YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Jordan Peterson Interviews Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy | EP 341

Jun 25, 2023
Accept yourself as you are, what does that say about who I should become? That's off the table right now because I'm already good enough in every way, so I'm done or something, get your act together, take some responsibility. build your life develop a vision unfold all those multiple possibilities that lurk within you be a force for good in the world and that will be the adventure of your life a free market solution to the problem of marginalization is something like offering a la true diversity is like yeah, you're only five foot two so you can't play basketball you know, but you could be a really good hockey exactly, we have enough games exactly exactly that and then people can exchange their idiosyncrasies and you see this is an argument that free market types haven't made against diversity types, it's like this, the reason you want a free market is to provide a diverse amount of games so that the marginalized can find a center, even if you think about the institutional purpose, right? on the level of people on the marginalized side and that's why I agree that that is one form of diverse approaches to diversity here is a different approach a diverse approach to diversity is diversity of institutional purposes, but the problem with these , you know, ESG or Dei three letter acronyms is what they're saying effectively they're saying no, no, you can't have your own distinctive purpose everyone's purpose must be common to advance environmental, social and governance goals, diversity, equity and inclusion, that is a denial of diversity if you run an institution you have a question, why do we exist?, have a good answer to that question and then say what kind of diversity you defend, that it is actually at the service of promote that institutional purpose.
jordan peterson interviews presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy ep 341
Different types of institutions should want different types of diversity and should be transparent about what types of diversity they do not want abroad. Today I am very happy to speak with Vivec Rama Swami, who has just announced his candidacy for the American presidency and will hopefully change the political landscape by doing so. American business leader and New York Times bestselling author of Wake Inc Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam along with his second book Nation of Victims Identity Politics, The Death of Merit and the Road Back to Excellence, Born and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio, he often tells his father's wise advice stands out, then you too could be outstanding, this set the course of his life, a nationally ranked tennis player, the valedictorian of his high school Saint Xavier graduated summa laude in biology from Harvard and later received his JD. from Yale Law School while working at a hedge fund, then founded a biotech company, Roy Vant Sciences, which he oversold gained FDA approval in 2022.
jordan peterson interviews presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy ep 341

More Interesting Facts About,

jordan peterson interviews presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy ep 341...

It's an important side note that he founded. Endeavor, an Ohio-based asset management company that competes directly with asset managers. like BlackRock State Street and Vanguard, which use the money of ordinary citizens, including you, by the way, to promote environmental and social agendas that many citizens and capital owners do not agree with; That is a much more important topic than you might think and we are going to discuss it. a lot as we move forward in our conversation today, well, hello Vivek and everyone watching, it's here on the YouTube platform. It's always good to have everyone's time and attention.
jordan peterson interviews presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy ep 341
Vivek Ramaswamy who I'm talking to today is running for president, which seems like a pretty absurd thing to do for anyone. I would say that this new 2024 election will be an interesting race. As far as I can tell, we haven't seen anything like this long enough for you to have thrown your hat in the ring I think that's part and parcel of the whole show uh so let's get started, let's get started by just exploring why you decided to do this and we should do that, why did you decide to do this and what is that. you hope to achieve by doing this career, so let's start with why you're doing it so you know some of the journey that I've been on over the last few years, but I think that's what got me to the door that I've been heading towards. over the last few years this fusion of state power and corporate power that together do what neither can do alone and part of me has long believed that the Republican Party in the United States is 40 years behind in reciting slogans they memorized in 1980, when the real threat to Freedom today is different, so I confronted the awakened industrial complex in America through the books I wrote while traveling the country and more recently I confronted the ESG movement when I started trying hard last year and that's where my mental space was.
jordan peterson interviews presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy ep 341
I didn't think I was going to go into politics. I thought I really wanted to avoid the limiting shackles of partisan politics. It just felt so restrictive. I thought about running for the United States Senate. I decided not to do it. I said no, no, I want to do it. Do this independently as a voice independent author and thought leader and then you'll know, look, I was successful. I successfully built a biotech company before those skills were put to work. They began to struggle. That was where my exclusive focus was going to be and I'm proud to say I think we're already having a big impact on the market through my work in effort and even just highlighting the issue, but I have to be very honest about it. and this is what I realized after years of that.
Journey is that Tango is fine and what I mean by this is the top-down version of this problem: the cynical exploitation of corporate power and state power to shackle the human spirit. I think that's only half the problem because that only works if there's a culture that's actually willing to buy it; it only works if there's a populist that's buying what they're selling, and to me, I think that requires each of us to look deep in the mirror and ask ourselves what it is about us as a people that wants us to kneel or that makes us want to bend the knee to the powers that be that want us to embrace these new secular religions and that was not a problem that could even be addressed through market action to take on BlackRock or ESG forces in the capital markets and that's really what when Don Don pulled it off, there was no better way to drive a cultural renaissance in America than successfully and successfully is an important part of this, but then with success. running for president and the whole premise of my campaign pain is really defining a national identity.
Answering the question of what it means to be an American in the year 2023. I don't think we have a good answer to that question in this country. I am on a mission to provide an answer to that question and my basic premise here is that our absence of that answer, which is the black hole at the center of the soul of our nation, which is what allows wokism, the gender ideology , climateism and greed fill the void these are secular religions that take advantage of that void if we can fill that void with, say, a vision of national identity that is so profound that it dilutes these other agendas to irrelevance, that's how we win and I think there is no


In this field, I believe who is up to that challenge. I'm not sure I'm either, but I do think I'm going to do my best and that's why I'm running well, well you mentioned it. There are a lot of very complex issues in that simple description of your motives, so I'm going to go through them one by one to unravel them for everyone because you know you said the Republicans are 40 years behind this. I think that's probably true. uh organizations like the UN as well and 40 years is a long time given how much has changed in the last 10 years and what that means is that the average person who is watching and listening to this is also behind the times and isn't even aware of what what acronyms like ESG mean or why they should give a damn.
I just interviewed the executive director of the national organization uh uh uh what is the State Treasures Organization ah I said it's cheap, it's a financial officers organization now there are 28 states, I know I know them, yeah, yeah, yeah, well, they're pushing hard against the ESG movement and, but you know, we talked on that podcast about the fact that people don't even know what the hell that means now that you've opened up your description, essentially not I don't want to put words in your mouth, but from my perspective , you opened your description of your motives with a statement about what essentially boils down to some kind of fascist collusion and what we're seeing is an amalgamation of power that is corporate and that of course, those on the left complain about the government that those on the right complain and then the media that everyone complains about, and rightly so, and there is the idea that seems to be raining on the upper levels of the power structures that we are facing an apocalyptic emergency of such magnitude, whatever the emergency, that all the power should be conveniently seated and one of the fronts on which that battle is fought is the ESG movement and, therefore, do you want to analyze that so that everyone just to bring them ? absolutely up to date, I mean this has been part of my obsession for the last few years and not just as a commentator but also as a doer and also as an entrepreneur, so the problem with the ESG movement is that it represents environmental, social and governance factors .
Designed to sound boring for a reason, my rule of thumb is that if it sounds like a three-letter acronym that bores you, that's a good sign that you should pay more attention because it was designed to bore you. What is this whole game about? is using private power using the capital markets to accomplish through the back door what the government couldn't do through the front door under the Constitution, so I'll tell you what it is and then I'll go over the history of how we got there because That's also quite important what the essence of the ESG movement is.
What it does is use the money of ordinary citizens, Americans, but also Canadians, Australians and Western Europeans. It uses ordinary citizens' money to invest in companies and vote their shares in ways. that promote one-sided progressive agendas, environmental and social agendas that most of those people do not agree with, that most of those people did not know they were actually advancing with their own money, and that do not promote the best financial interests of the most people whose money is actually used, so what does that mean? Think of yourself saving in a retirement account or a 401k or a brokerage account.
He believes that the person who manages that money is exclusively looking out for his best financial interests, and it turns out that that is not the case. We're also about promoting these other environmental and social goals, which are these institutions, they're asset management companies like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard or Invesco or countless others that have signed a pledge to say that they're going to align all of their underlying businesses with the goals of the Paris Climate Accords with Net Zero standards by 2050 with modern diversity, equity and inclusion standards and those three or four companies alone manage about 20 trillion dollars, maybe even a little more, that is , more than the US GDP at this time. in the hands of three or four financial institutions, but they're not using your money to do it, they're using most of the money, they're using the money of probably the majority of listeners to this exchange right now, the people who are watching this You have a good chance of getting your money into retirement. accounts, their brokerage accounts are being used to tell companies like Apple to adopt racial equity audits that Apple's board of directors initially did not want to adopt to tell companies like Chevron to adopt scope 3 emissions limits, which I can speak about what that means, but Chevron didn't. they want to adopt and that most people who saw this probably didn't want to force Chevron either, but their money was used to do it anyway, that's what this ESG movement is about, so how we got here is actually a really important question and a lot of this started, there were two big milestones in seeing the supercharge of this ESG movement in our economy and in the capital markets.
