animal could consent or something like that.
	It would still be wrong.
	As Cenk Uygur once tried to argue, and despite this, Anna Kasparian had the very conservative disgust sensitivity reflex of...
	No, stop trying to justify a horse's ability to consent.
	Exactly.
	And so you can see Anna situating herself within the tower of, no, there is actually an objective right and wrong here that is more than merely the ability's consent.
	Because, of course, it is impure and degenerate, and it is just gross.
	You know, there's nothing wrong with saying that.
	But to her, if you could show that the horse consented, well, then she can't really buy her own very thin utilitarian morality that There's also the thing of it's wrong for children to engage in sexual activity with adults because they cannot consent.
	Absolutely true.
	One, if you try to wiggle the boundaries of what constitutes a child or what constitutes maturity, as many on the left have tried to do, then you erode that standard of consent.
	And also, given the abortion issue, okay, children can also not express consent while they're in the womb to whether or not they'd like to be killed.
	So perhaps we should err on the side of caution until they can express that desire?
	You would think there would be a strong argument from it is intrinsically wrong, even though questions of consent may arise.
	And consent, like you say, it's not the only exact standard, because as we've pointed out with the drug addict point, well, they will consent all day, every day, to the drugs, but that doesn't make it good or right, or that it reflects a kind of moral truth, which it obviously doesn't.
	No.
	So anyway, let's move on to language.
	This is what I find particularly interesting, how language is a form of emotional communication, which is true.
	And so it really makes you wonder why there are people on the other side of this argument.
	I mean, why wouldn't we want to communicate our emotional states and the moral feelings that we have?
	Why would we want to thin that out?
	And so language becomes a kind of inhuman tool.
	Because, of course, language created by humans, for humans, for the purpose of expressing human worldviews, well, there's nothing wrong with us using judgmental, morally loaded language.
	What's the purpose of removing the metaphysics attached to language and instead thinning it out to be merely a description?
	It's the primer to make you nihilistic enough to displace your values with theirs.
	That's kind of the instrumentalization of it, but that's not necessarily the intent behind it, right?
	So the intent will...
	Well, let's watch this first.
	But doesn't the question hinge on...
	Which language should we use?
	So one is dehumanizing, one is anthropomorphizing, in other words, humanizing.
	So then isn't the question that we have to answer, is this thing that we're talking about a human or not?
	And if it is a human, then we should only use the anthropomorphizing language.
	And if it is not a human, then we should only call them a clump of cells.
	The embryo is human.
	That's not within question.
	It is a human embryo.
	So then why wouldn't you use anthropomorphizing language?
	Why wouldn't you refer to it in human language?
	Because language is often emotional, and pregnancy is an emotional state for someone to be in, and as a medical professional, you have to be conscious of the way that your words affect the patient.
	And so you would lie to the patient?
	It's not lying.
	Well, you said it is lying.
	It depends on the mentality of the pregnant person and how they feel towards that pregnancy, because as a medical professional, Isn't that fascinating?
	It is a mask-off moment to say that, and I do not agree with her, of course, that abortion is a purely medical procedure, but...
	In order for my patient to have this medical procedure, they need to divorce themselves from the maternal affective attachment they have towards the baby, which would otherwise be marketed to them as an inconvenience.
	So she is implicitly admitting there, we need to revoke women's ability to give informed consent to this procedure, otherwise it won't really happen in the numbers that we would desire.
	But it's also quite terrible, isn't it?
	It's like, okay, well, we have a concept...
	It's a very thick concept.
	There's a lot attached to a baby.
	You know you've got a lot of prescriptions on you.
	If you were walking down the street and you just saw a baby in a basket, you know you have to stop and do something about that.
	You can't just be like, well, that's not my baby, I don't care.
	No, there are loads of human attachments to the term baby and to you and to their mother and to their father.
	There's just so much.
	It's probably the thickest concept that we have.
	Because there's so much that's important about the baby.
	And she's just like, well, if we're going to be asking the mother if we're going to kill the baby, then it's actually an easier sell.
	It helps the mother make a more morally neutral decision.
	If we remove...