The first one that I consider to be the big bang that really set everything in motion for all intents and purposes was the 2008 financial crisis which happened in the 2008 financial crisis and, by the way, I had a front row seat to this. I got my first job in New York at an elite hedge fund in the fall of 2007, you know, the fund I worked at got an honorable mention. in Michael Lewis' book, The Big Short, this is my first job after college, this is kind of fun for me, right, I didn't do it, a lot of people lost a lotmoney on Wall Street, I didn't have money, so I didn't care, it was more of a learning experience, which was quite enriching, but I had a front row seat.
What happened was after the 2008 crisis. Republicans, it's worth remembering that Republicans in this country bailed out the big banks. Which I don't know what your opinion is, Dr. Peterson, I think it's a big mistake, it's a cardinal sin: the Bush administration and Goldman Sachs CEO and alumnus Hank Paulson used public taxpayer funds to bail out Goldman Sachs while letting their competitors fail. this was crony capitalism all the way and the left really had it right in this country. Occupy Wall Street was born and what they said is look, if you're going to play that crony capitalist game, then you know what we're going to play.
In our game we are simply going to take money from your rich corporate pockets and redistribute it to the poor to help the poor because that is what we on the far left want to do in the Occupy Wall Street movement, but right around that time there was a fissure in the left movement in this country where this new, let's call it, the awakened left was born. Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president of the United States. There were a lot of cultural currents in the United States that said well, wait a minute, the real problem is not exactly economic injustice or poverty, it's actually racial injustice, misogyny and intolerance and, by the way, climate change is supposed that this is for Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, this actually presented the opportunity of a generation for Wall Street to say no, no, okay guys, we'll make a deal with you, we'll use our corporate power, we'll use our money, really their money, to applaud diversity and inclusion, to put token minorities on corporate boards, to talk about this racially disparate impact of climate change. mountaintops from Davos after flying there on a private jet we will do all these things but we don't do it for free we hope that the new left will look the other way when it comes to leaving our corporate power intact and that is why they defend Occupy Wall Street, the Most people don't even remember what Occupy Wall Street is, it fell by the wayside and that's how this new what I've sometimes called woke industrial complex or ESG was born, where Wall Street said you know what.
If you can't beat us, join us and that's exactly what happened. That was the first thing. Do you think it was that conscious or do you think it was the consequence of a thousand microdecisions? I know, I mean, we were there, but it's easy to see us, okay, it was the last thing, yeah, I mean, this is not, it's not a smoke-filled room where there was some kind of meeting in the back of Goldman Sachs, which brought the boardroom at 85 Broad Street. Not in lower Manhattan, this is not and it is an ethical conspiracy theory, this is not an emerging reality, right?
And when they think about what a conspiracy theory becomes reality, they just watch the camera in slow motion and it unfolds dangerously. boring way that's how you make sausage certainly that was the first catalyst and what started as a challenge to the system, which is what you know as an intellectual or whatever, I always enjoy it whether I agree or not. At least it's interesting to look at something that started as a challenge to system stakeholder capitalism and ESG slowly ossified as the system and there are a lot of forces behind that the rise of passive index funds played a big role and that's a discussion I can understand. to another at another time or maybe later in this discussion, but then a big catalyst emerged, two big catalysts emerged, one was in 2016 and the other was in 2018.
What happened in 2016, of course, is that Donald Trump was chosen one. president of the United States, this created a seismic shockwave throughout the ruling class, both in the capital markets and at the nexus between business and politics, and when they said okay, wait a minute, you might This game won't be played the way it's supposed to be played in the future. If businesses, if political leaders like Donald Trump are going to break the system, then we business leaders must exercise our authority to step into the void and then they were vindicated, or so they thought when Trump withdrew from the Climate Accords. of Paris in 2018.
Not many people realize that it was a big event, that it's the event that threw kerosene into this ESG storm and you know even the people who complain about the CSG movement should understand where it came from a little better than they. this was a big deal, so this is what caused Calpers, the California teachers and the California retirement and pension system and other big allocators, the people who give their money to BlackRock and State Street, to start saying Let them see if the political leaders are not going to take a step forward. occasion to address the existential challenges we face, such as global climate change, then business leaders must do so.
Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, started saying similar things: We have to get our social license to operate and that's really what caused this ESG thing to spread. like wildfire was the event of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords link the corporate response of say Occupy Wall Street at the end of the 2008 financial crisis to the climate catastrophe and so let's talk about the climate catastrophe for a moment or two because and Also to find stakeholder capitalism because the narrative that the wolf left insists on, let's say, but also these capitalists well, is that the emergency that faces us on the environmental frontier is so catastrophic that each and every one of us Emergency measures are not completely valid. just completely justified but morally required now I have a problem with that theory both psychologically and technically and so psychologically I have been trying to think about how you separate the wheat from the chaff on the leadership front, especially in the face of an emergency. a real emergency because emergencies happen from time to time, but here's a general rule: everyone listening can watch you try this for themselves and see what they think, but if the emergency you're facing terrifies you so much that you become paralyzed. immobilized or tempted to accumulate all the power for yourself and become a tyrant, then you have defined yourself as insufficient for the job, you should be able to keep a cool head despite the impending emergency because there will be emergencies and if you become a tyrant during an emergency, then you are a tyrant and so on, that is the psychological problem, even if there is an emergency, we should not add power in an elite and then there is a second element too, which is yes, what a damn emergency, precisely you.
I know I've talked a lot with Bjorn Lomberg, for example, and with many other people, I would say, as informed as Lomberg, and there is no evidence, not even in the IPCC reports themselves, that climate change is, in the first place, entirely man-made because it is not, and second. Even if so, there is no evidence, according to IPCC reports, that there will be any apocalyptic tipping point in the next 50 years that justifies spending untold trillions of panic dollars, simultaneously destabilizing our power grids and increasing the cost of electricity by up to five times and make us at least in Europe much more reliable or much more dependent on Russia and also throw the poor into poverty and risk the fossil fuel infrastructure that powers half the planet because people you also don't really understand that ammonia is made from fossil fuels and ammonia fertilizer feeds four billion people and pretty much anyway you said that Wall Street in 2008 is guilty because of the bailouts that leftists pushed hard on them on the ethical front and rightly so they decide to turn to ESG, but that's also amplified by this sense of apocalyptic climate doom and so what is your formulation of the environmental challenge facing the challenges that we're facing now?
Pause on what you just said, there was actually some really good stuff in there, okay, so you, you, I just need to go. I'm going to go a step further than you and make a link between psychological criticism and technical criticism because they are related, so the first thing you said was a humble and powerful point, which is that even if there is some kind of apocalyptic problem existential, you should not trust people who will then exert Tyrannical Force to address it, not to mention the fact that the technical question is itself completely artificial, right, it is based on false premises that deserve to be pointed out and I can point them out Bjorn Lundberg Alex Epstein others can point out we can, we can go into all the details of that but what I want to point out is that those two criticisms that you just offered, as they stand, are deeply linked and the reason is that you were almost too charitable in that psychological narrative in the sense that actually the psychological narrative explains the fact that the entire climate agenda actually has nothing to do with climate, it's not that this was a tyrannical response to a threat, it was the creation of a artificial threat to exert tyrannical power itself, okay, it's a religious cult, so I've said it on numerous occasions, I think I think climate religion has as much to do with the climate as the Spanish Inquisition had to do with Christ, I mean, nothing at all, it was really just about power, dominance and punishment all the way, and I can, basically, I can try. for you in a short period of time, right, if the climate religion really does it, I mean, I'm just going to avoid going on for hours, I'll just pick out a couple of little things, but we could go on for hours, but the couple The data with the that we can start with are like this: One is: if you really care about carbon emissions as an end goal, everything is fine, first of all, you would be outlining what kind of carbon emissions matter.
I don't subscribe to the tenets of this religion but I understand this religion I think a religion is worth understanding even if you are not a practitioner even if you subscribe to this religion there is a difference between methane leak and carbon dioxide leak, Well, methane leakage is much worse in places like Russia and China. So it should be a mystery that you want to move carbon production from the United States, where you tell companies like Exxon and Chevron to stop producing, to places like China, like Petro China, on the other side of the world. Yes, and by the way, this is exactly what the ESG movement is, it's like the Apostles of this church, so BlackRock is like an apostle of this inquisition-style Spanish Church.
BlackRock is forcing companies like Exxon and Chevron to abandon oil production to meet Net Zero standards by 2050. However, literally some of the same companies buying those same projects on the other side of the planet are Petro China, of which BlackRock is a large shareholder without telling Petro China to adopt any of those same emissions limits. This is crazy if you think you care about reducing carbon emissions and it's not even like I was referring to methane emissions before, it's not even net neutral. Methane, even if you subscribe to this crazy religion, is 80 times worse for global warming than carbon dioxide, so it's not even net neutral, it's worse, so that's the first breadcrumb I there is.