	The concept, and we call it a fetus instead, because, of course, the emotional attachments to the word fetus just don't exist.
	Yeah, there's no innocence and vulnerability implied.
	Exactly.
	There's no human character to it.
	It's a scientific word in a foreign language.
	Even though Michael points out that fetus means baby in Latin.
	Yeah, but it is a foreign language.
	And I like the way he's like, no, I'm using just plain, accurate Saxon words.
	It's just, no, it's a baby.
	What now?
	Because that contains the layers that she is specifically trying to shear off And say, well, look, you know, this is an option to it.
	It's like, yeah, it might be an option, but should you take it?
	And of course, if you conceive of it like Michael Knowles conceived of it, of course not.
	You know, as a human being, you've got an obligation to protect babies.
	And she's like, yeah, but I'm trying to protect the mother as if the mother is the moral equivalent of a baby, as if the mother is...
	It's innocent and has made no wrong decisions and doesn't bear moral responsibility.
	A baby doesn't bear moral responsibility.
	It can't possibly.
	But the mother, an adult woman, of course does.
	And for some reason, she wants to equalize these two things, which I just find remarkable.
	Centering the mother above all, is that okay?
	But why?
	Because they do view it as a zero-sum game of trade-offs, very much like economics is.
	So you do have to take from one in order to ensure the other has their maximized ability to express their liberty.
	Well, she absolutely has to.
	You know, the mother's going to have to kill the baby.
	Someone's losing out here.
	You know?
	So let's play this next clip.
	The word fetus allows this pregnant mother in distress to abstract away the humanity of her child and makes it easier for that woman to justify having an abortion.
	Whereas if she were to call it a baby, it would be much, much harder for her to justify killing the baby in the womb through abortion.
	I think you would acknowledge that.
	Yeah, I can acknowledge that calling it a baby minimizes the options that the pregnant person feels like they have, and it can put unwanted pressure onto them.
	And if they are not in a financial, mental, or physical state to carry through with that pregnancy appropriately, calling it a baby makes them feel as if they have less options than they truly do and should have.
	Calling it sacrificial chattel makes it much easier than calling it a child to tear out its heart to ensure that Quetzalcoatl doesn't send the storm to destroy our village.
	If we call Jews people, it makes them harder to put them in the death camps.
	Yeah, that is just awful!
	Like, Knowles does a great job in this whole thing, just clearly laying out the points.
	And she's just like, yeah!
	It's like, no, that's evil!
	You're literally dehumanising a baby in order to be able to kill it!
	I guarantee, we haven't been through her Twitter or anything, I guarantee she has some posts about Donald Trump's dehumanising language of people at the border leading to Maybe.
	I don't know whether she uses Twitter or not.
	I couldn't actually find her, so I assume she doesn't.
	But that is just remarkable.
	The mask off, just like, yeah, if we use humanizing language on a human, then people treat them with moral consideration.
	But if we dehumanize the people, then we can actually just murder them, and no one will care.
	So yeah, that was exactly the lesson of Hannah Arendt from the Holocaust.
	That was exactly the lesson.
	So why are we just being like, yeah, well, it's a fetus, actually.
	But then she moves on from this to address Michael Knowles's, quote, moral superiority.
	Play this clip.
	Michael, do you know what the leading cause of death for pregnant people is?
	Pregnant people?
	Mothers?
	Women?
	If you'd like to call them mothers.
	Not all of them are mothers, but if you'd like to call them that.
	What are they if they're not mothers?
	They're pregnant people.
	What people other than mothers are pregnant?
	Does it bother you to use inclusive language?
	I prefer to use precise language.
	It's interesting because you come into this conversation trying to hold this moral superiority.
	I try to be moral when I can.
	Right, but when I use inclusive language, which it only takes a couple extra syllables to use inclusive language.
	To include who?
	To include people who don't identify as women but can become pregnant.
	So before we look at that, I love Knowles' responses.
	Pregnant people.
	Like, the whole thing could have been scripted, right?
	But obviously it wasn't, and he played it brilliantly.
	But when she says, you know, you come in here with a moral superiority, and it's merely him using morally loaded language.