Something else is happening here, the second breadcrumb, something else is happening here is that that same movement, certainly, it's the Apostles in the ESG movement that are so hostile to carbon emissions and they're also hostile to the most known carbon-free energy production known to humanity. which is nuclear power, yeah, right, so that's the second little breadcrumb that suggests there's something else going on here and, in a nutshell, the problem with nuclear power is that nuclear power might be too good for solve the supposed clean energy problem to the point that it doesn't. solving the real agenda that is creating equity between the western United States in particular and the rest of the world to catch up, that's really what this club is providing and providing that power that we've been talking about, of course, in terms of the right relate well the great Inquisition, that is the right time, so that is really what is happening, those are two amazing points and I want to put them philosophically for a moment so that people fully understand what this means, so Let's say we accept the propositions. of what Vivek has been calling the climate religion, we will return to that term later, so if we accept it, we will assume that the fundamental existential crisis we face is that of pollution and that that can be reduced in complexity to the emission of carbon dioxide. carbon and maybe methane and a couple of other greenhouse gases.
Not nowI don't accept any of that and I know you don't either, but we'll damn if that's really the motivation. So factor in the fundamentals: all fundamental actions and perceptions should be aimed at minimizing, say, the production of carbon dioxide, but the first point you make is that we are making it very difficult for Western countries to use coal and explore for fossil fuels, but we. We are making it very easy for China to do so and since we all share the same atmosphere and China and other terribly governed countries have much worse environmental regulations, they are not even in the same universe, what we are doing is substituting a clean fossil fuel for relatively dirty fossil and then you know you added that extra decoration, which is fine, isn't it also convenient that companies like Black Rock own huge shares in exactly the Chinese companies whose interests they are promoting and then I know that's so, what that What it means is that, by the climate religion advocates' own standards of measurement, their policies are not only a failure, but are actually positively counterproductive, just as they have been in Germany, in the United Kingdom, and later, and that is. like that's a subtle mystery on the fossil fuel front, but then there's the glaring mystery, which is the second thing you posted and pointed out, which is okay, guys and girls, we can solve the damn carbon dioxide problem of overnight with nuclear energy and yes.
We now have small nuclear plants and we have nuclear plants that are much safer than 50 years ago and that could be built on a modular level, so why are they opposed? And well, that brings us to the religious question, I would say. because it is not so much a pro-Planet agenda designed to achieve harmony with the natural world as an attempt to simultaneously destabilize the entire industrial infrastructure or agree with the claim that all human activity is nothing more than cancerous. growth in the planet combined with this subterranean desire to accumulate all tyrannical power in centralized elite hands, that's exactly right, okay, so let's talk about you, you have insisted several times that the climate narrative is a religious or quasi-religious structure.
Then why not? I have some thoughts on that that I'll share eventually, but I'd like you to explain why you use that terminology specifically. Yeah, I mean in two ways, worse is the sense in which it is. one religious institution gone wrong and then the second one is the one that satisfies the psychological need for religion and God in the common person. In the first one, just when you were presenting the philosophical framework, I remembered one of my favorites. Stories about Christ that do not actually come from the Bible but from Fyodor Dostoyevsky's book, the Karamazov brothers, The Gay Brothers, in its chapter titled The Grand Inquisitor and which tells the story of how Christ returns to Earth during the 15th century or XVI or whatever. in Seville, Spain, he walks through the streets performing miracles and then the great Inquisitor, a person who heads the Spanish Inquisition sees him on the street and arrests him and the entire climax of the chapter is the dialogue between Christ and the great Inquisitor and with the great Inquisitor. says to Christ: look, we, the church, no longer need you here, you are supposed to be a symbol that helps us do our work, but your presence here actually prevents us from doing our work and sentences Christ to be executed the next morning.
Trade and climate for Christ, which is really what is happening in the psychological minds of the people who are buying into this religion, which I will talk about in a second, but that is also what is happening here, the climate is just an excuse and in fact, once you get into a The discussion about how to really address carbon emissions says that with nuclear energy they care a lot, so they are sentencing nuclear energy to death because that is their Messiah and their savior . You're right? You said you really wanted to get rid of carbon emissions. coming of Christ, the second coming of the nuclear energy climate solution, no, no, they sentence him to death because, as the great Inquisitor told Christ in that story, your presence here actually impedes our work, it is supposed to You are a symbol for us, so in a sense, it has a religious quality in terms of the church protecting its own territory even from the very God that it tells you know the parishioners must worship now, the second question is why? the parishioners are worshiping and I think this goes to the heart in a strange way of my candidacy for the presidency of the United States, although we are on deep philosophical ground here, I just think we are in the midst of this identity crisis that we are in so hungry for purpose and meaning. and identity As Americans right now, it's probably also true for much of the Western world, even beyond America, but we are so hungry for a cause at a time in our history when the things that used to fill that void, the faith is one of them, faith. in God is big but so is patriotism national identity is big family is also pretty big in this category even hard work we can actually get into that later but these are sources of identity sources of Pride sources of grounding are based on the truth and the way I see ourselves as human beings, I mean, this is the first personal reflection, right, we are like blind bats, we are lost in some cave in an abyss and we send out these sonar signals for our echolocation of identity, true, we cannot see where we are, but we deduce where we are by bouncing off the signals we send and recovering them as sources of Truth.
Okay, I'm sending a signal. Family is a source of identity that I receive. God is another source of identity that I recover my nation is another source of identity that I recover my hard work the things that I create in the world these things we deduce our identity and it tells us, even if we are blind, where we are lost that Abyss, but when those things They disappear we send that signal and then nothing comes back and then we are lost and then we start clinging to artificial sources of that identity racial identity gender identity what do you think happened to this strange gender ideology?
They have emerged from the catastrophism of climate disaster which is a source of identity, two climates instead of Christ, so it is no coincidence that we see all these secular religions arise at the same time, why do we see wokism at the same time we see the radical racial gender ideology? orchism is gender Radiology as climatism as greed is a symptom of that deeper abyss in which we are lost and that's okay, so now you explained this in two ways, you said I'm going to analyze your argument, you said that there is an offer in hand from up, so to speak, from the ESG and the climate ideologues, but there is also a corresponding need in the population that is associated with the kind of vacuum, yes, okay, and then you also talked about the Karamazov brothers and the notion of great inquisitors, so I want to address those three points, so the first point is that the developmental psychologist John Piaget noted that the last stage of cognitive development as far as he was concerned was adolescent messianism and what he meant by that was that People between the ages of 16 and 21, when they are going through their last major neuronal pruning, due to the way they settle into their adult identities, have to catalyze them and the way in which human beings catalyze their adult identity is by identifying themselves. with something beyond themselves and therefore in an archaic situation that would be with the tribe, for example, but also with the traditions of the tribe, rather than just the people who are currently there with the ancient traditions of the tribe and them.
We will be initiated into that, now there is a messianic impulse that comes along with what could be expressed in modern terms as something like the desire of young people to save the planet. Well, that's real psychological hunger. Now what should be offered. by the radical left uh to address that messianic need is something like it's very, very simple and this is part of the problem it's good to be Christ to be the Messiah you have to face the apocalypse right, that's the final judgment the apocalypse that currently Lo What confronts us is environmental, you know, and environmental apocalypses have confronted us throughout the entire history of humanity, so we have an ecological, what would you say, psychological predisposition to be alerted about the environment?
Okay, so there is an apocalypse, it is environmental, the environmental apocalypse is a consequence of carbon carbon is a consequence of excess industrial production if you adopt the radical left ideology that is anti-industrial then you fulfill your messianic mission now that is on the side positive the negative side is okay you can also do it without any effort on your part because all you have to do is oppose the right things and it also takes the moral burden off your shoulders because instead of having to undergo a psychological transformation that would involve confront all your own inadequacies, let's say, put yourself in the right place.
On the spiritual path, you can simply demonize whoever it is convenient for the demonization and, in the case of the radical left, it would have anything to do with the industrial or corporate world and you can put all the sins on the shoulders of the scapegoat and that's it. you're done with them and So that's an expanded vision of that messionism. It's an overwhelmingly simple solution to a very complex moral problem. Right now, on the identity front, you raised a lot of issues that I think are extremely relevant for you to know what people are struggling with. their identities and what happened is that they are also offered a single idea that fits all the problems, that is, while their identity is nothing other than their group identity, it is their sexual proclivity, which is quite an identity.
Pathetic, it's your ethnicity, it's your race, it's some group. identity that also takes responsibility away from you, by the way, now you could well say what constitutes a valid identity in contrast to that and you've already pointed out several of those things, so this is also where I think the psychological community has failed. To a large extent on this front we are now inheritors of a socially and psychologically liberal Protestant tradition and we believe that our identities are fundamentally individual and subjective, okay, but that's not actually true because your identity is nested now, as you pointed out, so Let's think about nesting, okay? because we could construct a hierarchy that is a conceptually adequate hierarchy and this is a good way to formulate what actually constitutes a strong identity.
This is where you would get the signal for those, you know, those raids that you're doing. those signals are exactly fine, so look, a person has to be linked to an intimate relationship and everyone needs and wants that, so that is the first level of social integration and then the couple has to integrate within a family and then the family within a neighborhood and the neighborhood within a community and the community with it in a town a town within the state the state within a nation and then the nation, let's say in something similar to any network of international agreements that is necessary to minimally maintain the peace, which is a subsidiary hierarchy of responsibility you know, and in Exodus, in the Old Testament book Exodus, part of what that book addresses is what forms of government are necessary as an alternative to tyranny, a tyranny unique from the top down, the pharaoh or the desert, which is, you know, the completely dispersed individuality and the answer.