	He hasn't said, I'm better than you.
	He hasn't been disrespectful to her.
	You know, he hasn't insulted her or anything like that.
	He's just said, well, look, I actually think the moral prescriptions that we hold as human beings, humanizing babies, for example, is a good thing and we should do it.
	And she's like, well, you're just being morally superior.
	It's like, no, you're deliberately making yourself morally inferior by using language that strips away moral judgment.
	And then she's like, how dare you make yourself morally superior?
	It's like, well, sorry, I can't...
	Help that you are the one who's debasing yourself morally by trying to dehumanise babies to make it okay for the mother to abort them.
	Notice as well how he immediately went for mothers and not women.
	Yes.
	One of his primary critiques of his colleagues Matt Walsh's What is a Woman documentary is that it ends with the biological classification.
	Now, that makes sense for the documentary which is examining transactivism and walking away from the objective definition.
	Yeah.
	But he did say it's a sanitizing scientific, and he did just recently call all science fake, which I agree with, definition that means that there is no expectation laden within womanhood.
	There is no aesthetic expectation, which men quite enjoy, and then equally men should have aesthetic expectations.
	Women enjoy too.
	Exactly.
	This is a way that women express power.
	Why else would the makeup industry exist?
	Exactly.
	And so, the fact that he immediately deflects to that, he is saying he is using precise language, yes, but I think you're right.
	Wrong term.
	Rich language.
	That's what he was using.
	Yeah.
	Thick language.
	He goes more than just the precise, because the precise would be the biological.
	The thick language is the fact that he used the term mother, which I like.
	And then she immediately goes, well, why aren't you being inclusive?
	Because if you include an antonym in the definition, you destroy the use of language in and of itself.
	So it's utterly pointless and you don't get to stand on a moral soapbox about that.
	Exactly.
	But then she's resentful that he's adopting a position of morality.
	It's like the moral superiority isn't that he's saying I'm better than you.
	It's that he's prepared to take a moral position.
	Yes.
	Where she's deliberately abnegating that ground and saying, how dare you stand on the high ground?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Read morality outwards to us as if there is no moral debate and merely there is just a correct position.
	And that gets indignant when he opposes a parallel moral system.
	You are engaging in moral conversations.
	You just don't have this wherewithal to think of it.
	Because she's purely utilitarian.
	In fact, let's see how her view on morality actually is inconsistent.
	Watch this next one.
	I need to accept the idea that a man, someone who is born a man and looks like a man, can really become a woman.
	That's a prerequisite of my being a moral person.
	I mean, yes.
	To me it is, because if you are trying to deny someone of their identity and deny what their life experience is, then that doesn't seem like a moral stance to me.
	I would like to identify, I do identify actually, as the correct person on this issue of abortion.
	I identify as being correct and more correct than you on this issue.
	And I would just ask that you accept and affirm my identity.
	Do you?
	Well, you are not a medical professional, and abortion and pregnancy is a medical concern.
	That's not your identity.
	That is my identity.
	I promise you, that's my identity.
	I'm saying that you are someone without medical training, and pregnancy is a medical condition and abortion is a medical procedure, and so we need to abide by the informed and knowledgeable opinions of medical experts.
	Right.
	This is brilliant.
	Because she begins with like, no, to be moral, you have to accept that person's subjective identity.
	Doesn't matter if...
	And at other points, Noel's like, well, I can see that they're a woman or a man or whatever, right?
	And she's like, no, no, you've got to accept it or else you're not being moral.
	And as soon as I identify as correct, she's like, well, you're not correct.
	And the medical science, the objective reality, the observations that the scientists have made and cataloged in their documentation, all of this academic literature show that you're incorrect and therefore I don't have to accept it.
	So there we go.
	This is the contradiction in your own moral framing.
	Once you say you have to subjectively accept the identity, and the other time it can be that someone outside of it can objectively accept Tell you you're wrong.
	Yeah, she's just playing sleight of hand to the moral authority to which she wants to appeal.
	I don't think that...
	I mean, at one point in the conversation, she's like, well, no, I don't have philosophical training.