The technical answer is the subsidiary hierarchy of responsibility and that means that as an individual you have a responsibility as a couple, as a family member, as a community member, and all of that, and then you can think of identity as belonging in all. of those hierarchical positions and you can think of psychological health not as something that happens in an internal space but as harmony between all those subsidiary levels, so it is an emergent property of harmony and not something that is carried internally, hey Reagan , I know you. I'm picky when it comes to skincare products, so let me know what you thought of Genucel skincare.
Garrett I'm the type of person who needs to know exactly what ingredients I'm using in my skincare routine and that's why I love Genucel, their products are made with antioxidants and formulated by a compounding pharmacist and are aimed at skin care. skin preventative. I've been using the new Genucel Microbiome Moisturizer to combat skin redness, fine lines, and other signs of premature aging. Use the same probiotics. that are in your yogurt, as it turns out these super ingredients may have the same nutritional benefits on your skin as they do on your digestive system. The results have been incredible.
My skin cleared up in a matter of hours. Genuso has a productfor every skin type and it is not. Just for us girls, I started with their most popular bundle, which includes all of their best-selling products in one amazing price. You heard it here first go to Jordan to get 70 off their most popular bundle which is Jordan Jordan I love it I mean this is a beautiful thing actually and when you just describe the desert versus the pharaoh, uh, dynamic, the separation, something clicked for me, okay, yeah, well, it's a great set of ideas, well, even in a much more practical sense.
For me, you know something as mundane as a political career. Okay, I understand why I'm doing this because yes, you're right, you, I, and others like us have complained about how the left has taken advantage of that void by at least offering a set of substantial, albeit false and fundamentally artificial, identities. , to fill that void, but I'm actually tired of complaining about it without criticizing the conservative movement. Where is the conservative movement in filling that identity with an alt-right that we or we can call? we can do whatever we want where we have been in the last 10 years where is our leadership where is the leadership of, for example, the conservative movement the pro-American movement the pro-national movement the pro-family movement whatever you want to call it these guys have They have been asleep at the change while they have been watching the other side take advantage of this and that or well, not only that it is worse than that, if you participate in it in some way, they are participating well, they are the conservatives. the conservatives in the UK who have been raising the Net Zero agenda exactly, so you know, especially in Western Europe, but even some wings of the Republican Party in the US, their meek response is to effectively engage in this and this .
It's where the analogy that caught my attention when you talk about the desert and Pharaoh is that we, as a people, are lost in the desert and yet we are criticizing that phenomenon by continuing to criticize Pharaoh, well, the Israelites are already gone , many of them are already there. everything turned out well, that's where a big part of the grassroots movement that I'm already leading and hope to lead is that we're already in the desert, we're still lost, even though we're not going to find the Promised Land if we keep criticizing Pharaoh until the end. On the contrary, the longer you're lost, the more likely people are to say I need to go back and bend the knee to Pharaoh.
In fact, I want to be ruled by Pharaoh. That's exactly what is happening. So where is the promise? earth and you know I won't, I won't, you know this analogy is related to a strange place, I'm not going to pretend to be a Moses figure or anything like that that's beyond our pay grade, but I will say you know when I presented in this room the video where we launched this


campaign. From right here in the foyer of my house, we said that my goal is to create a new American dream for the 21st century.
Well, FDR had his new deal. I don't agree with a lot of things, but FDR had his new deal. JFK had his new frontier where is the conservative vision of where we are going that is what I call the new dream the new American dream is not just about money, yes, it is about reviving our conviction in our purpose as citizens, what It means that? Unapologetic search for excellence. I can let's talk about what that means, but that's my vision, maybe a different


can offer theirs and if this Republican primary ended up being a competition of those ideas and Visions put our country in a good place, but that's the what's missing, yes, definitely, well, okay, so let's talk about the conservative issue here for a minute, so if we look at the temperamental factors that predict political loyalty, the literature on that is pretty clear, if you have a higher openness, if you hire creativity and have little conscientiousness, they tend to move towards the radical left, let's say that if you have a lot of conscientiousness and little openness, you tend to move towards the conservative front and there is a constant dialogue between those extremes because creative people are necessary to make changes when changes are necessary. necessary but dangerous otherwise and conservative types are very good at maintaining functional tradition but are intransigent in the face of necessary change and therefore freedom of expression is actually the mechanism by which that conundrum is mediated because the people who can participate on free speech they can continue arguing about which traditions need to be carefully modified, that's fine, but here's the problem it presents on the conservative front, which is why conservatives are not visionaries by definition.
Visionaries tend to lean in the more radical direction because they have radical visions, you know, and that's why conservatives are radical. They are always pushed towards a reactionary point of view, they almost always object loudly to the excesses of the left, but because they are not visionaries, they cannot extract from their tradition an image of the promised land for the future now and I have been working. with an organization in the UK that is trying to do something analogous to what you're doing to design something that approximates a compelling Vision on the conservative side, you know, I'll talk about part of it, for sure, because I think it goes straight to the core even of what we're discussing, so we spend a lot of time talking about families because then you have the individual, then you have the individual in a couple, but the next order of subsidiary organization is the family and then you might ask well what is a family?
Now the answer on the inclusive left is that a family is any ancient organization of any kind, but that is so blurry that it leaves people without guidelines, they don't know what to do because if they can do anything you have no direction and well, we could say that a family is fundamentally a unit that produces children and if you are not willing to accept that definition well, then you could develop your own definition of a family, but it seems that To me, there is something fundamental about laying the foundation for the emergence and nurturing proper care of children, that's key to what constitutes a family and then one of the corollaries of that is that if you're going to have children, you're probably going to need to have them. having a man and a woman involved, otherwise it's very good, it's very difficult otherwise and that really becomes relevant when you think about an ideal, so I talked to Dave Rubin about this, for example, so Reuben, who is conservative and gay, he is married to his partner, his husband Dave, and they went through the whole process of surrogacy to have a couple of babies and it was very, very, very, very complicated, both from an ethical, practical and financial, and they have succeeded so far.
You know, they have these two kids. and I suspect they will do a perfectly good job of providing these children with a wonderful home, but they are also incredibly financially sound. What would you say privileged? You know Dave earned it, but they have the capital to make this non-standard possibility solution. but it is in no way duplicatable for the average person. I mean, the easiest way for the average person to have a child is to involve a man and a woman and you can use technological intermediaries, but you can't easily propagate that solution, so one of what has emerged is extremely interesting.
One of the things that has recently emerged on the cognitive neuroscience front and the same thing happened in the field of AI is the understanding that at the center of all of our concepts is an ideal that is actually how we categorize. we categorize just as Plato initially, uh, we hypothesize that CA, we literally categorize in relation to an implicit ideal. I think that even using the term family and in it, for it to be meaningful, there has to be an ideal and the organization that I have started to work with and help put this together has made it part of our formal propositional landscape that the ideal has to be something like stable long-term monogamous heterosexual couples focused on children and now the problem with the ideal is what postmodernists do. have always shaken their fists, especially the French like Daradu and Foucault, the problem with the ideal is that it marginalizes the right because the further you are from the ideal, the less you fit in and then the question arises: what do you do with the ideal? margin and that's also such an old question that it was even addressed in biblical times because of the way that the problem of The Fringe or the margin and the answer has to be something like look, everyone falls short of the ideal, like even a married stable married heterosexual couple many times during their 30 year marriage they are going to fight they are going to wish they were divorced they are going to wish they were with other couples there may be affairs many people end up divorced, the vast majority of us will never realize the idea, well, none of us will do it in its entirety, but that does not mean that we must sacrifice the ideal, what it means is that we must present the ideal candidly, but leave the necessary room for deviation from the ideal so that everyone can move forward despite the fact that that the ideal has to rule, that's a great frame, I just want to jump in there for a second to make even one more distinction, if I may, which is first, does that make sense? that each of us falls short of our ideals, both as individuals and even as a nation.
I mean, you could extrapolate this to the American level and, you know, take the criticism of the United States as a nation is that, while the United States is hypocritical, right, it had nations that generated an emotion, but there were slaves on the first day . Ergo, the ideals themselves are false. No, in fact, hypocrisy is probably good evidence that you have ideals. It makes no sense that, for example, the Chinese Communist Party can be called hypocritical. You can't be. You are called a hypocrite if you are actually fundamentally measured with nihilism at your core, so idealism and the existence of ideals make hypocrisy possible.
We should be grateful when we see hypocrisy because then we know that we have two things, we have both ideals and we have something that is real. and something that is real never coincides or rarely coincides with ideals, so in a sense we should be, we should be vindicated, we should feel confident that we are doing something right because we have both ideals in reality and that is true at the level individual, anyone who is in a married relationship knows this, if he doesn't admit it, he's lying to you or he's lying to himself, it's just the truth, okay, I think that's still different from A second question you raised, which It's also a good question, it's: I think what and I'm a big fan of taking the best possible arguments to understand, you know what we are, what we are, you know, taking ourselves seriously here.
This is the marginal point, it's who is on the outer edge of the margin and I think some of this relates not only to the failure of an individual temporarily over the course of their life to deviate from the ideal, but also to some of the ways in which a certain People can never be part of the ideal because their genetics are real, which brings us to this world, Israel, gender, whether it is sexual orientation, whether it is other attributes that make one successful or not in a system that is established in a certain In this way, there is literally a reality of permanent marginalization for some, even according to an ideally structured system, and that is why I think it is important to take that seriously, but the problem with the modern left, the left modern radicalism, is that this exercise of interrogating the question of what we do on the margins and creating an entirely new system out of it, what began as a challenge to the system on behalf of the marginalized becomes the new system that It is the essence of awakened cancer.
I actually didn't care when it was an idea in the halls of a liberal arts academy to think about at least debating how to accommodate people who are marginalized in a system that is still an ideal system that is an open conversation that at least under parameters of freedom of expression that as you said is an intermediary mechanism between the creative liberals and the and you know what the juxtaposition was of the creative cards, the conscience, the conscientious conservatives, that's great, but as long as we have freedom of expression, The problem is when that challenge to the system. becomes the new system, then we're headed somewhere very different from even the ideal that OK, pro-fringe would have advocated, OK, so we can expound on that a little bit too.
What happened to Nicola Sturgeon is a perfect example of the First Minister of Scotland, who has just resigned because here is the problem with the Strip, okay, so the ideal at the center is a Unity, it is one thing. The Fringe is a multiplicity, now the problem with the Fringe is that, since it is a multiplicity, it cannot occupy the center without destroying the ideal and that only leads the entire category to collapse. What I mean is that The Fringe is defined in relation to the ideal right in a dark sense, but it has freedom, it also has freedom because exactly it is like the freedom of being on the sidelines because there are many versions of being on the front, it isgentle. from that lost bat analogy, you send out your sonar signal, it bounces back and says this is where you are, it's like planets orbiting the sun, once the sun is gone, you just, you are, there will be a whole. new, there will be a whole new structure around you, that's exactly what happens and sometimes, I think conservatives will use this phrase correctly, they will come to eat their own right and I think that has a point, but it's low resolution, I mean, the essence of what's happening is actually what you described, which is that once you've destroyed or invaded the ideal itself, by definition, being on the sidelines is kind of nihilistic at its core and so So, at that point it is a freedom. for everything, which means okay, you thought you were on the fringe for being gay, guess what you know or if you could be a feminist, you haven't seen anything, yeah, you haven't seen anything, you can see the feminist. version of this too Title IX women's sports, you know women are on the sidelines, well then when that becomes the center of the story you just wait until you say men become women, which actually , through the back door, decimates the existence of women.
Sports not because they weren't funded before title IX, but even after funding them, their essence disappears if biological men compete as women, same with being gay all this time to accept someone. that you are attracted to someone of a different sex at birth saying that the sex of the person you are attracted to is programmed at birth, that was the premise of the gay rights movement and I think there is a lot of truth in that as well. it. completely undermined by a new movement that says your sex itself is completely fluid throughout your life, yeah, so it's not exactly what some people will say will eventually eat yours, it's the fact that they themselves have lost. the structure against which they at least had the freedom to be on the fringe of the right and that's not to say that we shouldn't have conversations with disabled people or whatever in the context of the American Disabilities Act, that's what comes up In a political context, there is a whole discussion about how we approach this issue of The Fringe, how we approach accommodation in the context of ideals and I want to be very clear, I am not ruling that out.
In fact, I think it should be a product of dialectic. I think freedom of speech can actually be a mechanism for resolving those kinds of questions and I don't reject its importance, but I think what's happening now is the obsession with The Fringe. has gutted the ideal itself, leaving both those who embrace the ideals and even those who once identified as members of a fringe who are ultimately worse off and that is exactly where we are and that is due to the failure of the conservative movement. a failure of the conservative movement look, we can blame the people at The Fringe because you know they got us there, there were simply the agents and pawns that moved it, but it is the role of the conservative movement to keep that structure intact and I think the absence of defend it and defend it and such and such then then what happens in the evolution of time right now, so now we are in a moment where the discussion that you and I already have about that ship has sailed, the structure itself has disappeared, what does that require?
That's what makes this so difficult and I think in some ways you've made a more powerful philosophical argument for my candidacy, something that in my first week I have yet to do, which is that it requires defying the odds of having someone that is both conscientious and conscientiously conservative, as you pointed out, but that has the ability to be Visionary by having the vision of recreating that structure, that solar system around which the rest of the fringes can orbit and that is inherently unlikely , but as you said, because of the psychological nature of creativity and consciousness, they are not supposed to coincide, that is.
What sets a very high bar is also what calls me to this career because it is what our moment demands because We are not starting from a neutral territory, we are starting from the state of entropic chaos that you highlight desert in the desert. No, we're not, so we're starting to be lost in the wilderness, so thank you because in a deeply philosophical and philosophically grounded way you've defended my candidacy and why I'm doing this, otherwise I won't. Whether or not we will meet it in the next year and a half remains to be said, but that is at least the challenge I intend to take on and thank you for explaining it well with this group I have been working with in London.
I've also put forward a couple more proposals, which is that if your policy requires compulsion or Force, it's at least not optimal, so we're trying to play an invitational game, so you can imagine that in Visionary Horizon your goal . as if Visionary were to produce an image that is so convincing that people of their own free will say: yes, you know, I would be willing to sacrifice myself to that end, yes, willing to sacrifice it. I love the way you frame it because because you can do it. You can make a sacrifice if you know what you're sacrificing for, so this was a big part of my Indian immigrant parenting upbringing.
The Hindu tradition came to this country as an integral part of parenthood. Part and parcel of growing up as a child in that country. home, the idea of ​​sacrifice was woven into my upbringing, the right grandparents who lived in the house because it was their duty to take care of their parents, because that was just family, sacrifices needed to be made, sacrifices needed to be made to raise my brother and me to have the academic achievements that we made in education that didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because of parents who actually said that there is more to life than just following your latest complacency, but yes, these things can be done if I know for What are you sacrificing?
I do this as an analogy with part of my political agenda. This is a harder sell, but I think it's also true. Today in the United States it is necessary. I have presented the case. Declaring independence from China, that's a completely separate thing. geopolitical discussion that we can have why I think it's important why I think there's an opportunity, but it was also very clear even in the first week that this will involve some measure of sacrifice, in fact, if there is some resistance, I'm coming to the proposal of Chinese Declaration of Independence. It actually comes from some Republicans who are not willing to make that sacrifice and who have become so addicted to buying cheap things, but again we can make those sacrifices if we know what we are sacrificing for, so I think this idea of ​​sacrifice It's fundamental. to this question of identity once you're rooted in identity once you're rooted in who you are and what you might be willing to make a sacrifice for, it's almost a litmus test for identity if you don't have anything you're willing to do.
A sacrifice for that means you have no identity rights, so that's a great framework to look for an all-in-one eCommerce platform that can help you easily set up and grow your online business. Look no further than Shopify with Shopify. You can quickly and easily create your own online store, manage your inventory, and accept payments from customers. Plus, Shopify offers a variety of customizable themes and templates to choose from so you can create a professional-looking store without any design experience, even Helps integrate with other popular tools. to help you sell on social media marketplaces like Tick Tock Facebook and Instagram with 24/7 Shopify support and an extensive business course library that's available to help you every step of the way Shopify is the commerce platform revolutionizing millions of businesses around the world If you're ready to get serious about selling, try Shopify today Sign up for a $1 per month trial at jbp go to jvp to take your business to the next level today, that's jbp, let's go down that path for a moment, because you might wonder why use sacrificial language and also why you need to make sacrifices and the answer is that you will always make sacrifices because if you make one thing instead of another then you sacrifice all the other things you could have done so that there is no action without sacrifice now, then you might ask: is there really anything worth sacrificing for?
And the answer is, first of all, you have no choice now. In general, what? Because no matter what you do, if you do something, you're sacrificing now people might say, well, I want to be able to do whatever I want whenever I want, and that's the ultimate in subjectivity and there's impulsivity and a capriciousness that's associated with it. with that, but that is not really freedom, what it is is subjection to rule by impulsive whims exactly what you see as characteristic of coldness why sacrifice that and the answer is because it is not a coherent or communal means to last long time. term solution the reason you sacrifice the whims of childhood that polytheistic state of motivational possession that characterizes childhood the reason you sacrifice that for integrated maturity is because integrated maturity constitutes an identity that will protect you from anxiety and it will give you hope, but it also unifies you over time and sets the preconditions for your social integration and there is nothing in that that is arbitrary, so the question is not who will govern you.