	So I don't think she's doing it on purpose.
	I think she's actually been kind of brainwashed into this.
	And so it slips between whether she understands or not.
	But then it starts drilling down to, okay, well, where do your rights come from?
	Because this all really hinges on the question of rights.
	So let's watch this next one.
	If it works.
	The government protects our rights, so where do those rights come from?
	But I mean, our rights don't necessarily come from anywhere aside from our own analysis of our human experience.
	Oh, so then we don't really have any rights at all.
	The rights that we have decided on, based on the analysis of our human experience, we have decided that these are the rights that prioritize the health and well-being of society, and these are the things that we need to protect in order to prioritize the health and well-being of society.
	So you're saying that my rights are just whatever I say my rights are?
	No, our rights are what our society has decided on, on a large spectrum.
	So the rights of whatever the general will decrees?
	Yes.
	Is in your best interest?
	Yes.
	So she's using the word right interchangeably with individual pieces of legislation, essentially.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, this is very much...
	To Michael Knowles, he believes in human rights, right?
	Things that are intrinsic to humans.
	She believes in civil rights.
	And she has adopted the Rousseauian perspective that you essentially give up all of your human rights in exchange for civil rights.
	And so the rights that you have in society or whatever the government says, and this is why she can say that healthcare is right, abortion is right, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	All these nonsense things that aren't right can be right.
	Michael Knowles, of course, being...
	The traditional American in the room adopts the American perspective that the rights are inherent by God and you give up a portion of these inherent rights in order to protect the rest.
	The right to, say, damage other people or their property or anything like this.
	But you've got the intrinsic rights that you have that are protected by the state.
	And so, okay, fine.
	Bronte has revealed herself throughout this entire conversation to be a pure materialist.
	Her entire worldview is flattened down to the physical realm.
	That's all that exists.
	Rights are merely what we grant ourselves by the force of our arms.
	This is a one-dimensional, utilitarian worldview.
	And assumedly, nature would be violating your human rights if the internet went out, or healthcare just...
	Didn't materialize because you couldn't manufacture the drugs.
	If the Cuban doctors go on strike, then it is the Cuban doctors who are wrong for denying their patients their human rights.
	Well, the fact that gender hormones do not grow on trees in the wilderness means that nature is a revolutionary enemy.
	So let's talk about how Bronte found God.
	Let's watch this next clip.
	And so that is the topic at hand, is it not?
	Is it not discussing people who exist in a body that they don't feel comfortable in?
	And modern medicine has the ability to help them address that issue.
	Bronte, when you say exist in a body, or you say they find themselves in a body, who do you think they are?
	What does that mean, exist in a body?
	Our fellow citizens that we share this society with.
	But who is...
	You're saying that they are distinct from their body?
	Yes.
	So you are not your body?
	No.
	What are you?
	I believe that I'm a soul with a body.
	But you are the soul, and your body is just a...
	It's the physical manifestation.
	Your body's a costume.
	Oh, the body is the physical manifestation.
	That's different.
	Well, I agree with that.
	I think that the body is a symbol of the soul.
	I think that the soul is a substantial form of the body.
	We agree on that.
	She's a Catholic.
	Well, no.
	Of course she's not really a Catholic, but my point is...
	We are not talking about science.
	We are not talking about anything.
	I don't want to hear about your medical consensus.
	I don't want to hear about what's best for the mother.
	You have a religious worldview.
	The materialist perspective, she was to be consistent in her position to say, my body, my brain, my mind, what she calls a soul, We're good
	beneficial.
	We are talking about theology and we have been talking about theology the whole time.
	It just took, this was right at the end of the conversation.
	It took Michael two hours to get through this, to get to the point where she's like, well, yeah, but my soul is separate to my body.
	What soul?
	It's not like it's an appeal to what DSM-5 do or Sam Harris's psychological well-being, wellness metric, or where you would say that...
	"My psychology is disrupted by my gender dysphoria, and so I need to bring my body in line with how I feel inside." Instead, it's actually attributing a malevolent will to the sorting mechanism which takes your soul from the ether and puts it in the wrong body.
	So either God is entirely incompetent or it's the Gnostic belief that a malevolent God created the world and we are struggling existentially against the natural order that this demonic being has instantuated.
	That is exactly why I describe this as Gnosticism on Twitter.
	So trans activists are liberation theologists?
	They're literal Gnostic mystics.
	Okay, alright.
	I mean, I'm glad that...
	I love mask-off moments like that.
	It's like, well, my soul.
	Who's you?
	My soul.
	What do you mean?
	You know, you're making a bunch of theological commitments here to which your fellow utilitarians probably don't agree, right?
	And I, an atheist, I'm in no way bound to agree with.
	And so you've just betrayed your entire worldview.
	And I, a Catholic, find you blasphemous.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Which is now actually a pertinent conversation for you to have with Michael because he is also a Catholic and you're blaspheming in front of him based on theological reasoning, right?
	I realise this has gone on, but this was just so good to me, right?
	So there was a small thing here that when you're in the middle of a debate and you've got a lot to juggle, it's often only afterwards you realise, oh, I should have picked that up.
	And so I don't blame Michael for not picking this up.
	But okay, soul, wrong body.
	Who else has a soul?
	The baby.
	Yes.
	Why don't we talk about that, Bronte?
	Okay, the soul of the mother is feeling trapped by having a child, but what about the soul of the baby, who's now being killed?
	And you also don't know if that baby has been implanted into the wrong body until it comes out as well, so could abortion not be a form of transgenocide?
	I mean, it's mad, actually.
	But anyway, let's just watch this final clip just to top this all off.
	I have a body is an incoherent statement according to what you've just agreed to.
	Because you would say, I am a body, and I am a soul, and the technical term for it is hylomorphic being that is body and soul inextricably linked on this earth.
	Right, but that doesn't mean that my mentality and my soul is accurately represented by the body that I present to the world.
	We're not having a conversation about medical science anymore.
	We're having a conversation about theology.
	Michael can even introduce complex Catholic terminology to explain the concepts she's trying to put across.
	She has no idea about.
	I do love how she started off by saying, I'm going to explain the medical science to you, and then I'm waiting for her to pull out her chart as to tap where on the anatomical diagram...
	Where's the soul located?
	Your Bronte.
	It is madness.
	Sorry, I realized that was a long segment, but I just couldn't pass it up.
	I couldn't pass it up.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	That underlies almost all of this is a form of theology.
	And congratulations, Michael Knowles, for really drawing that out in the most entertaining way.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Carl, if you think about it from the misogynistic perspective, that women are meant to be led by men, then...
	When you take into account that feminism has told women that men are evil, women still could be said to have that need to be led by someone, which could be the explanation why they are so easily led by the government.
	Yes, sure, especially when the government is staffed by an overwhelming majority of temporarily charismatic but dark triad men, because psychopathy is a selection mechanism for ascending things like business and politics in the short term, and the more corrupt you get in an institution, you can't weed those people out.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey, Carl.
	As someone who, when I was younger, struggled with suicidality, one of the things that the, let's say, the suicide by poll allows depressed children and teenagers to do is export the responsibility of their decision to kill themselves to other people and to their peers.
	And it allows them to not have to take that responsibility and make that decision themselves, which makes the decision easier.
	That's why there was a lot of outrage about the 13 Reasons Why series, originally, because they were afraid that it would create copycats.
	Basically, the premise of it was it was based on a book, and then the first season is that a girl kills herself in school, and she sends cassette tapes to the 13 people that she blamed.
	Um...
	Which people were then afraid would then romanticise suicide as a form of revenge.
	And someone pointed out when Bo and I covered the text in English literature curriculum, Inspector Calls is essentially the same thing of where the inspector shows up at the house and says, you as a family are responsible for not caving to socialism for killing this woman because of all the roles you played in her life letter to kill herself.
	So someone put it in the comments.
	Yeah, that's definitely a damaging thing to tell vulnerable young people who might be seeking some social acclaim, but seriously damaged.
	If you just kill yourself, everyone will feel sorry for you.
	Yeah.