No, I don't want anyone to govern. How can I set up my life so that no one else can? govern me, the question is what am I going to work to allow to govern me and will it be my whims, meaning I am subject to them, or will it be some higher order state of integration that requires sacrifice. and then that relates to this whole hierarchical identity you know that you sacrifice your whims for your partner you and your partner sacrifice your whims for your children yes your family sacrifices their whims for the community and all of that now you want it to be done in harmony and you want it be done voluntarily, autonomously, voluntarily, exactly, yes, exactly, yes, then, like this, then, we had to create that sense of identity and purpose that makes us voluntarily opt for that nested state of identity. sacrifice to get married is a sacrifice to do it there is a sacrifice to have children that is a sacrifice worth making there is a sacrifice to be a citizen of a nation I am not a global citizen just a global I am a citizen of a nation there is a sacrifice that worth making we can make these sacrifices if we know what they are worth sacrificing for that is what is missing what I call the conservative movement to borrow from David Hume David Hume had this famous chapter in uh in kind of his his uh he He was an empiricist, but one of the paradoxes of his theory of empiricism was what he called the missing shade of blue.
He could tell what the shade of blue was without ever having seen it. That was a challenge to his theory of empiricism. Anyway, I borrowed what I call. Yes, the shade of red that is missing from the conservative movement is this idea of ​​the rebirth of duty and accepting duty as a precondition for freedom, but it is the duty that we actually opt for autonomously through our free choice and our free will, these things are not incompatible. They're not contradictory They sound contractual at all They're not police They're something that needs each other The other thing I was going to say about the kids because I think this is where I wasn't sure if you were going to go You don't agree with me on this, but after having listened to you, I suspect not.
Actually, I have understood this a lot along the way. I was in Iowa, New Hampshire, last week. There is a lot of distinction between this idea of ​​freedom and autonomy among adults. versus in children, so you know, one of the things I've said that irritates. I think a lot of the libertarian leaders, you know, conservative or whatever, and I used to call myself a libertarian for a lot of reasons that I'm not a libertarian anymore. but you know, this idea that children are different from adults is okay, so that period you talked about between 16 and 21. I mean, I'll take the easier end of the spectrum, forget 21, just say 16.
If you can No You won't use an addictive cigarette at 18 or drink a sip of addictive alcohol at 21. Why are you allowed to use an addictive product on social media when you're a preteen? The very least is an inconsistency in the way we treat this now. I completely agree with you that everything else amounts to the path to reaching this ideal. The structure of the Ideal that we discussed before must be a path that does not involve coercion or intrusion into Free will, it is you, you put it very politely, it would not be optimal. I think that's the word you used.
I think that's the most elegant way to put it. I think it should be avoided, is the way I would put it. as a potential policymaker and leader of the country, but I don't apply the same rules of the road that apply to children because none of us believe that children should actually be treated the same.autonomous agents. that they should be on the other side of the entrance to adulthood now that it gets into issues of parenting, etc., that we can get into, but whatever, I buy this, I buy this view of structure as necessary as a precondition for the experience. of freedom, but the path to get there cannot involve coercion.
I am with you at all times. In the story of the Exodus, when God accuses Moses of confronting Pharaoh, he tells Moses to tell him, he tells Moses to tell Pharaoh something. very specific and asks him to repeat it 10 times in case you didn't notice it well it is repeated 10 times in the story nine or ten times he tells Moses to let my people go of course a very famous phrase but that is not the phrase phrase is to let my people go so that they can worship me or celebrate me in the desert in the desert and then what it does is establish not freedom but ordered freedom and then you may wonder what constitutes ordered freedom, well, a game is ordered .
Freedom, a voluntary game, is an ordered freedom because you have a wide range of options, but it depends on principles. Those are the rules of the game and a game is a good analogy because people play them voluntarily, they want to play them and they enjoy them. and so if you said something like if you set up a social structure with a game like uh substructure, then people would voluntarily join in now that the free market answer to the problem of margins is to produce a large number of games so that you can be a margin, you can be marginal in a game or almost every game, but there may be some game where you are central because of your temperamental advantages and I think you can see that in the gay community for example, especially among gay men because of the entertainment industry. especially in the sense that at the more explicit cultural end it is dominated by gay men and as far as I'm concerned there's a reason for that because male homosexuality is associated with high levels of creativity so there's some scope there and the margin is good, if you are creative you are not going to be traditional, you will find it difficult to live up to the ideal, but there is a niche for you on the cultural transformation front and therefore a free market solution to solve the problem. of marginalization is something like that, the offer of true diversity is like yeah, you're only five foot two so you can't play basketball, you know, but you could be a really good hockey exactly, we have enough games exactly exactly that and then the People can trade according to their idiosyncrasies, and you see, this is an argument that free market types haven't made to diversity types.
It's as if the reason you want a free market is to provide a diverse amount of games so that the marginalized can find a center of diversity. in our approach to diversity itself, by the way, and I think you see the same thing. I mean, so I've been trying, I don't know if I've succeeded in the last few years, but I've been trying to preach exactly that. to the diversity crowd where, even if you think about the institutional purpose, you were talking about the level of individuals on the marginalized side and I agree that that is one form of diverse approaches to diversity here is a different approach to the diverse approaches to diversity is diversity of institutional purpose that even different companies let's take it at the level of companies that is the world I have lived in correctly American companies and capital markets fine each company should have a single purpose and what is the problem with the use of a common three-letter acronym.
It's funny how these things always come in three letter acronyms, but from ESG to Dei to CSR to you know, CCP, I kid you, yeah, yeah, exactly CCP and Wes. are some of those hiding behind the scenes, but the problem with these three-letter ESG or Dei acronyms is what they actually say. They're saying no, no, you can't have your own distinctive purpose. Everyone's purpose must be common. to advance environmental, social and governance goals, diversity, equity and inclusion goals, that's a denial of diversity, right, reject it exactly, it's lurking tyranny, versus, if you're really for diversity , you should have that fall outside the structure that you and I discussed, right? what is your institutional purpose, if you run an institution, you have a question: why do we exist, period, have a good answer to that question and then say what kind of diversity you advocate, that is actually in service of promoting that institutional purpose , different types of institutions should want different types of diversity and should be transparent about what types of diversity they do not want.
In fact, I'll give you an example that I use that's kind of funny, you know, sometimes I'm a vegetarian, okay, I don't. Eat meat because I believe that in my tradition it is morally wrong to kill animals solely for culinary pleasure. There are conditions under which it would be fine to do it, but if it's just for my culinary pleasure, I prefer not to do it. I respect other people's. Right and freedom to go in a different direction, but let's take the example of me working at a steakhouse. Okay, you wouldn't be a good employee at a steakhouse even if you could offer the ever-precious form of diversity of thought.
I see people sometimes. they are lazy in terms of my diversity of thought over diversity of appearance, yes yes I am for diversity of thought over diversity of appearance too but even diversity of thought is too low resolution but that's a different thought, but still a steakhouse. You shouldn't want to hire me because that's not the kind of diversity of thought you should want if your focus is delivering great engagement to a client because the kind of diversity you want should serve your purpose and that's why I think this This resurgence of the idea of ​​purpose itself gives meaning to diversity itself and that is true in the context of a company or in a national context, that is my approach to the diversity discussion that we have managed to become obsessed with, there are a couple of places that we can go with that, so one of the things that you're pointing out that is in line with this Berkey and the notion of subsidiarity that has its origins and this Exodus narrative, by the way, is that there will be a variety of institutions at each level of the hierarchy, so you can imagine that there are a variety of forms of couples, you know that there will be some couples in which the woman is the main breadwinner, for example, there will be some couples in which the man is and that's fine. you want the commonality of coupling but you want the diversity of possibilities within that framework and then the same at the family level there will be some families with 10 children there will be some families with one there will be mixed families but that is what still revolves around the nucleus of the family , so you have order but you have diversity at each of the levels of order and then you also have the recognition that each of those levels has its own domain of sacred responsibility, now one of the things that I have noticed you can try this for yourself if you're curious, but you know I've gone to 400 cities in the last four years giving lectures on the kind of things we're talking about today and there's a point that "Make that always take the audience away, no matter wherever it is, to a dead silence like an absolute dead silence and here's the argument, so you need sustaining meaning in your life now, what does sustain mean?" I will hold you through the pain and terror now, that cannot be happiness because happiness is absent in conditions of pain and terror, so it cannot be that, so what is it?
Well, I drew from my clinical experience to answer that question well. people have when things when they are really in the desert when they are abandoned and lost and in pain well, they have the structure around them that they made sacrifices to produce they have their partner they have their you know, their wife or their husband, they have their children, their parents, their siblings, they have their friends, they have their community, they have this hierarchy of social structure around them that can sustain them if they made the right sacrifices and then the question is, what is the nature of the sacrifice?
What is necessary to make those links and the answer is well, that is the adoption of voluntary responsibility and then, once you know that this is something that conservatives have never made explicit, the meaning that sustains you in tragedy is found through voluntary sacrifice. taking responsibility and so you can tell the young people that it is, you can tell the young people that you say, they say well, why should I grow up? I can do whatever I want whenever I want, and that's especially true if they are rich and privileged. and the answer is well, if you spend all that capital on hedonism, as soon as the storms come, you will be absolutely shipwrecked, there will be nothing left of you because there is no hedonism in hell and what you have there is what you have responsibly built. and there is meaning in that and people understand it immediately and it is part of this Alternative View to this Fractured Hedonism that everyone is celebrating now let me ask you a question about that because I think this is really interesting, I mean, and I care to deliver this . correct solution, so I want to, I want to get to the heart of the matter, there are two possibilities there and the answer could be both, but I want to have an idea of ​​which one you are referring to, one is that that sustained meaning is that what you said sustain purpose, yes, sustainable meaning, yes, it will sustain you over time, the right sustainable meaning that can pre-exist and be resilient through catastrophes in a way that this superficial idea of ​​the Happiness tradition makes the tradition can be based on if you are embedded in a tradition, true, you can be sure, but there is a version of what you described that also makes me think in a very different direction here, which is also formed in response to catastrophe two, so I think I think of largely in the social structure. that we have created in the absence of that purpose and emptiness, I mean, this could be a cycle of history, something less about psychology and more about the nature of History, here is that we create the conditions for that catastrophe, whatever it may be and it could be.
That catastrophe itself may have to be the catalyst for rediscovering what that sustained meaning was in those circumstances in the future. Whether that economic catastrophe is, I believe that difficult economic times lie ahead, in part because of many of the difficult decisions we have made. done in the last 10 years in the midst of this void of purpose. I think China can do you this favor by using air quotes for the United States, but which of those was the sense in which you said it correctly in a gap in first principles? be resilient over time or you also know that you are subconsciously making some kind of empirical prediction here that in the absence of this we are going to have to have this as an answer at least that will make us adapt, we will be back in no time First we wanted to give you a preview of Jordan's new documentary logos and literacy.
I was very surprised at how the translation of biblical writings boosted the development of literacy around the world. Illiteracy was the norm. The shepherd's house was the first. school and every morning I would start singing the Christian faith is a sung religion probably 80 percent of Scripps memorization today exists only because of what is sung this is amazing here we have a Gutenberg Bible printed in the Johann Cooper press the Science and religion are opposing forces in the world, but historically that has not been the case now the book is available to everyone, from Shakespeare to modern education and science and civilization itself, it is the most influential book in all of history and, hopefully, people can come out ahead. at least a sense of that, I would say that you don't have to think except when you are failing because the purpose of thinking is to calculate a new trajectory and if the trajectory you are following is producing the desired results then your theory is intact, then the question arises , which is how much failure is necessary to make you think and that is actually a moral question and it is a question of willful blindness, you know if you are awake and alert and if you are humble in the classic virtuous sense, you are always trying to discover where you are insufficient and rectify that right.
In many Christian prayers, the Jesus prayer, for example, is a reminder that the Orthodox quote that he continually sings is a reminder. that you are insufficient in your current form and that you should look for what would rectify you, that is the practice of humility and the advantage of that practice is that you can make micro repairs instead of remaining stubborn until the apocalypse happens and then collapsing now in In the story of Moses, what happens to Pharaoh, who is a tyrant, is that the crisis arises and then it is magnified. They just get worse and worse, and worse and worse, and he completely failed to respond and the consequence of that is that his entire society isdevastated, all the firstborn die and the Red Sea floods and destroys the military power of the Egyptian Empire, so the answer to your question is what is the relationship between failure and the return to lasting and sustainable values? the answer is well it depends on how stubborn you are exactly stubborn enough if you are stubborn enough and this is not a joke and I mean it if you are stubborn enough then you will face the apocalypse and we are playing with that right now like If this is exactly where we are, this is exactly where we are, and I think in a sense my goal on this journey is to make sure that that doesn't have to be the Catalyst for liberation, well, what could be good?
Because if it's not going to be someone offering a vision, but from a truly conservative perspective with the conscious justice of a conservative who still brings creativity and a vision to this, then it may have to be done by force through everyone's apocalypse. ways and you know, in the modern sense of that word, we will have to be forced to learn the lesson that we couldn't learn ourselves in the first place. I don't think we're there yet and I think we have a window to do it right, which is the entire premise of I mean, you've verbalized using words what I feel in my bones in my heart that compels me to I want to do this better than anytime in the last week, so I've watched a lot of people on the Democratic side, a lot of people on the Republican side and also in different countries, and this is what I see happening all the time, so the neophytes came in.
In the political arena now, they may have been people who, like you, have had a pretty stellar career and have racked up enough successes to be able to present themselves as credible candidates, and you know, two thumbs up for that. I think it's a necessary precondition, but they get intimidated in the new Arena because the stakes are high and they don't have much experience, so what they end up doing is hiring communication teams and there are experts in political communication and they usually involve pollsters, for example , and speechwriters people who will help you craft your message and then what I see happening and this is inevitable, this is the inevitable consequence is that the person running loses their voice and often also loses the election because the way he loses his voice and the elections.
Now, not always, sometimes they win, but they still lose their voice, so one of the things that has arisen is the opportunity in the political landscape to do what you and I are doing now, which is really different, you know. , for 40 years, political in a sense. They had to craft their message because they had to get it through Legacy Media's narrow bandwidth, so they had to compress things into a 30-second sound, they were forced to do that, yeah, sure, but now you have the opportunity to just say what you think and if you say what you think well, first of all, if you're wrong, you'll learn that that's helpful and the other thing is that people will respond positively to that because they're desperate for the truth.
Now you can say that because Trump was successful, now I'm not trying to put Trump, you know, on some pedestal, on some pedestal, it's the best truth saying in the world, but I would say that one of the things What Trump did was talk without you. He could say it without thinking about it, but that's not uninhibited, uninhibited, yes, yes, basically, for all his flaws, he did, he hit. especially the working class as genuine because he was willing to speak his mind and the good of that was that he won, so I'm really interested in your candidacy, you know, because you come well from Left Field, you know?
You are definitely going to be a stealth candidate, it is very interesting, only God knows how it will play out, but one of the advantages I think you have, apart from your financial experience and the fact that you are alert to the dangers of ESG tyranny, etc. ., which is not a trivial example, is that you can really afford to take the risk, you know how to use new media and that is a deadly advantage, and, furthermore, you know that your candidacy is improbable enough that there is no reason. that you do things in a conventional way because conventionally you should lose, you're not well known enough, right? you don't have enough political apparatus I don't have a machine but you know that well so actually that could be a big advantage you know one of the helps I'll ask of you is to keep me honest throughout this whole thing because that's where I'm starting.
I imagine there are many people who embark on that vision and then simply convert. stunned by the suffocating forces around them, but I will tell you, I will tell you a couple of rules of the road that I have tied my hands to the Mast to make this easier for me in a good way. no one is going to write another speech for me, in fact even when I get speeches I don't write my own speeches, I just say what's on my mind. I don't use a teleprompter, in fact, it's funny, I haven't. That being said, it's still a fun little challenge that I was thinking about presenting to the entire Republican field.
Maybe I'll do it right now. Don't let anyone write your speeches and don't use a teleprompter. I will commit. Because? Isn't the entire field committed to not using teleprompters? I speak from the heart, bring it out and you know one of the things we're going to do is I've learned from the beginning what you're supposed to do if When you run for president you get trained behind closed doors and then people train you and you prepare with your talking points and you put on this nice suit and tie and then you project to the world how much you know about words and terms that you just learned 10 minutes ago why actually what I said is and I think we're really going to do this, I mean, over and above the objections of good advice, it's all my policy reports, all my education, I mean.
There are many things that anyone, including myself, will surely have to learn to be an effective president of the United States, that's a big part of the next year and a half and I'm running to run, I'm not running first to make a point. I'm running because I believe seeing this through to the end is my Max, it's the ticket to driving maximum positive change that will require a lot of learning. We'll just record them on forums like this and post it. to the Internet, you know? What if that allowed people to discover that he wasn't omniscient?
Great, I'm not God. Know? I was on a radio interview yesterday where someone asked me about some term from US military history that I should know well. I didn't know. I told him that, but I told him that I'm also a fast study and committed to learning, which I think he took it in a good way and I meant it, so I think more honesty will go a long way. In some ways, I think this race will be better if none of us read the speeches that other people wrote for us, if none of us even use a teleprompter on some script, but speak from the heart, that's what I'm committed to. do, I hope this continues.
Honestly, I have a lot to learn and not only am I going to learn it, but we're going to open source the code so everyone can learn with me, that's one of the ways we're going to do this starting next month, yeah, well, yeah yeah you use a prepared speech, you don't have faith in your heart, yes, you know you don't have faith that you can respond to the moment according to your principles in a dynamic way that engages the audience and, if you can, Don't do that you shouldn't lead and B you should learn because you can do that, you can learn to do that and people respond to that much better, as I've experienced with this on YouTube because every once in a while I'm trying to think of something really difficult, you know, and I'll write it down. because you can make a more coherent argument in writing and a more dense argument, but then I tried to read it on YouTube, you know, and it doesn't work.
It doesn't work like it works well, you know what I mean, it's not a failure but it's not a success, the last thing I did was that this is a hybrid worth experimenting with, so I wrote this vision statement for this company. I described the Enterprise arc and I wanted to share it with people, so I was going to read it, but I knew that reading wasn't very compelling because it didn't have that spontaneity that reveals the heart, let's say, so what I did was I read like two sentences and then I commented and then I read another Tuesday, yeah, that really worked because you see it usually allows you to have your talking points handy, you know?