	Herostrotic fame.
	It's terrible.
	Let's go to the next one.
	On Friday, during the Twitterfile segment, you brought up the fact that Musk was being targeted by a class-action lawsuit for targeting women in his firing.
	My biggest question is, if he really was targeting women, why didn't he fire all of them?
	Well, that's the question, isn't it?
	Obviously, Musk wasn't targeting women.
	It was quite clear that he was targeting people who weren't essential to the running of the company.
	You didn't fire every woman in your organisation?
	Cuck.
	Well, let's go through some comments.
	George says, I don't know.
	I don't get the smell of fishiness from it.
	I think that Elon has been exposed to...
	So Elon was in the structure, just operating as he does.
	But I think that essentially the veil has been lifted on a bunch of things for Elon, because this was what it was for me, frankly, my sort of journey.
	And so I was hardly a model human being before I realized, oh God, actually it was all the leftist assumptions I still held that were making me terrible.
	So I changed.
	I do fear, the only thing I fear is, even if he has had a genuine, come to Jesus moment, that if he does become our primary elite, his development of neural link and brain-chipping monkeys will be co-opted down the line for our emiseration by evil actors who wish digital Stalinists upon us, as Yuval Noah Harari once said.
	Yeah.
	Omar's got a great take on this.
	Twitter is a weird take on Brave New World, where the world controller is actually being subverted by middle management while he's swanning around the world on SOMA, as in Jaya, right?
	Now that the savage man is in charge, I'm anticipating the sequel.
	Yeah, what happens when John the Savage is given control of the civilization?
	Well, let's hope that he doesn't ending himself in the same way.
	Well, John the Savage only did that because he couldn't affect the wider civilization, right?
	But Elon can't.
	Yeah, and Jeffrey Epstein only did that because Hillary Clinton could affect the wider civilization.
	Well, yeah, I mean, obviously, Elon, take care of yourself.
	Be safe.
	But it is interesting.
	Elon is...
	I mean, the Lord of the Rings person is great because if there's a way of saying, look, I'm actually appealing to heroic archetypes...
	That's in a sort of, like, an understandable, consumer-friendly package.
	It's posting Lord of the Rings, maybe.
	Everyone gets what you're saying.
	There's a heroic narrative here, and you're taking your place on it, you know?
	And so, I think Elon is, even if he doesn't express the, say it in these terms, he definitely instinctively understands, no, no, no, I've got to step up and do the right thing.
	And he is reclaiming a title which is being actively subverted by also a business rival, given Bezos overseas, Amazon.
	Yep, yep, yep.
	Yep.
	Bald Eagle says, Yeah,
	I do think that Peterson's obvious strength is as the advisor, you know.
	He shouldn't be in the trenches.
	He's literally a grandfather.
	This is a project that will continue to go on, unfortunately, long after we lose Dr.
	Peterson, even if it is just to maintain it.
	And so I don't think he should exhaust all of his energies being on the front lines.
	Supreme Duck says, I was at Jordan Peterson's event in Copenhagen just a month ago and he was in a fantastic mood.
	I don't think he is turning dark in any way.
	No, I don't think he's turning dark.
	I think he's under a lot of pressure from lots and lots of different vectors.
	And I think that one outlet for kind of venting his stress about this has been on anonymous anti-Semites because they seem like an easy and legitimate target.
	And I'm not saying they're not an easy and legitimate target.
	What I'm saying is they're not really very important and I don't think he should spend his time worrying about them.
	No, it comes off more like you are tilting at windmills, particularly if they're anonymous, versus engaging with the actual people who will come up to you on the street and thank you.
	And that's the thing that gets them the most emotional, and emotional in a respectable way.
	Yeah, because I mean, the anonymous and semis, they do this because of the lack of power and influence that they have.
	To suggest that these people are destabilizing the society, they're just not as numerous and important as they seem in your comment section when you're interviewing Netanyahu or whoever.
	But anyway, on that note, I think we're out of time.
	So if you want more from us, of course, go sign up to loci.com, support the show.
	That's how we pay for everything.
	And we'll be back tomorrow.

▲