Because I'm going to try, remember? but it was very effective for me and kept it spontaneity, you know, and you can't get a plan for what you just got, but I think you have to, somehow, be disciplined to make sure. that you don't just go back to the natural norm of limiting yourself to what you need to say and you know what you're right. I think there's something about Legacy Media that forces that on you, but I don't like to just blame. Legacy Media too, because I also participate in many television hits. I don't think you have to do it that way either, and in some ways I think the last best chance for Reviving Legacy Media is if the people who follow start behaving and stop behaving like the caricatures Legacy Media created over the last 30 years. years.
This could actually be the source of saving Legacy Media. Just because they give you three to five minutes doesn't mean you have to stick to those talking points. Try doing it this way too, that's what I try to do when I'm on TV too, but this is good anyway, much more effective, I mean, maybe it's effective and maybe it's not right, maybe we'll find out. an experiment for me, but this is what I'll say even if even if you were even if you were more likely to win the other way, your soul has been sucked out, right?
You're just a hollowed-out shell of yourself, so If the goal of winning was to go sit in the White House, then okay, that's one thing, if the points really describe a revival, you're not going to do that even from the White House, if you're just on vacation in Alaska, I don't accept it. I don't think there's any evidence that it's more likely to win if the traditional, poll-driven, Persona-style media does it. I think I looked at the empirical evidence. I can't see a shred of evidence. There are almost none. Evidence that electoral spending is positively associated with victory.
Well, it's not like that. I'm glad there is no evidence regarding the headlines. Incumbent spending is completely irrelevant to the election outcome. There's some minor evidence on the Challenger front that more spending makes a difference, but you can't tell. whether that's because of spending or because more popular candidates are more likely to raise money, and you know, if you look at someone like the very interesting figure eight of Joe Rogan Rogan because he's basically created an entire media empire out of nothing, still it has nothing. He has, he has, his producer, incredible, affects all of his guests well and all Rogan does is expose his ignorance because all he does is ask stupid questions, you know, and I love it.
I don't know the guy, but I'd love to meet him. At some point, you know it seems like he's onto something, but I think imagine bringing that spirit to running a


and political campaign, that's what it's going to be and maybe it's, I mean, I certainly bet it's a formula. To be successful, I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think about it, but I prefer to stay true to who I am and show it in its entirety and be open to learning through the process and open source the code that I then try to make.
This somehow projects some image of an omniscient guy which is exactly what the political consultant class wants to do, they want to say absolutely your position, they want to project the image of a leader, but who cares if that leader doesn't actually do it. does. They exist and this is how we are going to do this and in a year and a half we will know if it was the electorally successful strategy or not, but personally for me it is the only way I am going to be able to do this and it will be fun, it will be a test case Fun to see this through to the end.
I would say that psychologically there is no other path to success than something that comes close to permanence. in the truth because the truth puts the reality within you and behind you and that does not mean that it will result in upcoming success at the right time and that is another sacrifice that must be made as if you know that you do not know somehow. Cosmic sense: If it's time for you to be president, apparently it's time for you to run, but I would say, psychologically speaking, if you stay true to your own voice and are very diligent about it and make the necessary sacrifices to make it happen. that your candidacy will be a success regardless of the result and you might think, well, that's a bit paradoxical, it's like, look, no, it's not because, for example, it could tilt the discussion about the elections in a direction that is extremely good for the country and that could be completely independent of whether or not you win the presidency;
In fact, he could even do it more effectively by running a campaign that would not be designed this time to put him in the optimal political position and I have seen it with other political leaders, you know,I spoke to Netanyahu a while ago and he really risked his political neck and that of his party to bring about the necessary economic reform in Israel and that collapsed him and his party for about a decade, but he is back and Israel is thriving on the economic front , so you don't know, don't elaborate on it at all. I think not creating it is exactly the way to go and maybe that's my bet, that's going to be what successfully takes me to the White House in 2024, but don't fetishize that and then there's the opposite of this too, Dr.
Peterson, which is that he could engineer it to win and check the box of winning the presidency, but just because he said otherwise doesn't necessarily mean he'll lose otherwise. That doesn't necessarily mean you win, even if you actually win the election numerically and sit in the White House, who cares if the person sitting there is just a stuffed suit who certainly knew how to win without actually having anything left substantial? inside of who occupies that suit, so it goes both ways, actually I think it's absolutely, I think it's an almost inevitable consequence, as I saw this with faculty members continually, so this is part of the reason That's why universities are so broke, okay?
So graduate. The student says to himself I really can't say or write what I think No, a student says I really can't say what I write or say or write what I think I have to get my grade, so he compromises what he says and thinks and then he's a graduate student, he thinks well, now I'm a little higher in the hierarchy, but I'm not a professor yet, so I can't say or write what I think and then he's an assistant professor and he says, well, I'm not 10 years so I better keep my mouth shut and then he's a tenure track associate and he says well I'm not a full professor finally when I become a full professor I'll be able to say what I want and write what I think he's 35 or 40 years and for 25 years he has practiced deception and he does not have a word of Truth left to utter and that happens to political figures all the time and that is how he really defeats himself, it is totally true and you know what I think that's the real thing, that's how winning and losing should really be defined and then we're making this empirical bet that you pointed out to Donald Trump in 2015.
I think you know empirically that my bet is where yours is and where right now it's probably the most electorally successful strategy anyway, but I'm less sure of that than I am sure that that's how I'm going to do it because that's what's in my control and that's how I'd love to keep it. I'd love to keep talking to you. I mean, I've been very fortunate over the last six years, let's say, because I've had a group of family and friends around me who have their own independent points of view and who don't want anything from me and who interact constantly. with me. and making sure I'm not going off track in some way that's unpleasant, you know, and there have been some pretty intense discussions about that on multiple occasions, but it's very helpful to have people around you that you know who you're talking to. your strategy, the one you just laid out, say look guys, I'd like you to keep an eye on me and if you think I'm hitting some false notes or starting to be, you know the great and wonderful laws of projection of the Leader that you know you can reign over me a little bit and you know that if you do it, put that goal on keeping control of your language first. and the most important thing in mind is that you have people who can reflect that back to you, you know that you can stay on the right path and I think the idea of not allowing people, I just can't believe political figures, to have other people write their speeches.
It's as if those people create your thoughts. I know it's completely crazy, it's nothing they say. I will channel your thoughts, but you know, as you know, who said it, like arms, the channel through which the thought flows directly to me. English My 11th grade English teacher basically said that, right, if you can't write it yourself you probably don't know what you meant, but anyway, here's a question for you. I mean, honestly, honest to God and you're you already know the show, etc., call me back here and call me or don't call me back here and comment, keep me honest, if so, if you're seeing a deviation from this, it's Well, anyone in my place deserves it. to be called out and criticized for it because that's what keeps us honest, well, let's do this, this will be something interesting in terms of what I can bring to my audience anyway.
I mean, you're going into this whole Fray. full speed ahead for the next year and a half, why don't we check in every three months or so and we can play it by ear and you can just give us an update. You know, that's right, you can guide everyone through the whole experience. and we can talk about these topics continually and you ask me if you think I'm really staying true to what I'm setting out to see in this conversation is Ground Zero, let's do this every few months and then and Give you my honest view of how I think they're going things and if you see that I'm becoming what I'm telling you, I'm coming into this to shake up and change, tell me because then we might as well Let's stop all this, it doesn't make sense, even if I'm doing better in the polls, but I I'm becoming a kind of hollow shell of myself, let's just call it a day and move on, because that's not really what this whole Enterprise was about.
I'd love to. I will accept you. It's okay, it's okay. I'm going to be attentive and I'm going to try to ask you the hardest questions that I can ask, that are real questions and that are fair, you know, and so that that's always the reason for a good discussion, we make today look like we could do this because we did it with Michaela on Michaela's show a while ago and it was good and today I thought it went extremely well. We went quickly and covered everything. Are we done yet? I thought: Are you kidding me?
I thought we were just getting warmed up here no, we're already done an hour and 36 minutes, okay, okay, okay Preamble okay, yeah, okay, okay, okay, that's a good place to conclude. Well, for everyone watching and listening. Thanks for your time and attention. I am moving the event to the Daily Wire Plus platform. Let's review some autobiographical background. I'm always very interested in doing research to find out how people's interests manifest in their lives in the problems that plague them and the opportunities that are offered to them, so we will continue that conversation for half an hour on the daily use and the front.
So, um, you can fall back on that if you want to continue the discussion. VA, thank you so much today for agreeing to talk to me today and, congratulations on your candidacy, it's a great thing to undertake and, uh, you. We are in for a roller coaster ride over the next 18 months. I mean, I know you're already familiar with that kind of thing, so I hope to get back to you and those of you who are watching and listening, thank you for your time and attention to the film crew here in Calgary. I'm still in Calgary.
Thank you for your time today and your technological prowess. We will deliver it to the Daily Word plus and ciao everyone. Hello everyone. I encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact